HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 Dublin Green PD Rezone 51-40 `�)D
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE : September 26 , 1983
SUBJECT:' PA 83-004 Dublin Green Planned
Development rezoning for 269-unit
apartment complex, north of the
extension of Donlon Way
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 . Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis
2 . Minutes of Planning Commission
meeting
3 . Letter in support, from Leo Bergeron
4 . Letter in support, from Dublin
Chamber of Commerce
5 . Letter in opposition, from Dave
Petty
RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Hear Staff presentation
2 . Open public hearing
3 . Hear applicant and public
presentations
4 . Close public hearing
5 . Adopt Resolution adopting Mitigated
Negative Declaration
6 . Adopt Resolution adopting Planned
Development Rezoning
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : I . BACKGROUND
The applicant , Calmet, Inc . , initially applied for,
received approval for , and appealed an application for a
145-unit condiminium project . Nearby residents also
appealed the approval . The City Council then granted the
applicant ' s request to temporarily suspend the appeal to
allow consideration of the present application, prepared by
Morgan Howell .
While the application was being processed, the City
Council determined that the San Ramon Road Specific Plan was
to be prepared. Processing of the application was held in
abeyance pending completion of the Specific Plan . The
Specific Plan for the subject area was adopted on July 25 ,
1983 .
. The application is for a Planned Development rezoning
to allow a 269-unit apartment complex in 31 two-story
buildings , with two recreation/pool facilities , and related
parking, laundry facilities , and landscaped open space , on a
13 . 4 acre site . The application proposes 20 dwelling units
per acre .
---------------------------7-------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Calmet, Inc .
Morgan Howell
Previous
appellants
On September 6 , 1983 , the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the application . Several members of the
public provided comments :
- requested pedestrian access through the site ;
- requested improved architectural design;
- requested elimination of Donlon Way access ;
- , questioned availability of sewer capacity;
noted that the project is not family oriented.
The Planning Commission indicated a need for affordable
housing and a desire to keep rents at a minimum.
II _ ISSUES
1 . Land Use and Density - The San Ramon Road Specific Plan
designates the land use on the subject site, as multifamily
residential , at 12 to 21 dwelling units per acre . The Staff
has reviewed the proposal as consisting of two development
zones . Zone A is the area closest to the Ponderosa Village
single family development . Zone B is closest to the area
designated for commercial use .
Staff reviewed the density in terms of : 1) units/acre ;
2 ) bedrooms/acre ; and, 3 ) people/acre . Staff finds that the
proposed 20 units/acre acceptable for Zone B. Zone A,
however, is adjacent to the single family area, which has
5 . 7 units/acre . Staff finds that a lower density of
approximately 12 units/acre would be the most appropriate
for Zone A. The units in Zone A would then be mostly single
story, and act as a transition and visual buffer between the
single family units and the higher-density Zone B
development .
Staff recommends reducing the number of units in Zone A
by 15 , resulting in a total of 254 units, and an average
density of 18 units/acre . The revised project, coupled with
a Site Development Review will provide an .attractive
development that is compatible with adjacent areas and
consistent with the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
2 . Traffic and Circulation - As part of the proposal, the
applicant has agreed:
1 ) to provide up to 1000 of the cost of a signal at
Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. ;
2 ) to improve the 6-ft . turn capacity for northbound
traffic on San Ramon Road at Dublin Blvd. ;
3 ) to partially provide for the extension of Amador
Valley Blvd. to the project site; and,
4 ) to help pay for signal improvements at Amador
Valley Blvd. and San Ramon Road.
These improvements will give the project good
circulation and will help the circulation of future
developments in the commercial area.
3 . Desi n - The preliminary site plan, architecture,
landscape architecture , and grading are attractive and
compatible with the adjacent areas . The final design
details will be checked through "the Site Development Review
process to assure consistency with the preliminary plans .
III . RECOMMENDATION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
project with a reduction of 15 units in Zone A, resulting in
a total of 254 units and with conditions of approval .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the project with a total of 269 units and
with conditions of approval .
CI'T'Y OF DU13L IN
MEMORANDUM
PP.E-HEARING STIFF ANAL`1SIS
Meeting Date : September 26, 1903
TO : City Council
FROM: Planninc, Staff
SUBJECT : PA 83-004 IDublin Green Pl<,nned Development
Rezoning to permit the construction of a
269-unit apartment development on 13 . 4'_ acres ,
northwest of Dublin Blvd _ and San Ramon Rd .
(APN 941-.040-008 ; 941-005-02 ; 941-002-15 ; and
941-113-118 }
GENERAL !NFOR2,! T ION
PROJECT : Cal:net , Inc _ has applied for a Planned Development
(PD ) rezoning to permit the construction of-. 269
apartment units to be located in 31 't`--io-StOrY_
OU1,.d2-Pas , wit- r=_1ateC recreation, ^,cr;<inC , nC
Gpen space racilities The proper-v _S current_v
-Gne(f R-S-D-3''D (Residential Ccmbin?nQ_ D1strlct ) .
ap0- ?C1.ifT C;= 1 et , T_nc
_ _
Ce_ r=r0 C?_ 9- D-�1
i
J C_
c, - - ., 0-08 , 9=1-0E-02)
5
LOCATION : e S _ _ o: D ub_i u . and S a:: _ c _-d
n_or G- `T':"'e C-._ _'Gs ,-paitr-,cLs , and e JL O:
�,V 1•�.e r'�sa \�_� to=� - - _.-
0:.-C �j S1�❑ - J - - ccres
PROP=R OWNER: Ca_met, .
E:
1 1
In August, 1979 , Tract Map 4347 and Site Development Review
5-736 , for a 145-unit condominium complex, were approved by
Alameda County . The- approval of the tentative map expired
in February, 1982 .
On May 24 , 1982 ,Tract Map 5047 , and Site Development Review
S-736 , regarding the construction of 145 residential
condominiums , were approved by Alameda Count, but the
approvals were appealed to the Dublin City Council .
On July 12 , 1982 , the City Council considered the appeal and
continued the matter in order to try and resolve related
issues . On February 28, 1983 , the City Council granted the
applicant ' s request to temporarily suspend the appeal to
allow consideration of the present application.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS :
... The following sections of- the Zoning Ordinance relate
specifically to this application:
8-31 . 0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS : INTENT. Planned
Development Districts , hereinafter. designated as PD
Districts, are established to encourage the arrangement of a
compatible variety of uses on suitable lands in such a . -
manner that the resulting development will :
a) Be in accord with the Policies of the General
Plan;
b ) Provide efficient use of the land that includes
preservation of significant- open areas and natural
and topographic landscape features with minimum
alteration of natural land forms ;
c ) Provide an environment that will encourage the use
of common open areas for neighborhood or community
activities and other amenities ;
d) Be compatible with and enhance the. development of
the general area;
e ) Create an attractive , efficient and safe
environment .
8-31 . 2 CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED. . The provisions
of this Article shall become applicable to.. any given
development only upon change in Zoning District to a .Planned
Development District, in accordance -with the provision -of
Article 8 (Procedures ) of this Chapter, with the following
exceptions to the provisions of said Article '8 :
a) The determination that the proposal will benefit
the public necessity, convenience and general
welfare be based, in part, on the conformance of
the proposal with provisions of this Article .
b ) Any change in zoning district accomplished in
accordance- with this Article is subject to review
by the Planning Commission at the expiration of
two ( 2 ) years from the effective date of said
change, if during the two ( 2 ) year period
construction, in accordance with the approved plan
is not commenced, or if the approved staging plan
has not been followed. At the conclusion of the
review by. the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission may recommend to the City Council that
the lands affected by the Planned Development
District be rezoned from the Planned Development
-2-
District . Said hearings by the Planning
Commission and the City Council shall "be in
accordance. with the provisions of this Chapter .
c ) A Planned Development District shall be
established by the adoption of an Ordinance by the
City Council reclassifying the described property
to a Planned Development District and adopting by
reference, a Land Use and Development Plan, the
provisions of which shall constitute the
regulations for the use, improvement and
maintenance of the property within the boundaries
of the plan .
8-31 . 15 COMMON AREAS - PROVISION, OWNERSHIP AND
MAINTENANCE. Maintenance of all lands included within the
plan not utilized for building sites , State and County
Roads , and public uses, shall be assured by recorded land
agreements , covenants , proprietary control, or other stated
devices which attain this objective . The proposed method of
assuring the maintenance of such lands shall be included as
part of the Land Use and Development Plan . '"
8-95 . 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. Site Development Review is
intended to promote orderly, attractive, . and harmonious
development ; recognize environmental limitations on
development; stabilize land values and investments ; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of
uses, or erection of structures, having qualities which
would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance
standards of this Chapter, or which are not properly related
to their sites, surroundings , traffic circulation, or their
environmental setting . Where the use proposed, and the
adjacent land uses , environmental significance or
limitations , topography, or traffic circulation is found to
so require, the Planning Director may establish more
stringent regulations than those otherwise specified for the
District .
8-95-1 . SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: PROCEDURE . The Planning
Director or his designated representative shall receive and
decide applications for Site Development Review. " No public
hearing is required, except in the case of a concurrent.
application for a Variance, or in the case of a Conditional
Use .
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
Page 5 , Area 2 (Properties on Western Edge of the Specific Plan)
This area . is well suited for either multifamily townhouse
condominimums , rental residential" uses, on professional offices .."
Given access to Amador Valley Blvd. (extended) and Donlon Way,
these properties can be developed in a fashion that will serve . as
a transition from the singel family residential areas, to the
west, and more intensive retail commercial uses , along San Ramon
Road. No retail commercial uses are proposed for this area .
Permitted Uses
- Multifamily residential uses such as rental housing, and/or ,
condominium uses , with a density of 12 - 21 units per gross acre .
The precise density shall be determined by the number of
bedrooms , per unit proposed, and other site planning
considerations .
-3-
.u.• �- t .,t� ,.w. .y„ •,.. .r. u. :s.. ,_� � .. ,ti v,..,...,-, - ,:v �,.�Xiv'fa` +c
'jY,a� 4G• 'r't �':' '� '� K'tv' r':d �a�,�' +. ..P#1I^�'•«y',„ 'i-�y .(��f. .'�;''' .. aY.`• }; 1 "4"'# p '� trine ""'£✓ •Wt�' :i •f4. '�A� ?' ;` •k�
7 r'rk .,t� ,�,,*. Y #"' � lt3•M G a f'2">�' 9.,p sL 'r `/1`'F•.p r�4���L�jl•�1.�p+;,��€ " K � �PA. y Y« „t�- � +r;," r�7'� �'. '�'4��t-��'e�}j}�r '''�'�. a _
SAS.. R A im 0 1K] ROAD SPECIFIC
F
AN
IGURE 2
��!� t CIRCULATION SYSTEM
f/ SCALE 1 200' r yb i' /1, , {��y *i ! .i . ti ti F f MAY 1983
r rv; ,\�. MAJOR STREET /
NORTH ,c>°, i0 t,;e ,td"( ,+ t''`! !.iS:t•`r `ij) , 'r :'� l'. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
. -? '?' ,• � C ;tom%' d,r.. �y, .. ,
;�� �;:. n �,r� � L��,� '� t �,.�: t�",�t�: ,,,,r �C;�y � „�•.;. ":;' ,, dllllll6� PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS
SPECIFIC PLAN OOUNDARY r
;4;,r -.'\ \\•..\.��rM*:f-`s` r J �. 4' .. ,v'�t`,^S;%�,�' f.�4•,�'Yi-u�'v. .!t r��r_ � �,;,,'(; ''r :�?,' ..':i•?� i', C� INTERNAL STREET IMPROVEMENT
I ' 4 `\� J�S J�� \. <ily, 4 s.Y l iJj; 1j\ ;5�. 1,'• A S
r �r i L ) ..,r � > t•-�. I1f, i.L, .� ,: i f t 1" H
_ =`�� r �;;,`/•# �i i\ % 1' +,s� �' ,1- �,, ��l�to��<r �=; -C)lr 1�J.�!�� qty 'L''"�� �,L: , IX` •7 �ci-`� �'
,t�ir1 tr1 ''.�, { }, ip� µ';fy'r•'
J� ,:+� \•,Y�,Y�'c n,t•�' t•' v�' ��" rr' `'I.� �;�tr� r1f, Sr't •� 'W,r +,{ �y, iii a r,. '[ , G;.�y `'��,..,�h �
POSSIBLE MAJOR S R E E T T ACCESS r
- - '� ��;ti_ ,i;.j•y f�.,a-<,.ti:;: �.. ;t„•i:r -rb2yS � iµ+`}y')��ii .�'r/',>v ��v Yy„tL4 `f Div �: ••� r� 9
- - \; �.rt;r"� `-''k�,,, f �i'I�� !T,. w �J�` y!t/if1cSTYj>��� �"-,�'tt'i�Y•' ;�f,.,t,-41, �>ra �� G. slr�7,r';���v+� � FLj
,: '�� .r .�- ,.. u., \�,i' ;,1,{.�i.�y��,;;.r�-/,`d��r �°�i� 'Y.'���KT ?J},�i\r '�\r'>Yy'� '�`��• � " .9 ° 'Q�
I .,�•�'J DONLON WAY k�; ✓ ,,t `� v `� � ML `!� 'a'tv ?y'',fl< k� `"�}�� '.t';:� �;i ' .'`a`� ti t .• .w;:, -
p t �. .7,•-.St4'�,- lt'k-al.i.lk J�Z�11�J's;;?'v't\_Lrcr^r4 3 vrk j y iµ"�1�?v}r+1i1r:r 5'"v g;C"{1d��.4u.kc,t f a!,c S�T.I r+n,�y�.re ?, �> y,� a�fa�>a U�t F��a l lt N F U ttn�}•{.,�1 r r,°1 j:1.%�J�'-.".�, , s Y ��a_:'1,�<,..��t'`Y .\z,l,r•S;f j' '„ .+ v�R>� .S, L.nA•NG.E tI;-'r.• 11`
C
O Ir>PROVEMENTS
8"
0 E RNAL SIGNAL NT 'S!EE ACC
ESS O IIPROV 1 E NT H
�..�'.r+` '•�;.�� / ,i..,5•. V.r,:1�. 2 ;J�,,• ..i.. :r,aC;9'.��y,�,� ./._ x�' ;,)• s?d,'��;'=i;`I' �i Z��ii;S::' N I
.J. .-Yr�.:'�f''�?::.i'_'•' ;4jyif"�r �.. :{t. •;✓.f''e?'4Y5'. '';'. ;u;t:•'!;'.,j'�:• F•.Hi. '"�!"�„Y ,�r'~l. �,, •f'�,.a .yr l.,,dl�..�'•^.."`,;,`'•S.,fv�.. `�
' �, .,o�; �2�, s. f',• .I a,, r� �•� •dk 1�'•' k;:4' P ,r+rv, �, ! �� .. c ��,' -u').
t t♦" 1, Vii';' �,J� r�d ';}"{- •,•}.r t l.r.f. ,' ,,NV4 t� t „° x I;� r. r
;, r. 11 is r i, f 'rr•,'+,s' Y S } u j.. d; \. 1', d 7i>,'j7,t
'f. (;] � {,. ,T�b'sN 4`�,�''•� -�F:,,y::,S:�;}fi ,s W' v •�(✓' s 2�••�i�it�t y INTERNAL a, �
J �. �1' \'• '=`5 �. y�f.a7:.fiS.. t Xk rr r}t, �Y,r(( t �T �fyy))��ppyyaa,lY r`' .,rv11 �.f., •y>i: STREET :��7•:.. m (l}
',�,i'. .( ,•� r� „i,,�' t LS•kr' ; � `/.1y�}tir ,,T;it• �ii ``N`il 1`1 r1,4`�10 \, ',r,• ✓``fyt' tri r,;i �' H
\. �. \';i�"=, k Jrt�I r.. > : S7z cr, f.n;lar.T. �ac�,( :v'- 1,t•� ef,.g4 � :17.� t �J f, fr 1. ,�t •µy t �. ACCESS r
y � �'• •;� ,j. ,r� 7 /� 5..�,v,�r.�,� ,..y. t.4t.t',•,� v 1, ,lr:!1'r;lJr(i c11:..4,#)' I1 t`h'ii;l p;�y'lJf` �.� I,r. ;,1'('<',.}!.`�'.."?j 5;�.,.r •:\,'..i' y
=DRI�i� >{�
..*x.4v �Z� t.=} �\`,i�`tszv��,.• POSSIBLE >- W -\
1 x " 3�:• "' '�'; EXTENSION r1�
PEDESTRIAN
AMADOR VALLEY xc n` ?;ru �(fr✓ �; yf Y\{: ACCESS
ROAD YJ � Y 1 - r Rl
.:;'Yi.u1:
i ,� •`�/ ,.a (. r .�� c�� ✓.1�. '.1 •--�' �1'�:°�,,;r:l;>•+SI,•; ',,�••r ,.�1 .,{�C, I j ! K� .�•, �V`'�'j;' Z'-��5;,.�y�'�.�'I r�• ,1s�+;, 1 •,:ci. ..
•:^� •�1 , �..\ ..u, , y,'3, 7,� c� � ,:. i 1'. :1• 4CK�.� „Yrs,.. (i�(n f�i'`^,•i•'t%i`,, -yz,cr• r 1114
t \'s4;i. 2 - ,.`�'.':.R�}(yj: :�'.'i��}. ';;;�y �I Y} � �.. :rn�i�t1��1}K�i:'F.•,?i�r, is%lam.* '! '�y .°f�'fj?+�'�1�"�(�`,}}.Xi:+��'!�t\` •1: .:i.�7Z'• �. ..r� 1111\llllltlllll
�y3.rlL t't �� 14i � �i.;. 11111111111111111111(111
CGS. : w3 .�'s nn,nn
G `r..�l, :�1,: i'i+....t ."�.-. • zr�ki 3 x r1 '. r J �' S' �I.ACj "� 41111
C -
,� O '\( c � x,,,J+Y.' h�i..t;.,r••tz � tJ'�t J,\ �'+,�1j���iil C F,1,,, s�'+t-•-'i"� �inGG-,� i✓-A. 111111Y1111 _
T a �.. -." •r;r l,t,t., ��)t. '- j t,,r4,.}t'`'�. —•�•--t•�`rµ� � ,,t,> .v'•� r � r I``,,111111 •• _ -
s� ��•r:�`;� � �� rl` ` Illllllllllllll�lllllllllllllllllll\111c1��1l1.r.�:
_
'fr•a ,Y Y_2;X:; ttr� II Illllllllllllllllllllll�l Rufk
i'.Y. : i, ?,° Z,I:'' >,.:i�,h.!•yJ "� ' 111111111111111111111 ... F :'.�• R
` a• 111111111111
C ,idinlll nIIIl�rnl�lii'iilnlilPlnllll(ull llll�
'�'—••,/f, � , ...�.. .1,,1-\ ..�rw`•'�� ,4��1��a,t' ,� Sr<,fn :,'�tv\� �. � �•�,; ,.1>;7.t I
�p
^•� .\1 '•.*.'l =`I '.'�` '� V, r7, .4'3 <'tR�J'!}O1'41 1C fY_ r ,'• i;I,➢ Y:. '• `, ;,� - ��v/�f,'J�4f�� ��4/'1� •r '`
.9 5.1•.r;+,".'�°r 7 I i' m 1 ;��• c t y' ;r° `Il,4 CITY Of' DUBLIN /
^ t"�' }\'Ol;.-Ikt' (v�✓`,}�, `� PLANNING DE 1)T.
c '+'u•r � 7�T�r1 G -�
�1 r \ 1' riw A v Pf 1 C \ SIGNALS & WIDENING
SIGNALS & it
YlPnOVEMENTS ;yl, .',1:;' + �' ' �:'� c `; s.'' RO .r✓
i{V� i•;`,e 1 SAN RAMON ROAD P
DUBLIN/SAN I?AIv10N ROAD SAN II ]
yq .h.,' \� '�Y,�'S�P r•r'( .� + �c:Sn- 1 H O h
. � '� V`` 5 .• .^�1'"+~�'!� '�o,(7Cii_\;y1\r ',1'111.. , ,if(�II ' r ))�. ,
In '" _-------MPSON INC
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
SPECIFIC DEVELOP64EMT CUIOELIMES
San Panun PaaJ-Sprrllk Pl,n '
' CIIy o!D•nll,r-[.+Illo/nl.
APEAS 1, 1 AMO 1 AP[A 4 .
FIE LTI-fA•TILT PET AIL
P ESIOfM TI AL CO"."EA CIAL OFFICE V5f3 OYFM SPICE USES
n••I.un II.19nt Llmlt ] - ]e..r p+[A lnq 1 over p+rtln9 qv.r k1.9 I •aq ry
Mfninw Sit.Ar•• 41,3(0 •9u•[e [eat' 41,560 •Auer. I—' 41,560 aqu•r• lee[• nn.
•Iwum
11u114tn9 15\ -u/,u[(.ce pa c6 lnq 4d\ --/,urt•ee P+rk l -••/•uc(•c• pa[k/nq
naCOVet•q• 1D\ -./..n.lerq[ound 9c i0\ ./u nJe[9 ro and or 110\ ../un er9rou n0 qr qne —
nL2:1CJ[C^�.3.1_111 a CACI.iII -.
c ure +r. (0 fee[ trop n,jor :0 (ee[rl[on a•lor
S•tD•cR• •nd T•rd• S+n••a a-S DI•t[I<t oche[ a.t gahe[ aet on+ ""
Ill.rntlnq, .+It•ra y,rinwla 104 - ]0\ IO\ 3••SDec:al Cond ltlgn•
01• .•en ]D leer n• ne one
Struc tutee
In[ern•l/e.tern•! ve lS- Inte[nsl/ea ear nul •Ik- In ter n+l/ea te[n+l vIt- A vI1..ay •fon9 M
' vya end a [lon [ u•ya •nJ a Clon to v+ya•nA a etl ona Co C+nyon Cre eM ,DellrDan
. P•Jeatrl+n A.enitlee aJ)•e te<ta lLa +J j•c caeca lt •Jj+e .••ea IL re9ulred; La e+tion o D•
.`ya[ rceaa.ryat deteralned at [ht t
. aeaan[Y' e<•ae of.11- lend uae • •
rklnq rrqulr [kln9 ze9u le•manta rk ln9 re.lult • • n (•eI1L-
. wy De.odi(led •atper m+Y D•nodt(:ed as Per vy D.•wdi(ledn•atPer t/ea�apentgceen+ -
• SPeel+l Condition• can ec•3 D•ve loPnenc Cenerat Development General D•ve to Dnent •ila:a n puDller•nd/
t prlv+tr •r••ncou
d
T. , e w+Y Ina lud• portion•of o e an re p•reela o mDlned lo<•.rth one
' or ••rre wnq tanlV• (ur +ppl lc•clon pur poaeaor ,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
was prepared on this project . A copy of the MND is attached to
.this report .
NOTIFICATION: Public Hearing notices have been published in the
Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners and posted
in public buildings .
ANALYSIS :
GENERAL COMMENTS :
This is an application for a Planned Development rezoning.
Unlike a standard rezoning, a Planned Development (PD) rezoning
includes specific approval of land use including the type and
amount of a use , a preliminary site plan, and preliminary
architecture and .landscaping . A Planned Development zoning
. permits the development of a project. according to a .precise site
plan .
..The PD allows buildings to be clustered together .-and -'open - spaces
to ' be combined. Design flexibility,' and the .ability .to ;increase
density and the amount of development, are -primary:..reasons -for
its use . In exchange for these developer benefits , cities:. seek
to end .up with projects that 'are. better designed, and „which• contain special landscaping, recreation . open . space--or .
transportation elements .
The Dublin Green project is proposed to be .located on 13 . 4 acres
of slightly sloping land, that is located between an existing
residential neighborhood (Ponderosa Village) , land zoned for
commercial retail , the Springs Apartment, and Martin Canyon
Creek . The site is transitional, from a land use standpoint, in
that it lies adjacent to two residential areas that range in
density from six units per acre, to 21 units per acre, and a
large commercial area . The site is visually isolated and will be
seen by very few people .
The major impact of the project is traffic , however, several
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which
clearly eliminate, if not improve the traffic situation in the
area .
In June, 1983 , the City Council approved the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan which covers the subject site . The Plan permits
multifamily development on the site_ The ' unit density range is
12 to 21 units per acre . The Plan also requires that specific
-5-
t
traffic and vehicular circulation elements be incorporated into
any proposed development . Additionally, design criteria were
established. This proposal is , therefore, compared to the "-
Specific Plan, as well as reviewed on. its own merits, subject to
compliance to the Specific Plan .
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONSIDERATIONS :
There are four primary considerations which must be addressed in
determining the acceptability of the proposed Planned Development
rezoning request :
1 . Environmental impact
2 . Compliance with the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
3 . Land use density
4 . Design
a: Site . Plan
b . 'Architecture
c . Landscape architecture
d. Grading
Each .of these considerations , as applied to the Dublin Green
proposal, is briefly discussed below:
1 ENVIRONMENTAL
The environmental assessment for this project pointed out
that there were potential environmental problems associated
with the initial proposal . The problems . concerned water
supply, soils , energy consumption, neighborhood security,
traffic , and flooding _ Staff, in working with the affected
agencies (e .g . DSRSD) and the applicant, worked out
mitigation measures , which were accompanied by design
changes in the project . The mitigation measures , and design
changes , which the applicant has agreed to abide by, have
sufficiently changed the project .so .that no significant
potential environmental impacts ar'e ,now associated with this
project . The mitigation measures are incorporated in the
recommended .Conditions . of Approval
( see ' the attached Mitigated .Negative Declaration for a brief
" " description' of the ,impacts . and mitigation.!-)
2 .': WITH '.THE SAN RAMON ,ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
. There are ^ several sections' of the `Sari` Ramon Road Specific
Plan .that apply -to . this application: - .The .most important are
" - those related to:
a . land use and density
b . traffic and circulation
c _ development criteria (design)
a. Land Use - The Specific Plan permits multifamily housing on
the subject property . The Plan establishes a unit density range
of between 12 and 21 units per acre . The proposal requests 20
units per acre , which is within the Plan ' s range . Typically, in
order to grant a project a density at the top of the range, the
project must meet the City ' s highest and best use, design, and
environmental standards . '
This proposal , because of its size, has been looked at by Staff
as being comprised of two development zones . Zone A is the area
closest to Ponderosa Village, and Zone B is closest to the
-6-
commercial land. As such, the density of the two zones has been
looked at separately. Staff finds that the 20 units/acre density
is acceptable for Zone B . However, because Zone A is adjacent to
Ponderosa Village , Staff takes the position that a lower density
of approximately 12 units/acre would be most appropriate . This
will result in almost all the units in Zone A being single story,
and thus the transition between the single family area, at 6
units/acre, would be quite acceptable. Zone B is sufficiently
removed from Ponderosa Village ( 160 ft . +) , and screened by Zone
A buildings , that it will not be visible, or have any other
negative impact .
The densities that Staff recommends have been looked at from
three land use perspectives : 1 ) units/acre ; 2 ) bedrooms/acre;
and 3 ) people/acre . Staff has compared each of these measures
for Zone A, Zone B, the Springs , and Ponderosa Village . Chart I , --
below, indicates that the Staff-proposed range creates a very
rational and reasonable transition of development densities .
These densities, when coupled with a design review of the Dublin
Green project, shows that this development will be attractive,
useable, safe, and compatible with adjacent development; all of
which is consistent with the San Ramon Road Specific Plan- .
b . Traffic and' Circulation Dublin Green has agreed to. provide
up to '100o of the cost of , a signal at. Dublin Blvd. and Donlon
Way; to improve. the left turn capacity for traffic .heading . north
on San Ramon Rd.. at' Dublin Blvd. ,' to provide for the extension of
Amador Valley Blvd. to the Dublin Green site, and to help pay for
. signal. improvements at Amador Valley Blvd. and--San Ramon Road. _
These are substantial improvements that will be provided for
excellent traffic flow into and out of the Dublin Green site .
They will also help adjacent developments particularly those
along the extension of Amador Valley Blvd_ The Specific Plan
also calls. for pedestrian/bicycle access from Shadow Drive, which
will' be included in the Site Development Review.
The Dublin Green property will have three ingress and egress
points ; one at the north end of Donlon Way, one at the west end
of Amador Valley Blvd. , and one private road that will run
between the Springs apartments and Iceland. The internal
circulation system will allow residents to use any of these three
roads, thus creating a good circulation network.
c ) Development guidelines - The Specific -Plan Development
guidelines , and Dublin Green ' s . data are compared below:
Specific Plan Dublin Green. _.
Maximum .Height 2 stories 2._stories
Minimum. Site Area 1 acre : 13:4 acres
Maximum .Building Coverge 35% ;'190
Minimum Landscaping 30% 470 .
Distance Between . Structures 20 ..feet 20 feet minimum
between '
Pedestrian Amenities , Internal/External Internal/Enter
walkways `walkways
Dublin Green has more open landscaped space and substantially.
less building coverage than is permitted by the _Specific Plan. .
3 . LAND USE DENSITY - The Specific Plan states that a
multifamily development, with a density of 12 to 21
units/acre , is acceptable on the subject property_ As
indicated above, "density" is a general indicator of land
use impact . Other elements also need to be considered.
These elements include the size and type of the units, the
design of the project, the number of bedrooms, and how many
people are likely to occupy each unit .
Small units , with one bedroom, could be built at a density of
twice that of a project with two or three bedrooms, yet, it would
reasonably contain the same number of .people and cars -
This project has been analyzed from the unit density,
design, and number of people per acre basis . The chart
below shows how it compares to adjacent development .
CHART I
Density Comparison
Units/acre People/acre Height of Buildings
Ponderosa Village 5 . 7 15 1 & 2 story
Dublin Green/Zone A 11 . 5 19 1 & 2 story
18 ave . 32 ave .
Dublin Green/Zone B 20 38 2 story l
Dublin Green/ -
Applicant proposal 20 38 2 story
Springs Apartments 21 41 2 story
CHART II
Land Use/Design Comparison
Dublin Dublin Existing Springs Greenwood
Green Green Zoning Apts : Apartment
(Appli- (Staff)
cant)
Zoning PD PD R-S-D-35 R-S-D-20 R-S-D-20
Units/Acre 20 11 . 5 13 . 5 22 21
18 ave .
20
Number/units 269 254 , 167 176 60
Parking
Coverage % 34 32 27 30 35
Landscape/Open
Space % 47 49 55-63 46 29
Bldg . lot
Coverage 19 19 9-18 24 26
As Chart 2 shows , the proposed project is similar, from a site
coverge standpoint, to that which would reasonably occur, were a
project to be built under the previous R-S-D-35 zoning . Using
the Staff Zone A and Zone B concept, Zone A would be less dense
and have more open space, etc . , than the P.-S-D-35 zoning, and
therefore , it would create a development twat is even more
compatible with the adjacent Ponderosa Village than could be
built under the previous zoning .
4 . DESIGN
Dublin Green is designed to be an attractive apartment
complex, with small building clusters, a variety in the
building form and landscape_ areas . Two major recreation
centers, with swimming pools and play areas , are provided.
A pedestrian pathway, system will allo-d people to traverse
the entire site, including that .portion adjacent to Martin
Canyon Creek .
-8-
ub
� _- 38 ���-lam•
ILIg u�fisf0.c .
32 ac
,
L{ 1
C i �� SRI iJ bs APT.
r" /J ,
`vJ `��c, �� t;•` 1'�f. _ �'' (- I..:."qa ° � �'.��' ��� �-h:tl �f:t=��.� �����..,-. � � a 1�
��1
h p
1 _ L
�11Li 1 P I -f�Ilf !; rr- - '� r / r1�-� ♦�r�- 1
1 1 ✓�C�1 _ ���/�_ 1 t'L.✓ .�'• Jay 111.i ..''/� I I ,�' x „ 1h„ '., L;_..
u� � ;✓� ``•..\ „��,YY4411 t 1 V l�L_j..j�..�•�..,I�,'J;�. f �!� �..: i�„• � `\ I P
' I,r
I`
Amr /� (- �T .Y �1--ZCys2yf��ura � _.. .. �__ WIIYK MIXO fl1.S I• •+��_ -_ = _ _—
� � j
a . Site Plan - The Site is divided into areas that contain
from one to seven buildings in a cluster . A
basically circular loop roadway has been designed,
with the resident' s and visitor parking stalls and
carports off if it . There are three ways to drive to
and from the site : 1) Donlon Way will connect to the
southern boundary; 2 ) Amador Valley Blvd. will provide
a major- street connection along the eastern boundary;
and, 3 ) a third roadway will run between the Springs
Apartments and Iceland, providing access to the
southeastern portion of the site . With the required
traffic improvements , this will provide for, at least,
adequate traffic circulation . From a design
perspective, the double-loaded (parking on both. sides )
roadway is not as attractive as it could be, since
there are few landscape areas adjacent to the roadway,
due to the rows of .parked cars _
The buildings have been sited so that a significant
variety of building forms and views of the buildings i.s
created. This will provide for visual interest and
create individual identity to the various sub-areas of
the complex . Both small and large landscaped open
spaces have been designed into the project for active ,
and passive recreational -use . A minium twenty-foot
landscaped buffer is provided along the westerly
property line ..
b . Architecture - The buildings are mostly two stories
high, with pitched shed roofs, balconies , decks-, and
chimnies that provide for a variety of compatible
forms . The buildings are designed with a mix of units ,
and the number of units per building varies . This
creates buildings that look distinct, rather than the
same and repetitive . The exterior building materials
are stucco and wood, with the wood being used primarily
around the entry courts . A previous design showed the
buildings to be sided primarily in wood. The wood
exterior is preferable to Staff because it is more
consistent with the treatment on adjacent residences .
C . Landscape Architecture - The landscape plan shows a
tree . screen comprised of evergreen trees along the
western property line . A mix of deciduous and
evergreen trees are proposed throughout the remainder
of the project . The typical building landscape plan
shows that ground cover, shurbs , and"-trees will be used
around the buildings . Detailed plans will be heeded at
the time of Site Development Review ' in order to make
sure that the landscaping provides for solar control
and is of sufficient size, variety, .and . amount to
create an effective and -attractive. landscapbd effect
d. Grading - The site' slopes gently toward the south and
southeast . Very little grading will take place . The
major concern is how water could be carried across the
site, should Martin Canyon Creek overflow its bank .
The bank is higher on the south side than the north
side , therefore , overflow would reasonably be limited.
However, the grading plan and improvement plans are
being required to be designed to be sure that building
pads are above any anticipated flood level, and that
the water can effectively be picked up by on- and off-
site storm drains _
CONCLUSION :
The most important considerations of this Planned Development
Rezoning request are : whether or not -the environmental aspects
of the project are appropriately handled; whether or not the use
is acceptable ; what density of . development should occur; and how
well the project is designed .
-9-
Effective environmental mitigation has been incorporated into the
project , or the developer has agreed to provide it, such that the
project will not have any significant environmental impact .
The Dublin Green project coforms to, and is consistent with, the
basic guidelines for development of the subject property as is
called for in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
While the requested density falls within the range permitted by
the Specific Plan, it is most appropriate to look at the site as
if it were divided into two zones : one being adjacent to the
existing single family neighborhood, to the west ; and the other,
adjacent to the commercial area, to the east . The density
permitted for each zone should reflect its relationship to the
adjacent uses . The zone adjacent to the single family
neighborhood should also contain primarily single story building
elements .
The design of the project is , by-and-large, acceptable, . however,
the details of the architecture, landscaping, grading, lighting,
and signing, will need to be reviewed by Staff through the Site
Development Review. process . -
The developer has asked that he be permitted to _ convert the
apartments to condominiums in .seven . ( 7 ) years . While the project
does meet current condominium standards , we. do .not know what the
circumstances of such a conversion may be seven years -hence .
Staff is recommending that the City not commit to ,such a
conversion at this time .
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
The City Council needs to take two actions related to the Dublin
Green rezoning application :
1 . Take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration .
2 . Take action on the Planned Development Rezoning request
consistent with Setion 8-31 . 0 of the Zoning Ordinance .
PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council : 1 ) adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and, 2 ) approve the Planned Development
Rezoning, as described in the .attached "Exhibit A" ,subject to
the conditions listed in "Exhibit B and C, and make the .findings :
contained therein..
The conditions have been developed to assure ._the .City that .the
project will be built as proposed, that the City' s'.financial ,
position will be protected, that environmental impacts .will be
insignificant, and that the project will. be beneficial . to .the . .
City as a .whole . Each condition has been recommended ..for a
specific reason . At .,the- City Council meeting, . Staff will explain
any Condition on which the City Council wishes clarification .
The recommended conditions of approval include reducing the
number and height of the units in Zone A, as shown on the site
plan . In this case, the City Council should give the developer
direction as to how many units to reduce, and where the reduction
should occur .
-10-
Attachments : Location Map
Exhibit A - Development Plans
Exhibit B - Mitigated Negative Declaration w/
Environmental Assessment Form
Exhibit C -' Resolution approving Mitigated Negative
Declaration-
Exhibit D - Resolution ApprovingPlanned development
Rezoning
Background attachments :
a) Applicant ' s Justification and
Description of Project
b) Letter from Morgan Howell re :
condominium conversion
C ) ACFC letter dtd 3/7/83
d) DSRSD letter dtd 3/14/83 -`
e ) DSRSD Fire Dept . letter dtd 5/24/83
ETA
` �\,�; ;�.....:....:;..•..:�.....;._:...:.:•:•=. ice, r'�`� +
ED
°PLI� LJ
/ 4(X?K
P=
•.......• ..•.... ...•... VALLEY
t �
�..2-0
C-1
� y tQo�C H
0�y
VI Gl N ITY MAP.
-TRACT 3�'7
Q—
��i/'i its '.Z•.S!.�v; <\ S. `� w
l!1 , c
JA
J �,; � � � y *11-4 /, :s. %t ..$;�,�r'.' ���1:,,'7.Ti ��/ j�j(r i ��G4„' a •
p �` )fir.��� ! +fro, i�\\,�7� '1a�T�vy � C, r.1J^• _ j
cr
°� !. �ti f' r o �I'IIII�.I il���l•��i ':r�yu, i ,
'�i.� it I I� .�t�-'"'- "'i£��33�-'r'Si � ]C�c � G _•' u1
. *iii / .I � ;f ✓ � 4 /�t'i' �f•..r- /' J� d.. r f _ ��
s=:q
v i i W rtio,w 0rr i 1 0 N
•i
SA
SITE DATA PLANmia LrGENa
AIN
DU IDtNA DATAe• - ...wa.w .<._<�we...a<d.uuni<.e u....r.e _ $RE
C=m cowm
lu—i.r v VIC7 NITY
IT
Elsnd..ec.r.
NOTE:
T
Z
i
1
1
1
t
SITE
Ile
VICINM MAP
ccc7�o.i (-c) c,tc Y'ION (� ,... ,• 1
J — —'--- ---�::r—
i1.. 4 • � � ad..o.r., �
_ ` = ((1.11
nll-
=e
}
1.
3Ay R AD
�' •; _ I SITE - 1 {
VICINITY MAP t
'• � ( ` .� ` t / / "mil I � �. .1`�`•'� ,,1 �. � _-/'�� ,I yr '
' ,�, _.I»+� o: / y._ _ �•\�. � �. I I y'11 l- I
I -Y
... -' --__._ _-. :^---'7--�.•r..�r......r..,r :(' -_ _ y -�4� LIB/- ---_ - _ __
-
a
t
L • ,,, kj t//�u�or�a+•
. --O�L u 1�+-4 •+ M•ittq +-L �r T-�•
uu)vrcy � Lj
PVdlT UIr'
' ' �T-1 CULAI�rrU+aw'erTV,+=wcV:
(..'.•�HqN.r.+•'• 4 acl o td�.2�5 so •' (w.(u.aa.ac)
i - I L ;l c);)J i e.•- °
r-t at,, rAPHrLeI...
b r ;1 .1°,t� .(ii rY •; ,?j :'�
..(f.,.•.♦ce•.. Mal. s t. .I .t• :; T-f( - , .
.. _ +'f e•;)ii 1•+ �i >G ,•\� .. T_r rMUww'o.T pA-
+•♦
r •.• T-f Icca
A , , MIT ruv, +•I r.
....-.,r M��..�'v ter,r. . . \��S/c.is )i( ,•((lY',) ,yp.au(� } r� �. •� ,.✓1 (
- ^'.�' .. � 'F Val 11 - � \' I � i♦ L- � L ��' �� 9•I Mp•+'a(tf l+ ,NOW..
I r t'r aoa .. try+t'm Trot-rW—� .\ .r S ) \ t..a •� �, >-i Ar ,
O _ _ T) y{fg�1 s-L •� _ : �+: �'• 4-f L144LVN V,,Wql.�
_ 'Ll -'�..• S-4 PMOT,JN rRA<LRI
- •o+.r..+-. -.� � � � J i I ^N{. t r +.� (f w,..aM14 P'eT1•'t1)•.
S-f vTL04 S�rLO+GW«o(i>7u^1•.
MJ W-./ .'.•S- _ . S S _ , �;: w.Y KOI
�"V'o+v'~ J.} •1.:� / -)-G PILTO4pwlU T� t� _
( 44wrr.K•M
. n.n.•„� ll l,.woSCApe UGHTINC,z ���, (roan.)• ..
Y-1 J Tp" p M H
wd
' r^••r tw r, -
- n PLAN-SIMOG PREI.
L +'L 0 iFDtCJjGS U.v/IJ f
•� POLfi LIGHT .l �I r-7. 1 t �r '�' �NO.ujZ>a�fl,.. .
( '
wN v.'-i-d .LLVr1�ON •a'•t 'yecn are
PENCE AFLou1 D HeAr. Pumps,
t
a-
d
D D
1 Emory �_.-. •- x/'fqM I - x MM MW C
A A
1J
xsrarc � ° ar x
--- _= - o�I� L xe� iraa� t ��iJ ------ o
0
r s
9-.,e B-t.o.,00. --
c-,..2�, D
x rrcm
C:
TYPICAL TYPE 1 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN TYPICAL TYPE 2 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN -i
Q
,
,
-------------
UL
t I
du
1 CFPIM mo�TN KJDG LALMA Y MR DMO
a
.{_,2 _
I
� I
-I
1 I _
VARIATION-TYPE 2BlDG __-__-- ---' -- --
- A:,2 -
I -y •— k,2 � .
TYPE 2 BUILDING Q
TYPE 1 DUILDING
r
i
_ —�
arm
i
DeCK/PATIO !T )
aT� m 6T _
LFI
LA
bn...
2
' .D UNIT 733 Sf•_V - -
. C UNIT 788 SF xi...O .
i
MCK/PAnO DECK/PAnO
�fl m t
FCTC
. u...vft.-a ILA K
r
9 UNIT 644 SF A UNIT J• 848 SF ° S
i
I
{I
1➢ilil i II I_ _ ® m m -
E-REM ELEVATION F-SIDE ELEVATION
ED
ED
v
I
Z
C—REM ELEVATION -- 2- ° i
D—SIDE ELEVATION
ED Pi J
W �
1 mom v.a p
' n •wan ^ —"`
1 11 .,.a
A—REAR ELEVATION B—FROM ELEVATION
1
i
_ELn
• _ 111. �L Lh _. l Ili _ '
� � 1111ii�lllli� _�__ --------i- I; ;Ir�j •
E — SIDE ELEVATION F —SIDE ELEVATION
IL
a J
� Q
Z
� .r.� — ar—r IIICi�� I• n � ee...e.».e�. .
• zt.
C — REAR ELEVATION O;
D — FRONT ELEVATION
ri
J
W
A — REAR ELEVATION .00e 8 — SIDE ELEVATION
10
Q
'IT1II
Mu
�I..J _ I i IIL.I).-__ICI 6ECT10N FRONT-I:.ILDOXXS
IL-JI -----I 0-SID[ N-REAR
L-"-Y I II II I Cil
F-FRONT
ELEVATION ROOF FLAN as
CARPORT
PLAN-LAUNDRY
• I���1�����( �:.i �'III
II[I1 Illfi I
so �!!, I I I Iilllll <IiI I,I iP
C-SIDC D-FRONT =j
LLD
< Il
-
ulmma+r
FTDEPGI �� ( IIII ( I I II'Iil I I III III :li. I III IN , I f
A-REAR 0-SID[
PUN-RECREATION SUILDINO QI
CI'T'Y OF DUBLIN
P.O. I3o..x 2 ,-10
Dublin. CA 9-156,S (415) 529-40Oo
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PA 83-004 Dublin Green a
269-unit apartment complex Planned
Development Rezoning
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 , et seq. )
LOCATION : The 13 . 4-acre site is located north of the Springs
Apartments , and West of the Iceland skating rink,
which are on the northwest quadrant of San Ramon Road
and Dublin Blvd . (APN 941-40-2-5 ; 941-40-5-2 ; and
9L1-40-8 )
APPLICANT: Calmet, Inc .
403 Balra Dr .
E1 Cerrito CA 94530 Y
REPRESENTATIVE : Morgan Howell
1625 B Street
Havward CA 9-' 541
OWNER : Calmet , Inc .
DESCRIPTION : Request to rezone 13 . 4 acres from R-S-D-35
(.Multifamily Residential - 12 units/acre) to ND ( Planned
Development - 20 units/acre ) . This will permit t_.,?
construction of 20'9 apart_ ent units , plus parking -or 538
cars , recreation/pool facilities , and five launCrV
facilities .
FINDINGS : The project , as now proposed, will not have a
significant effect on the environment .
INITIAL STUDY : The Initial Study is attached with a brief
discussion of the following environmental components :
Each component has been mitigated by revisions to the
initial Project, or through a binding com ittment bV
the applicant , as outlined in the section below,
entitled: Mitigation Measures .
A. Water Sup_ plv
B . Soils
C . Energy
D . Neighborhood Security
E . Traffic
F . Flooding
MITIGATION LIEASURES :
A . Water Supply - A crater supply system will be connected
to existing Dublin San Ramon Service District Facilities
such that adequate water supply/pressure will be available
for domestic water and -ire flow needs .
B _ Soils - The Soils Investigation for the subject
property prepared by Terrasearch , Inc . (June , 1979 )
indicates that there are no significant soil/geologic _
problems that will adversely affect the project . _
C _ Energy Conservation - The project will be designed to
meet Alameda County and State energy conservation
requirements . Additionally, landscaping will be designed to
improve the energy efficiency of the residential buildings ,
recreation facilities , and laundry facilities .
D . Neighborhood Security - a six-foot solid fence,
lighting, landscaping, and building setbacks have been
designed to provide an adauate barrier and buffer between
adjoining single family residential units and the subject
property, thereby reducing the potential for burglaries and
the like .
E . Traffic - Traffic light, and street design improvements
will be installed on Donlon Road and Dublin. Blvd. , at Dublin
Blvd. and San Ramon Road, and Amador Vallev Blvd. and San
Ramon Road. Amador Valiev Blvd. will also be extended to
the subject property . These improvements will mitigate the
traffic impacts of this project .
F . Flooding - The applicant will improve Martin C`-_.on
Creek to the satisfaction of the Alameda Count.- _ lcc"
Control and the City Engineer to assure that tnls
will not adversely affect the --Flooding of the Cree : .
Additionally, on-site improvements and grading 0111 rotect
the project residents should the Creek over fl, o',- its canks .
PREPARATION : This Negative Declaration was prepared, bv_ =^e City
of Dublin Planning Staff , ( 415 ) 829-4.916 .
SIGNATURE :_kGcti1 ` DATE : august 2= , 1983
Laurence L . Tong,
Planning Director
DUBLIN GREEN
CITY OF bUELlt� 1 PRELIMINARY PA No.83-004
PD REZONING
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.)
t -
Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning SfcFf
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether. a Negative Declaration or on
Environmental Impact Report is required.
SECTION 3. INITIAL. STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLAt•114 1 NG STAFF
Flame of Project or Applicant: DUBLIN GRE >
A. . ENVIROMMENTAL SETTING - Description or project site beFore the project, including
inFormGtion on: topography; soil stability; plants ar.d animals; historical, cultural, cnd
scenic aspects; existing siruclures; and Use OF Struc;UieS The site S baS1Ca11 V flat,
Contains several mature fruit trees iS adjacent t0. Martin Cart VOn
Creek on the north; The Sprincs Apts . , on the south; Single - family
homes on the west ; and Commercial procerty on the east .
• DeSCrIDfIOn Of surrounding DrOperi I S, including ir,ror^ai Ian on: plants and anlrCGtS;
hlsiOr icol, CUItUral, Gnd scenic oS_peCiS; type anc iniensiry OF land use; cno Scale Or
d?VelC;^ent. Martin Canyon Crnc:.: COnta 1"_S numerous ma_t ~re tYew S an'G
prOV1QeS a COOd vilClife hao-. t. t , tSlO CC It i°Ce :t!V IOOCea e
property; wi11 be vi LrOm ad! acent =evelopm,ent , but not f=om publ_C
roads/areas Adjacent land ucz-s are ya_i ed and all "back" _to this
development :
8. ENVI'ONMENTALIMPACTS - FaciucI explane;inns G; ell answers e;<cept "no" ere re- "
gUlrea G l G—ached Sheets.
SC=TT CF E.TACT'
0l 101
1 I
1.0 4/ATER I } I
I � i
1.1 Hydrologic ?clonco ',Vill eomlruetion of the projee.'el:er the hyriro- I I I
logic eience7 I ( I I �
1.2 Ground S'lotcr Will the project effect the quroiiry or quantity of
ground wotcr supplic:?
1.3 0aprh to /e ter Table Will the rate of M-orcr vritncrc n( ciong._ nce dcprh
or grod;c-nt of th- `.nter to6ic? Il 1 1
1.4 Dro;nogc cnd Cnonnel Form Will construction im. fd the nc!urol droinogc pot:err. + I I I
or cousc oltcrotion of strcom crcnncl form? I Y
1.5 sedimentation 1'1;11 construction in on orcc rc: It in rnojor scJimcnr
inil., into adjoccnt ..arcr bad;c:?
l.6 Flnoding Will there ba rise of I—of Gic or property due I I I I x
to flrwxi;nn�
j
CCl �?t�IT 7�?�ZC`CS SCALE OF Il-hnACT
i O YES UN,QL"1 01,1,
NO
• I ra I I o
, olr�, Io1 �
( I I -
Does dr;nki voter ;up 1 foil to meat state and 1
1.7 water �,,,rl;ty ng � r
• - federal standards?
Will se'-0a be in.jt-1•�tcly occommc�otcd and t I I
X
treated?
Will rccciv;ng waters foil to inert local, st.-'c and X I I 1
federal standords? j
`Y;ll ground w<atcr suffer contamination by s:rfu.e I I I
serp:g intrusion of jolt or polluted—ter fr,m
adjacent wotcr bodies or from onot!ler r:on!i.-.in,lted ( ( I -
oG•tifer? I I
2_0 AI- I {
2.1 'Air Pollution will there be g�ne,c:ion and n;socrs;or.of plllutants I I
by project related octi,-ities or in proxir itr n: t':e I I I X
project which rail crcecd s:c.'c r.; r_tl; a e-r
gcality stor.dnrds?
? Wind Al,tcr.ticn •,;'ill stru c:urn and terra%n-imprdc prr.
'� .ciGrc vrina l
flow causing channeling.long certeir.�o,rij
cl soruct;oo of wand movements? X 1 I l
3.0 EARTH X I I I I
I I
3.1 Slapc S ebility Are there coten:ial dcng-rs related trs t!cce failures?
3.2 Foundation Support Yiiil there be ask to I;fe or preper.'•';c-ou;e of
cr.cerive defermatian of me:enci;.
3.3 Can;olioe:;on Y,'iil there be risk 'o life or praau/Sc ca:r.c c: _{
_ccssive con;oi;da:ion of founccti—ran tc-ials?
3.4 S -sidcnce Is there risk of major :,cone s csid,:n.;r.n:;x idea {
with I,a project?
3.5 S<ism;c Activity Is there risk of do—;n cr loss revdt;no
3.5 Liquefeel;on 'Nill tic project ca.::^n:be exrosed I;Gv-fec:;on I I
of joi;n in slopes or uccrr r—ncalr^ns? I I I
3J Ero ibili y rill tbcrc he sub;tar:ial loss of x);! c':, !o cr:n- X
s!ruct;on proctors?
3.3 P=_r..c-agility Will the permecb;lity of lo;Is associat
project present adver:c conditi-onstelctivc tc de- X I I I
velopmcnt of wells? I I I f
Will an unique celogicr,l features br,damaged I I -
3.9 U,iquv Fcotures r 9 g- . . X
' or de s.'roycd 6y p:oject oc:ivrt,cs?
Are there aeol.-'c ccpos;ts of 'rent i.11 r.�.=erciol
3.10 Mineral Frsourees 7' p X ( I I
vcIve close to the project?
I ! f
4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS I I I 1 X
I I i
4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rare or endonacred species prnsont? .
t
Arc there saccit,pre.cnt wh;cis arc po-t:e,larly I I ( ( i{
su:r_ptialc to impact f.m human
1; there vr_atotion pr srnr,. the ?oat of r:hi•h will X I
deny food or habit.! to importont w;ld*i.re !?^_tics? ° r r
Arc there nu;•rnce :rc_ies of plant or climo:s for X
which cor.ditiom will I imam—d 4,y tl-e project?
4.2 Vegetatira Community Type: Are there any unusual populations of pinnts that may X
Le of jc;cntific int cr r!? r
rs.re there vege:otive cammunity types orc i I i
o X i t
partieuiarly jute ep:iblc to impact frcm t:urn.❑cr.:ivity.
.!.re th.rc major trees or main,vcgatntiol that will I I i
he by th.r-proj•-ct? __ X I I f
ACI.. :.hc^ vcg.tc:i.r. rnmrc unity tyn r--r•-r.!. ter. Ic.a 1 I 1 .
of which -NI deny f.,-xi or haS;ln' i-r�-,cr.: . X I I I I
:'.'I I I
•-s�c;c:, nr to o :v5a.nl:al nu.,77-o.`r—,-..7 -
4.3 D;veniry I: there in th.. nf7 ...,' r111 1:!/
a-,
o;reflected in the n,mh,-,and type of n!—t
.pcc;cs p'cscnt or the I I I
of plant yIcc;cs prctcn!? X I I I
I l
I l I
I i I
i I I
• I I l
I I I
a��l vas �,:cis sc1= oc DID-ACT
r10 �t '1 Ir IID YES UNK,Z•7o1
No
� ► Ea 1 I o
21- lei s
1
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES I 1
1 1 (
5-1 Education.] Focilitics `'Jill projecicd enrollments adversely affect the ex— I I
- ist;ng or propascd Focilitics in terms of sooting for I
Gil oct;vitics, including ela,sroom.s, recreational 1 I I
oreos, and sloff;ng needs?
Mll the project imooct the p-ip;l/leaeher ratio so X 1
as to impede the learning process? I I
Is the school located such Ihot it presents a hardship
for o portion cf the enrollment in terms of travel time, X
d;,]once, or safety hazard,?
I I
5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to 1
commercial focil;l;cs for the project? X
5.3 Liquid Wade Dis osal Are provisions for sewage capacity inadequate for
the needs of tha project without exceeding qua!;ty X
,ta nda,d;?
Will the project be ex o nuisances osed to uisces and odors
associated with wastewater treatment plants? X I I t
.5.4 Solid`'lost. Disposal Is them ;nadequato provision for dispo 71 of solid
wastes gencreted by the project? X I I I
5.5 Wotcr Supply Is there inadccsntc quantity or gwliiy of water I X I I
supply to meet tine nccds of:bn projec'?
5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainage be ;Wade=vote to prevent
downstream Heeding and to meet :cdcrpl State and
local standards?
S. Police '„'ill th?project's oddition.l.population, facil;ties, t I I
or other features cenercte en increase in pal;ce serv;cc
or create a police^azard?
' 5.8 Fire Will t!:e p:oiee:'s edd;tionel :epuic:;ors, fee;;sties, I I I ]
or other rea rures generate an increase in ;ire services If I I r
or create afire :^.ozard? ( I
5.? necrration Will :he projec: have inadequate facilities to meet I ( k I
the recreational needs of the residcn;s.
5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural focilities be unavaileblc ro the project I
re si u.ents? X I I I I I
i r it
6.0 TRANS?O.".TATION I X 1 I
6-1 Transportation Feci;;l;es Are 'Esc traffic demands on adjacent roads currently 1 I 1
• at or above capoe;:y? If not, will ;he trcffic hen-
ero!ed by the projec.' ccu:e the cdjocentroads to I ( I
' reoch or exceed c opacity? I I
Are the other transportation facilities w11;ch serve the
project,inadcauate :o aecome.odete the project's X
travel demands? 1 ] 1
6.2 Circulation Conflicts Will design o: rho project or conditions in the surround-
;ng creo ;nuease accidents due to circulation confliC:?I <<I I I
6-3 Road Safety and Des;gn ',V;II project residents and user,be exposed to increased
accident risks dvo to rcadway and street design or lack I i�
of trcffir. controls? I I 1
7.0 HEALTH
X I I I
7.1 Odors Will the projec:be exposed to or generate ony ;ntens-r { I I
odors? I I I
7.2 Crowding and Den,ity the roc;dents and users be exposed .a crowding w _�
high den;i ty in the;r phvs;cal living environmcnt7 I ]
7.7 Nvinncr.s '1/ill Inc projec: be exposed to ar generate factors t'r.
may be considered os nui: nccs? I I 1 1 j
7 ' Structural Softly Vl;ll de,;gn end proposed construct;on rechniq_, fail .. t I
to m.et store end local building codes? X
I I I
3.0 NOISE X I I I
� ( I I
8.1 No; Lcv 1, Will :},e projec be expovsd to r gcn. Ctc.dvarso I I I
noise L:•rr l,?
8.2 V;brotion, srVill the pr-,jc, be cxpo;ed to v nrati ns nnnoying to I 1
hua,an,? I l I
r
CG,\I�Yf�I�I I I �'�� SCr1I E OF Z.i°TACr :
?0 Q2MIFIID YES UNTT`4a•" .,I
NO.
' Iwl Iv
(
9.0 CC),.AmUNITY CHARACTER
' I 1 ► -
9-1 Community 0rgon;zoI;on Will the project diuvpt on existing set of X ► 1 1 .
or n-snizofiom or Groups within fhe community? '
9.2 Flomogcnaity and Diversity Vdill the project change the character of tho
community in terms of disfribution or concentration X I I I
of income, ethnic, housing, or age group?
9-3 Community SlnSility and Will the project be cxposod to or generate on
Physicol Conditions area of poor aebili y enJ pi�,icol carvjitions? e{ I I {
10.0 VISUAL CLEALITY I I 1
10.1 Vie-, Ylill resident:of the surrounding area be odverscly I l
affected by vie+,of or From the project?
Will the project resident:be adversely cficcted by
vj,of or frorn t:^.c surrounding nrco? X
10.2 Shado++-s Ylill the project be exposed to or generate cxce.;ive I I -
- sicdows? I t
11.0 HISTCRIC ANO CULTU Al t - ► -
RESOUZCES 1 l I
11.1 Historic and Culturai Will the project involve !,c destruction or oltcr- 1 1 I
Resources otion of a historic rasourcn?
Will the oroicct ra:ulr in isolation of c historic Y I � ► -
reC-0urce 1,01 i:, SV'rCVndinJ crtvupnment? !
Will the prnj^c--in:rc:::ce p•iYSical, visual, our ible
or atmo:cierie zit^cols th.-arc not in chcrcct cr wifi V I 1 l l �-
a historic resew -e cr i selling? !� I I I
11.2 Arc'oeo!ogicel Sites Vill tie projec: in:'eive tic de::rue:ion or al:crarinn
and Struc!-ca of on ar cbocair-icoi :c::urce?
I ( I
Will the project rc:u!t in isolutinn of an crchocolccicol'
resource?
','Jill :hc projec: prsysicol, vi:uol, eueibla I 1 I
or atno:p'scric eie^.en:s:hn:arc not in choraCCr will 1 I I v
an crc
0 1 1 I i x
ho CcICnical re vrC2 ar it:setting. 1 I i
12-0 ENERGY I 1 1
12.1 Energy Requir^_mama Arc there caten:icl pro supply problems w;th the of X l I 1
energy rcqu ir_d for tise project? 1
Will :hc -:s^r_y rc^.0 iremcntz exceed the cepncity I I I
of the service utility cc..pony? X I
Will there be a r.et incrce:c in energy nod For the
projec: came::cd to the no project olterasa!ive? I Y
12-2 Conservation Mccsurct Dccs the projec:p!onning on.-i dcsirn Fnil to include
ovailp5!c coot y c -_ m;ion mNturr;o ��►�Ia�.►� I x
I 1 l
I I I
13.0 LANG) USE
. X
11.1 Site I==c:cs Do cc 'itions c-'tee site, proposed site develoomcnt, I I {
or surrounding creo uaotc potentially 6c:ordous situ-
chops? — — —'1—L--
13.2 Physical Tnrear. Wil! the projec:or !ht: surrounding ar.:o creole o
of in to eurity and -ysieol threat among the rc:id.nfs �i 1 ( l
and uscn? I 1 I .
I
13.3 Scnitcry LandFill Wit! the projec: to arve'uro! domn.re, I I 1
noi:c, air, or r;rfc cc pollution x I I 1
^r other nui:rrn_-;associe:eJ with a :anitery Icndf�ll
13.4 �'i 111 tii projc- - r . on of sting.r_:cr .,y lhrc Si
fi1:in9,`dredgi_ d:pining, cvlv•_rrinu, vn::c di:- I 1 I
charges, less of visv�i quoCry or ot6.;r land use I 1
I I I
I 1 I
I t I
l i I
l 1
o
LE OF :U-LaACr
N0 QU:ZLI IED YES L
NO I o
I
0 01In
10 0
l I I I
t
. I L
-
' Other Environmental Car.—��ncnts: I I
' I I
• , i
I I
C. I�IANDA GAY FIND OF SIGNIriGL\NCc Iy =D
T,
Y ES
(1 ) Does fine project have the poteni ial to degrade the
quality cc the environment, subsficntially reduce
the habitat of a fish er ,vildliie species, cause e
fish or wildlife population
to drop below selF-
sustnininc levels, threaten fio eliminate a plant X
or animal community, reduce he number or restrict
the rance of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important exc:-nples of fine major periods
or CaliForhia history or prehistory
(2) Does the project hove the potential to achieve short-
term, to fine disadvantage of long-term, environmental '1
gools?
r
(3) Does the project have impacts which ere individually
'
limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project
,
may i,-r.acct on two or more separate resources vmere
the impact on each resource is relatively small, but x
where the eFFecfi o` the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant,)
(4) Does the project, have environmental eFfects which
will ceu_e substantial advers? eFFects on human f:
beings, either directly or indirectly?
7r•a"f'
'. '��-
—r.r-^'�:kn, < ..,rj.4 1''u :try' �.i..i:s..:t3....a+wu•-.+�
�., q ..x '�-
�*l .,`. fi t c'�.v.r�-a•�.>,.,+kL..-i�b:�c.`F--'"
-
p MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitigra'e `'�e signiFicant effects
.. identif led, if any:
E_ DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evcIuation:
The -City of Dub Hw, .. Finds thct there will not be any sicniFicant effect_ 'Ihe par-
~ ' l <; ticuler characteristics of this project and the- mitigation e a s u r e s incorporcted into .
.._-:.i .. ..-. ..
design 0F.tn. factu al a
bsis for the Findi
he project provld,: `h ng_ '.A NEGAIIV� ' , :.
DECLARATION iS 1_QUIRED
kF [ The Ci y of ��t�lir�_IFinds that the proposed project MAY hcve a slgn:rlccnt elect .
.. - - _ T
{ : on the environment. - AN LNVIR0NME�iTAL iM°AC�_ REP0IR IS REQUI .EDT
Signature and date:
Name and fiirle: `- �a , -, �L_ r) 0 ). �4^-ti�t�s bcEcrw_
. I
* .. to an Initial Study so
*7-_NOTE_ .Where a pro-tect is revised in resocns°
nlFlc:�nt e..� !ronmental effects vrould occur, a
r
eFFects are mitigated to a porn: v�nere no sig ,
qc', I �e Declaration will ae requ red iu'ecd of
ANNOTATED COMMENTS :
1 . 6 Flooding - Martin Canyon Creek has flooded recently, adjacent
to this site . However , the flood waters appear to have -gone
northerly and did not inundate the subject site .
3 . 0 Earth - A soils report is necessary in. order to determine. the
soil stability of the site .
4 . 1 Plants and Animal Species - Because of the size . of the site,
its proximity to the .Creek (water) and. a number of .mature fruit
trees , it is reasonable to assume that the " site provides food and .
shelter for several species of animals and birds . Thee :
significance of the loss of this habitat should be limited,..
however .
5 . 5 Water Supply - DSRSD states that the project may pose some
problems for the District because of its fire flow requirement vs .
availability of needed water .
5 . 9 Recreation - One recreation/pool facility is provided for 288
apartment units . Very limited active open space area is provided.
There appears to be a need for additional recreation space within
the project to afford people the opportunity to get out of their
units to recreate .
6 . 0 Transportation - The preliminary traffic analysis for Dublin
Green prepared by Ti-KM cleari_y shows that .this project alone T.:i 11
create substantial traffic problems requiring the revision to
existing, and the construction of new, traffic controls..
The City is currently studying the traffic and design features of
San Rama Road, this information is important. regarding access to
and from the subject site and the project ' s impact on local
intersections .,
8 . 1 Noise. .- Traffic noise may .be loud _enough to negatively affec-t
residents ' in neighboring houses
11 . 0 Historic and Cultural Resources No. information on :
archaeology is currently available
12 . 2 Conservation L•_easures - No information on energy conservation
measures is currently available . Building orientation clearly
shows that energy conservation was not an important consideration
in the siting of the buildings , or in their ( identical ) design .
13 . 2 Physical Threat - Some adjacent neigbors have expressed a
concern regarding the potential for increased robberies due to the
increase in access to their rear yards and a result of this
project .
Mandatory Findings :
Additional information on soils , traffic , water ( fire flow) ,
recreation, energy conservation, archaeology, and security are
needed before a final determination can be made . As the project
now stands , an EIR could be required particularly due to the
traffic impact .
EXHIBIT "C"
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------ -
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 83-004
DUBLIN GREEN
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative
guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and and recommended its adoption
at a public hearing on September 6, 1983 ; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Mitigated
Negative Declaration at a public hearing on September 26, 1983 ;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project, PA
83-004 Dublin Green, has either been changed by the applicant or
the applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures that will
result in a project that will not have any significant
environmental impacts that were identified in the Initial Study;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared
and processed in accordance with State and local environmental
law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and
complete .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS th DAY OF
: 1983
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "D"
ORDINANCE NO.
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING
PA 83-004 DUBLIN GREEN
WHEREAS, Calmet, Inc . , proposes to rezone 13 . 4 acres of
land (APN 941-40-2-5 , 941-40-5-2 , and APN 941-40-8) northwest of
Dublin Blvd . and San Ramon Rd. from (R-S-D-35 ) Residential
Combining District to (PD) Planned Development, in order to build
a 269-unit apartment complex; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Dublin
is in the process of preparing and adopting a general plan, and
that there is reasonable probability that the proposed rezoning
will be consistent with the future general plan; and,
WHEREAS, there ,is little or no probability that the
rezoning will be a detriment to or - interfere with the future -
general plan, should the new zoning ultimately be inconsistent
with the future general plan; and,
WHEREAS, . the City Council finds that the rezoning will
not have a significant environmental impact; and.
WHEREAS, the rezoning is appropriate for the subject
property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in
the area, will be visually attractive, will not overburden public
services , and will provide housing of a type and cost that- is
desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will not have substantial adverse
effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to
the publc welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
approves the Planned Development (PD) rezoning request for a
254-unit residential apartment be approved as shown on the Plans
labelled Exhibit "A" , and subject to the following Conditions :
GENERAL ' PROVISIONS
1 . ' Compliance with the plans contained in Exhibit'."A" and as ,
amended by these- Conditions
2 . Zone "A" , as'-shown on the . Landscape .Plan (S-1) shall contain
no more., than 50 units (a reduction .of .15 units ) and the
units that are adjacent to the Ponderosa::Village shall - be
one . story .high_
3 . Site Development Review approval. by Staff shall be acquired
prior to issuance of any Building Permit . The Site
Development Review shall implement these General Provisions
concerning the physical development of the project and the
related design aspects of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
4 . The maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 254
apartments .
5 . All units shall contain standard and currently available
energy saving devices, and be insulated in accordance with
Title 24 , State of California Administrative Code and
evidence shall. be provided to the Building Official from
P .G . & E . that the units meet P .G . & E. ' s requirements of the
"Energy Conservation Home Program" if it still exists at the
time the units are to be constructed.
6 . Compliance with the City of Dublin Residential Condominium
Development Guidelines ( as amended 3/30/83 ) (optional ) .
7 . Compliance with City of Dublin Site Development Review
Standard Conditions .
8 . Compliance with City of Dublin Police Services Standard
Residential Building Security Requirements _
9 . The property owner is to be responsible for the maintenance
and repair of all buildings , landscaping, roadways and
related improvements .
10 . The property owner is to provide to the City Planning
Department a status report as to the occupancy
characteristics of the development once each year for three
years .
11 . A 6-foot high architecturally designed wall or heavy timber
fence shall be installed along the westerly property line .
In addition, an intensive landscaped buffer, containing fast
growing trees and shrubs , shall be installed within a 20-
foot minimum wide landscaped area to the east of the wall .
The landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an automatic
irrigation system and be maintained by the property owner_
12 . Landscape plans showing substantially more landscaping than .
is .shown on the , Conceptual Landscape Plan, shall be .
submitted to and be approved by the Planning Director prior
to any permits being issued for this project . In general,
six ( 6 ) trees per 1, 000 sq' . ft . of landscaping shall be
shown within all open space/landscaped areas . At least 75%
shall be 15-gal . size .
13 . Light standards shall be used which shield the light source
from view from off-site, and shall not shine onto adjacent
property .
14 . The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor
modifications in the . design, but not the use, may be
approved by Staff . Any other change will require Planning
Commission approval .
15 . Carport columns shall be a minimum 16 ' from the center line
of the adjacent driveway .
16 . . Handicapped ramps and access to each ground floor . unit shall
be provided_ Eight handicapped parking stalls ,
appropriately signed, shall be provided evenly throughout
the project .
17 . Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions (C.C:& R. ' s ) �-or a-,
similar recorded contract shall be established for this
development . The C .C . & R. ' s shall be approved by the
Planning 'Director prior to issuance of building permits _
The C .C . & R. ' s shall be reviewed and approved by the City to
assure, that : .
a . There is adequate provision for at least the
maintenance of all facilities, property and landscaping
including open space, roads , parking, lighting,
recreation facilities , landscape and the exterior of
all buildings ;
b . The property owner shall maintain all facilities in
good repair, including drainage and erosion control
improvements , fences , and landscaping;
C . The property owner shall contract with, or be advised
by a professional management firm, as to how to handle
maintenance operations .
d_ No recreational vehicle or boat may be stored within
this development .
e . The Covenants , Conditions, and Restrictions shall
provide that upon sufficient notice to the property
owner, the serving utilities be authorized to enter any
portions of the units whenever restoration of gas,
electric, and telephone service is required; that the
utilities shall- have the right to install , move, -
remove, or run new lines in or on any portions of the
common area, including the interior and exterior of the
units (except where undergrounding is required by the
Subdivision Ordinance ) as is necessary to maintain
telephone service within the development and that this
provision may not be amended or terminated without the
consent of the utilities .
f Guest parking areas must be identified by signs and the
C .C . & R. ' s shall prohibit the use of these areas by
residents .
g . The C.C . & R. ' s shall include the obligations of the
property owner to be responsible for public liability
in case of injury in connection with public utility
easements, and for maintenance of the private vehicle
access ..ways and utility -trenches _-in public utility
easements They shall further- be void of any mention -
...., ,of .future dedication of the . access way 'to the City as a
public street .
' 18 . After the project- has been completed, and subject. to
observing any minimum and maximum dimensions specified " in
the approved plan:
a . In the common areas, plant materials, arbors, fences,
paving materials, and similar landscape.-features may be
added or replaced, in kind.
b . Any construction, repair or replacement which would
occur in the normal course of maintenance of the common
areas as the project matures may occur subject to the
securing of any permits or paying fees required by
other ordinances .
19 . Heating of the pool shall be by a solar heating system, the
location and design of which will be reviewed as part of the
Site Development Review.
20 . The at-grade patios shall be fenced and landscaped for
privacy of the units _
- .TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. .. . - .
21 . Obtain the right-of-way along Donlon. Way, north of .Dublin
Blvd., and make an offer of dedication .to the- City of Dublin
such that the -existing pavement :will be-widened to 36 feet,
curb to curb; plus, establish an additional - 8-foot wide .
right-of-way strip behind the curb for a possible . side .alk,
and landscaping, which are -to be installed by the adjoining
property owner at such time that 'property. develops .
Construct the street . improvements to the width indicated
above, including curb, gutter, conform paving, and drainage
improvements . Street trees and lighting may also be
required. This condition subject to modification by the City
Engineer.
22 . Pay up to 100% of the cost of installing. a four-way signal
and vehicle detection at Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. as
required by the City Engineer. As other properties that
impact that intersection develop, they will be required to
pay their fair share of the signal installation costs _ Said
monies may be reimbursed--up to SO% of the cost of said
improvements .
23 . Traffic improvements at Dublin Blvd. , and San Ramon Road:
Increase the capacity of the intersection by adding a second
left turn lane for northbound traffic on San Ramon Road.
This will include signal modification, revision to medians,
adjustment of through-lane markings , and possible minor
modification to the westbound on--ramp and off-ramp at the I-
580 interchange . ) As other projects contribute to
improvement of intersection, property owner will be
reimbursed a proportionate share, as determined by City
Engineer .
24 . Traffic Improvements at Amador Valley Blvd. and San Ramon
Rd. :
a . Contribute up to 30% of the cost of modifying the
signals at Amador Valley Blvd. and San Ramon Blvd. to
accommodate the extension of Amador Valley Blvd. to the
Dublin Green property.
b . Install a 26-foot wide extension of Amador Valley Blvd.
from .San .Ramon Rd. ,to a -de-sac -ending at the. Dublin
`Green property. .:.; The "design of the extension shall ,
comply "with :the requirements of the City Traffic
`: Engineering Consultants
1) If the initial 26 feet of roadway is taken
primarily from the Nichandros property, it shall
include curb and gutter, street lights on the north
side, and provision for an additional 5 feet of
right-of-way, for future sidewalk and street trees ,
shall be made .
2 ) If the 26 feet of roadway can be located with 1/2
on the Nichandros property, and 1/2 on the Jeha
property, then temporary asphalt curbing, on both
sides , and. a 4-foot asphalt sidewalk on one side
will be required. The remainder of the
improvements will then be required when the
adjacent property develops .
3 ) Should the necessary 26 feet of right-of-way not be
obtained by the developer for the Amador Valley
Blvd. extension, a cash bond, equal in value to
150% of the value of the land under the roadway,
plus the cost of the - 26 feet of road improvements ,
shall be desposited with the City. The cost to the
City of acquiring the right-of-way may be billed. to
the developer _ This condition subject to
ification .by the City Engineer
mod "
25 : There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department
' requirements, Flood Control District requirements , and
Public Works requirements . .. ..Written :statements from . each
agency approving the plans over which it has jurisdiction
shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to .
'issuance of Building Permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project.
26 . All utilities to and within the project shall be
undergrounded. Common water meters may be used, subject to
review by the City Staff and City Engineer.
27 . Other utilities for each unit shall be individually metered.
All meters shall be screened from view and enclosed by an
enclosure that is compatible in design and materials to that
of the building to which it is installed_
28 . Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary
sewer collection system excluding individual laterals . The
system shall be designed as acceptable to DSRSD_
29 . Developer shall furnish and install signs stating "Not a
Publicly Maintained Street" and "Fire Access - Park in
Designated Locations Only" in right-of-way of private
streets . Parking spaces shall be designated by sign, paint
or equal .
30 . Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable, to the
satisfaction of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire
Department, prior to combustible construction_
31 . Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any units :
a . Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as
approved by the City Engineer .
b . Fire protection devices shall have been installed, be
operable, and conform to the specifications of and
inspections by the Dublin San Ramon Services District
Fire Department : .
c . A 4" high concrete curb (minimum). to separate all paved
parking .and passageway areas from landscaped areas
shall have.`been .installed:''.. Curbs may be deleted where
a sidewalk adjoins parking and passageway. ' provided the
sidewalk is ' at' least 4 " higher than adjoining. pavement .
d. Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit.
e . As-built drawings showing the locations of all
underground utilities (water, storm and sanitary sewer,
gas , electric, telephone, and cable TV) shall be
provided to the City.
f . Street name signs , bearing such names as are approved
by the Planning Director, shall have been installed.
32 . Prior to occupancy of any unit each phase of . development,
landscaping, irrigation, fencing, and landscape lighting in
accordance with approved landscape and erosion control
plans , shall have been installed, or a bond or letter of
credit equal to the cost plus 10% of the landscaping,
lighting, appurtenant structures, and irrigation system
shall be provided to the City. A statement from the
Project Landscape Architect certifying that landscaping has
been installed under his/her supervision and is in
accordance with approved plans shall be submitted to the
Building Official and Planning Director .
33 . Private Vehicle Accessways :
a. Backfill of all utility trenches and pavement design in
private vehicle access way areas is to meet standards
for public streets .b . The developer is to covenant and
be responsible for the maintenance of all facilities in
the private vehicle access way which are not maintained
by a public utility agency:
C . The connection between the private vehicle access way
and the public street is to be by a standard driveway
type of connection . Driveway throat width (at back of
sidewalk) shall be the same as the vehicle access way_
d. Safety lighting is to be provided on private vehicle
access way and on pedestrian-way facilities connecting
thereto . Lights shall utilize "vandal resistant"
enclosures , and shall have sufficient power and spacing
to provide an average maintained foot candle level of
0 . 12 . Uniformity ration and increased lighting level
at entrance shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Planning Director .
34 . Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is
specified in Section 8-31 . 2 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance .
35 . As part of the submittal for a grading plan, the developer ' s
engineer shall field survey Martin Canyon Creek and perform
hydrologic calculations indicating the capacity of the Creek . -
Should the Creek not handle the .100-year I storm flow,
improvements shall be designed so that this capacity is met,
with an effort to maintain the natural appearance of the
Creek . In addition, finished floor elevations of the units
along the Creek shall be set so that if the Creek becomes
blocked, . the storm waters will flow onto San Ramon Road
before water would enter the residential units .
36 . Th,e following Creek setbacks shall be adhered to:
a. For existing banks of 2 : 1 slope (horizontal over -
vertical ) or steeper, the setback is established by
drawing a line at 2 : 1 slope from the toe of the existing
bank to a point where it intercepts the ground surface
and then adding 20 feet_
b . Where- the existing bank is 2 :1 -or flatter, the setback
shall be 20 feet from the top of the bank_
The following information shall be provided .to determine an
adequate setback from the creek and for the required hydrologic
calculations :
a_ The precise location, both horizontal and vertical,
of the Creek centerline and toes and tops of both sides
of the creek_ .
b . Cross sections of the Creek at intervals acceptable
to the City. Sections at 100 ' intervals are typical ;
more frequent sections may be required.
37 . The developer ' s engineer shall develop the expected truck
length and turning radius criteria to use the private streets
(delivery, .garbage moving trucks , etc . ) and design the curb
radii accordingly and submit this data and design criteria
with the improvement plans .
38 . Wheel stops within the project shall be the curb at the end
of the parking stalls wherever possible . Where freestanding
wheel stops are necessary, concrete stops shall be used.
39 . on-site circulation shall be constructed to private vehicle
accessway standards as acceptable to the City Engineer. -
40 _ Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of
base materials , all underground utility mains shall be
installed and service connections stubbed out beyond curb
lines . Public utilities and sanitary sewers shall be
installed in a manner which will not disturb the street
pavement, curb, and gutter when future service connections or
extensions are made .
41 . Prior to filing for building permits , precise plans and
specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage
( including size, type and location of drainage facilities
both on- and off-site) and erosion and sedimentation control
shall be submitted and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer .
42 . 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 and shall be
accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to
the safety of the site from hazards of erosion, settlement
and seismic activity .
43 . Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas , concrete swales ,
- other approved dissipating devices , or tied into the storm
drain system.
44 . Dust control measures , as approved by the City Engineer,
shall be followed at all times during grading and
construction operations .
45 . Construction and grading operations shall be limited to
weekdays (Monday through Friday) and the hours from 7 : 00 a.m.
to 6 : 00 p.m. , except as approved in writing by the City
Engineer .
46 . Developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways -_-
free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris and
clean up shall be made during the construction period, as
determined by the City Engineer.
47 . a. Prior to commencement of any structures : Grading must
conform with the recommendations of -the soils engineer
to the - satisfaction of the' City Engineer. : A declaration
by: the soils engineer that he has supervised grading and
that such conformance has ".occurred shall be submitted.
b. Prior .to final inspection of buildings : The. following
shall have been submitted to the City Engineer:
1) 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 .
2 ) A complete record, including location and elevation
of all field density tests , and a summary of all
field and laboratory tests .
3 ) 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.
48 . , Prior to any grading of the site, a: detailed construction
grading plan ( including phasing) , drainage, water quality,
erosion and sedimentation control plans for construction and
the post-construction period shall be prepared by the
Project .Civil Engineer and%or .Engineering, Geologist, and
shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall
include .detailed design, location, , and maintenance criteria
of all erosion and sediment control . measures .. The plans
shall attempt .to insure .that no . increase in -sediment ° or
pollutants from ,the site .will occur. --: The'.plan shall provide
for. long-term maintenance all ;permanent erosion and
sediment control measures
49 . Prior to final inspection of buildings, the developer shall
grade the site, install landscaping, soil erosion,
sedimentation and drainage control measures, and improve all
streets and easements, as shown or indicated on Exhibit "A" ,
and these conditions .
50 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction
debris, and materials on site until disposal off-site can be
arranged. The developer shall be responsible for corrective
measures at no expense to the City.
51 . Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District in accordance with
present standards . Provide a raised blue reflectorized
pavement marker in private vehicle accessways at each fire
hydrant .
52 . If during construction, archaeological remains are
encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted,
an archaeologist consulted, and the 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.
53 . Sidewalks shall be installed to assure that pedestrians can
walk within the project without having to walk down the
private vehicle accessways, as acceptable to the City
Engineer .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of
1983 -
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor .
ATTEST:
City Clerk .
Morgan D. Howell, Inc.
Morgan D. Howell, A.I.A.
Architects and Planners -
1625 B Street
Hayward
California 94541
4151582.3919
August '16; 1983
4
Mr Laurence L ' .Tong
Planning :Direct or
' Cit oDublin ' 4
P.Oy Box 2340
Dublin,'
94568 '
Ref Dublin Green Apartments
Dear Mr. Tong,
We are enclosing a revised set of drawings including
statistical data, dated August 16 , 1983. The revisions
were made in response to the discussion we had with
you and Arnie Hollander.
We have adhered to the City of Dublin Condominium Guidelines .
including storage, deck and patio area requirements.
We would like approval from the Planning. Commission
and -the City Council to. be . able to„ convert .the apartment:
project to condominium .units .after a period of seven
years. We agree not to .attempt to convert the apartments
to condomi.niums. for. the seven year period.
Uery truly yours,
:Iv10RGAN D I30�7ELL INC
By: r�organ D .°"Ho , AIA
President
RZ E C E 1 V E D
AUG 18 '1983
DUBLIN PLANNING
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Bos 2340 � ��✓� �'�G\
Dublin. CA 94565 (4 15) 829-4000
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS Date : March 3 , 1983
FILE N Dublin Green ,Apartment`P D.• Rezoning
TO: Angelo Isquierdo; ACFC
FROM .:Larry_ Tong, ': Planning Director
ATTACHED FOR YOUR REVIEW ARE :
1 . A c'omplete' :-set of plans - ( See attached letter.-from Larry
Tong .
PLEASE COMMENT AS NECESSARY AND RETURN THIS FORM TO DUBLIN
PLANNING BY: March 15 , 1983 .
COMMENTS :
NO REVIEW NECESSARY AT THIS TIME
COMMENTS AND .SUGGESTIONS ATTACHED :
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHED
:. OTHER:
f� ECE � y
ED
1�1AR 01083
DUBLIN PLANNING
• r =te
I.A.C. JOB No -
5
ASSIG",'LO T 0.
W.0. °, — —
FEE:
RECEIPT No. YES �j NO
AP 2-8, 1982 Tract 5047 - -
;. Zone 7 Line J-2 & J-3
OUSAMA WAR, ASSISTANT DE DIRECTOR-ROADS
ANDELO ISQU S CHIEF NTER-AGENCY COORDINATION SECTION
TENTATIVE TRACT 04 7
Referent s made to the despondence, dated April -20, 1982 from _
County Planning omitting Tentative for Tract 5047 located west of San ..
Ramon Road a north of Dublin Eoulevar fir,, he subdivision consists of.
approximat .13.5 acres, containing .145 c " inium units This matter was
previous reviewes 'as Tract 4347.
There are no major drainage diversions contemplated for this tract..
Upon construction, this tract will intercept drainage from an adjoining
area of approximately 139 acres. -The runoff from this area concentrates in a
48-inch RCP through the southerly part of the tract.
Our records indicate that this site is not located near or within a cD
"Special Flood Hazard Area" as defined by the Flood Insurance Administration. Z
The existina storm-drainage facilities pertinent to Tract 5047 consistD
of a 48-inch RCP along the southerly boundary line (District's Line J-2, Zone
No. 7 Project) and a small area draininq to Martin Creek along the northerly P W
boundary line (District's Line J-3, Zone No. 7 Project) .
E M
,.:
=.i . The 75 year design water surface elevation is. approximately 374 fee -_,
abov --mean sea level in the 48 inch RCP near the south4e-st corner of the sit A E M
The proposed curb elevations should be not less than 1 .25 feet above the hy- E N G
draulic grade _:line and. at no point should the curb .grade be below the energ
grade 1 i_ne. W R P
It is not possible to adequately review the on-site drainage with `t
information available at.this time. It will be reviewed when' a detailed gra ing '
and drainage plan with hydraulic .calculations is submitted.. -:, I A C
It is suggested that the following items concernina storm drainage
considered: :.
(1� If it is the intent of the developer'to leave this reach of the B U S
channel in-"its natural state; we will require his engineer to demonstrate wi I h F I S
current field data and hydraulic calculations that the existing trek k can ad -
quately pass the 100-year flow. Should the creek be inadequate, certain IMPT
0 F S
ments may be required.
FILE
Ousama H. Kawar
April 28, 1982
Page Two
2> An adequate setback from the creek should be provided. If the
existing anks are 2:1 slope or steeper, the setback is established by drawing .
a line at 2:1 slope from the toe of the existing bank to a point where it
intercepts the ground surface and then adding 20 feet.' . Where the top of bank
is poorly defined or the bank slope is steeper than 2:1 , the setback should be
20 feet on both sides from the intersection of a 2:1 slope drawn fromthe toe
of bank and the elevation of surrounding ground.;,- ".-
(3j The following information should be provided to_determine an ade-
quate setback from the creek and for the required hydraulic 'calculations:
A. precise location, both horizontal and vertical , of the
creek centerline.
B. Cross sections of the creek at intervals acceptable. to the
District. Sections at 100' intervals are typical ; more
frequent sections may be required.
4. No surface runoff will be allowed to flow over the existing creek
bank. Any on-site storm drainage system that will be .connected to the creek
should use the District's Standard Lateral Pipe Entry; Type II (SF 605) .
5. Adequate provisions for silt and erosion control in both construction
and post construction phases of development should be provided in accordance with
applicable portions of Alameda County Ordinance .No. 82-17.
6. Grading is to be done in accordance with grading, erosion and, sedi-
mentation control plans approved by the County (ACFC&WCD) ,�,. '� ,
1 v\+\ �l l� %�
7. It should be noted on the plans that:
•�,,;r; An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Alameda County Flood
c.� 'Control and Water Conservation District prior to the commencement of any work within
District right of way and for the oonstruction, modification, or connection to
L C1 i a ry 1s} es �t . L ,-,S n`n� pr.-7e and m.-teria!s chalk
�s�rict-m:�in tai ci i�_, . I1 -..,,c-, ?,T.,-:-, hip, ,.. .� ,
con`orm to District .standards and specifications.
88) This office recommends th-.t all storm drains be no less than 12" A n
diameter to minimize maintenance problems.
9. All paved slopes should be'at a minimum of 0.5%.
�10 Do not augment or concentrate the runoff to the adjacent properties
to the east and south.
' J
Ousama H. Kawa.r
April 28, 19082 _
Page Three
11) Roof drains should empty onto paved areas where possible.
12. Any water well , cathodic protection well , or exploratory boring
that:is' shown on this map,--.,is. known to exist, is proposed, .or_.is located during
the course of .field operations must be properly destroyed,' backfilled, or main-
"' tained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. The .,..
.. .owner. or other responsible party should call Zone 7, 443 79300 for additional
information. ,,-,,,.--
�3J This area is within Special Drainage Area 7-1 and is subject to the-
conditions of. District- Ordinance No. 53. Any applicable conditions of said ordi
nance will ' be imposed'. at the time of issuance of building permits.
14. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on this site, this
office should be afforded the opportunity to review detailed grading and drainage „
plans with hydraulic calculations.
By l� J
RALPH JOHNSON
INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION SECTION
RXe
Assoc.
1
c �
�& �'��� Ll %.,[ _ it i_ i I �.i=fL;la
T-
Q {:
PLANTING 'LEGEND
.1 EVERGREEN TREES SHRUBS °
...•. GROUND COVERS ~ 11
J DECIDUOUS TREES - - ,',q/ •tl `N •• ,�\ ` °
C� �J / J`w '•`,r (`(`(`••111JJJ��� �ilUUU111
`� Y`:•.=1_ EXIBTINO TREED
of,
`
rj
�' � ��� t.,��9�'�.-! � t1�;e,�-!`� ,'�(•♦ �-�}.-,-.�� r' . .,,,.rte; � 'y •
• V t`,'�f_ 1'r\i�� � '• '�: r,^,1'•`,c �r�,•+•./ Ord"' "i`h"�•:,�, l_ JI =, /1�I �"'. '(,.\� .ly.r I• , ^
il • C} 3 '
✓ti/. �.lv .. 6z,. (',•I!� _):J''� r j !,1 S''' •��c,j•.� 1/• .<•-.:7�/�'�•' ) •�y `��^-�� C) iC
•� QJ�'r: 'r � �-2......-� _ n/yq '`I�''ran,r- : '•:mil y�`` r.. -. L C'r- • •�/ .�
�'l• _ �. ��I .�f 4.R^:.r•. A .yea �. ,_
. � U �,JI)• •7 � •\.� �ti �,�1 1. 'rrr,. J..'+_l� "''' ,�•y,t�',�. (.l '�L•�. E� .J��• �. �'IJ•. .�'..•.. � -- -
;, ice^ ,,.�,...,-.:.�-- _ ._' 66N � ,.. ,: .'_ .ter c'r•, s U
o ';v r,')I � r 1l ��`i f^r?-,..� •� . ''•'•� ���':�, °,�"�-".:rt�� I` _!J. 1 � �dl- ,.' ... ..: I t
-
ua
_ _ _ __• —
f
l � 17
Vl1:i:J�v✓' \''�� :.1..��`..i�J'r_/�i1n�___. :<-�%:�.%I1.�.`i .. 'r�.-�—•: r .. _ _ !!��
�`JJI�
{� 'gyp {�q ip*.a-�' a�y .
`�a� n }'oao Yl t SAN, fi ii d� h7 CY vt�' '3 V I n.s '. V 1 ++9 m L :+,'.✓ �„+T�7 � I �
General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 (415) 828-0515
March 4 , 1983
Z.
Mr . Larry Tong , Planning Director
City , of :Dublin .
P . : O. ".Box 2340
Dublin; CA 94568
RE: PA 83-004
Dear Larry: .
The proposed conversion to a 288 unit apartment complex
. . does pose some problems in terms of the District ' s ability
to meet fire flow demands for the project . The greater
density and type of building will make a significant
difference in water supply requirements over the previous
proposed development .
Creegan & D 'Angelo ' s staff has been meeting with us on
potential solutions to this problem, .which may involve
tying the loop system into more than two points on the
existing system. Because , the plans do not clearly .
delineate the sewage and water systems , it is difficult to
make a detailed analysis until amore definitive plan is .
presented .
We look ,forward to reviewing this project. in detail with
the developer , and reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
.. yours ,
, . :. .: , .• Very truly- you
Miles A. Ferris
Director of Public
Works
MAF: cb
`? E C E I V E D
enc .
HAR X983
cc: Emil Kattan
DUBLIN pLANNING
A POLITICAL SUEOIVISION OF Tt,E STATE OF CALIFORNIA - PROVIOES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITlZE�13 C=-VAC-OR-L0;E-=%Q.qE<.::C e. •=L�JCN JAL_c•S
AL.AAIEDA ANO CONTRA COSTA CGLNTIES. "
( � •
DUBLIN bAN RAMON SERVICLS DISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION
9399 Fircrest lane 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone:
San Ramon, California Dublin, California 94566 829-2333
May 24, 19S3
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
;City 'of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340 -
Dublin,' CA 94568
Dear Larry:'.,..
7.
I-'liave revfe d, the plans received.from you in regard to the proposed
Dublin Green apartment complex.' _
The 'DutTin San Ramon Services District Fire Department will require a
number -of on-site fire hydrants, and/or wharf .hydrants (information on
wharf hydrants enclosed) . Wharf hydrants would be needed 'in common
areas of buildings 15, 16, 17 and 18. Hydrants would be required along
the driveway every 300' . of travel, with curbs painted red in front of
each hydrant.
Accessibility for Fire Department apparatus must have an unobstructed
width of 20' and a similarly unobstructed vertical clearance of 1316".
Smoke detectors shall be installed in all units, including recreation
buildings, laundries, etc. Fire extinguishers shall- be installed in
the courtyard area of each building.
A numbering of each building and unit shall be highly visible from the
street fronting the building. Said nLmlbers shall contrast with their
background. Additionally, a directory system for the complex .shall be —
installed at 'each entrance. .
If security gates are installed, at least 12 clearance must.be-.available
for Fire apparatus to gain:entry. ,' Knox Company key-operated switches, .
keyed to this Fire Department 's, code,. shall be installed for'.access
through the gates.
If you have any-questions ' please, contact me.
V r truly yours,
//_"James M. Morton
Captain, Fire Department
J\L\'(:cb RECEIVED.
cc: Emil Kattan
fA AY 2 6 1983
August 31 , 1983
DUBLIN GREEN
Dublin, CA.
Justification & Description of Project
Housing is now recognized by Federal , State and local
governments as one of the most serious social/economic
issues '-to-.be addressed in the 1.9801s.
F0r.' the last 5 years, the 'housing production has fallen
far.. short of _the need for affordable housing. New
rental units have been practically non-existent ; because
of. high .cost of financing, ; density restrictions,'
low rents and high land costs so that investors from
.the .private -sector have been discouraged from building
them:' Some of these constraints have been alleviated
so there is a possibility of support. for private
financing of rental housing. A very serious housing
"crunch" for single working persons , starting family
units and seniors . now exists.
The 650 businesses in Dublin have many employees who
have to commute for long distances and the young adults
in families have not been able to "move out" to
suitable housing in .Dublin. The situation in the
area will only get worse as new businesses, offices
and manufacturing companies come into the Tri-Valley.
Even now the rental housing in Dublin is critical with
zero vacancy and long waiting lists. 60 units of the
Greenwood Apartments have already been approved for
condo-conversion. . There is definitely a need for
more rental housing in Dublin; and Dublin Green will
provide needed apartments for present ,and future tenant
occupancy within the city:
A1so , .theDublin Green development will serve as a
residential transition between - existing `ccmmercial '
and apartments ;.on .the - southern 'and .e astern boundaries .
of the project •and .the single .family dwellings 'to the
west.
' .Dublin..Green has been designed with less density (17. 5
units per acre) adjacent to Ponderosa Village than on
the remainder of the site (21 units per acre) . The _
overall density is 20. 1 units per acre. Also , the two
story units that would have views of the back yards of
the Ponderosa homes have been replaced with one story
buildings. A- buffer consisting of evergreen -trees and
shrubs will -reduce the visual impact from Ponderosa homes.
The exterior walls of the existing Ponderosa homes adjacent
to Dublin Green are void of windows except for three homes
at the north end of the site. The Dublin Green buildings
have been moved even further from the property line at
these three homes .
DUBLIIT GREEN
SITE DATA
SITE AREA 583, 704 SF 13.4 AC
BUILDING COVERAGE '-. 153, 513 SF 26. 3p
PAVED AREA 14"6,103 SF 25%
:. LANDSCAPED OPEN AREA 303,,968 SF' 52;b
. .( incl. .- Decks x 2)
DENSITY ZONE "A" — 65 UN/3. 71 AC 17.5 UN/AC
ZONE "B" — 204 UN/9 . 69 AC 21.0 UN/AC
TOTAL SITE - 269 UN/13 .4 AC 20.1 UN/AC
PARKING - CARPORTS 269
OPEN STALLS - C014PACTS 121 .( 22. 5ia)
- 14-LITDICAPPED 3
- S TANDA:D 14 5
TOTAL PARKING 538 STALLS
BUILDING DATA
Type Area No. of Un. . Total Area
BR,'..1B F
669 . S x 39 47
59
1.:•SF..
"B",*
B" 1 BR,' 1B 644 SF a; 46 29 , 624 SF
alcil 2 BR,' 1B .....786 SF, x 6 ' 36,156 °SF
"D 2BR/Den', 1B 752 SF '-x 118 = 88, 736 SF
TOTAL UNITS '269 193,987 SF
LAUNDRY RO.MLS 1,299 SF
OFFICE , RECREATION & STORAGE 1,872 872 SF
TOTAL 197,158 SF
Morgan D. Howell; Inc.
Morgan D. Howell, A.I.A.
Architects and Planners
1625 B Street
Hayward
California 94541
4151582-3919
august 16; _1983 J.
PIr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director.
City. of Dublin .
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 .
Ref: . Dublin Green Apartments
Dear Mr. Tong ,
vie are enclosing a revised set of drawings including
statistical data, dated August l6 , 1903. The revisio ns
vle_e made in response to the - discussion we had wi to
you and A-nie F?ollander. .
lie have adhered t0 the City of Dublin Coidominluiu Guydelzr_°s
including storage, deck and patio area requirements.
y%e would lice approval. from the Planning Commission
and the,.City Council to be .able to convert the apar�u�en .
project. to: condominium units ' after, a period of seven
-years. . : 11e agree. not to attempt. to convey L. the agar rents
' to .condominiums .for. .'Ehe seven year-.period.
Very -truly :.yours`,
MORGAN D .HOWEE LL, RN �
By: Morgan D. Howeil, AIA
President
'.� FCLiVED
AUG 1983
UUBUN PI-ANNING
• (- C 275 .
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340 �. � `� �' (aIS) 539-4600
Dublin, CA 94568
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS Date : March 3 , 1983
FILE N ° a Dublin':Green Apartment P .D Rezoning
TO: - Angelo Isquierdo, ACFC
FROM: Larry Tong,'. Planning Director
ATTACHED FOR YOUR REVIEW. ARE :
1 : A complete set of plans . ( See attached letter from Larry
Tong
PLE _SE COMMENT AS NECESSARY AND RETURN THIS FORM TO DUBLIN
PLANNING BY : March 15 , 1983 .
COMMENTS :
NO REVIEW NECESSARY AT THIS TIME
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ATTACHED
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS -
0 OF APPROVAL ATTACHED
THER :
RECEI' yE.
1983
CUBLIN PLANNING
I.A.C. JOB
ASSIG",'E�? T�• L
W.O. ►so.
FE-
RECEIPT No ❑ ►ES
�_. Ei'rlo
f
AP 2.8, 1982 Tract 5047
Zone 71ine J-2 & J-3
OUSAMA WAR, ASSISTANT DE DIRECTOR-ROADS
ANDELO ISQU 0, CHIEF LATER-AGENCY COORDINATION SECTION
TENTATIVE :TRACT. 047 ;
Reference s made to the zr-espondence; dated 'April 20,' 1982 from
County Planning bmitting Tentative for.Tract 5047 located west of San
Ramon Road, a north of. Dublin Boulevard' ^ he subdivision consists
approximat 13.5 'acres, containing 145 'c ium units.-,This matter was
previcu reviewed as Tract 4347. .
There are no major drainage diversions contemplated for this tract.
Upon construction, this tract will intercept drainage from an adjoining
ares of approximately 139 acres. The runoff from this area concentrates in a
4S-inch RCP through the southerly part of the tract.
Our records indicate that this site is not located near or within a o
"Special Flood Hazard Area" as defined by the Flood Insurance Administration.
The existina storm-drainage facilities pertinent to Tract 5047 consists
of a 48-inch RCP along the southerly boundary line (District's Line J-2, Zone. U P
No. 7 Project) and a small area draining to Martin Creek along the northerly
boundary line (District's Line J-3 , Zone No. 7 Project) _ E M
The 15 year design water surface elevation is approximately .374 _fee q E M
above mean sea level in the 48 inch RCP near .the southtirest corner'.of . ?�e sit
The proposed curb, elevations should be .not less than.1 .25...feet above the`hy- E Id G
draul.ic . grade -_line and at no .point should the curb grade be below the energ �----
grade Iine.
W,R P
It is not possible. to adequately review the on=site drainage with t iC M
information available at this time. it ,wiII" be reviewed when a detailed_gr.a ing : �--=
; and ;drainage plan with hydraulic calculations.-is submitted I A C '
It is .suggested "that the following items concerning storm .drainage
R E
considered:
"1 > If it is the intent of the developer to leave. this reach of the
channel in- its natural state, we will require his engineer to demonstrate witF I S
current field data and hydraulic calculations that the existing crk can ad E-
quately pass the 100-year flow. Should the creek be inadequate, certain imp e 0 F S
ments may be required.
FILE
Ousama H. Kawar
April 28, 1982
Page Two
C2> An adequate setback from the creek should be provided. If the
e
xisting banks are 2:1 slope or steeper, the setback is established by drawing
,
a line at 2:1 slope from the toe of the existing bank to a point where it
intercepts the ground surface and then adding 20 feet. :. Where the top of bank .
is ;poorly`•defined or the bank slope is steeper than 2:1 , the setback should be
':.•20'.feet .on both -sides from the intersection of a ,2:1 slope drawn fromthe toe
of bank and the ',elevation of surrounding ground.' ...
3> {The following information should be provided to determine an ade
..f -
quate sett�ackrom the creek and for the required hydraulic calculations:
A. The precise location, both horizontal and .vertical , of the
creek centerline.
B. Cross sections of the creek at intervals acceptable to the-
District. Sections at 100' intervals are typical ; more
frequent sections may be required.
4 . No surface runoff will be allowed to flow over the existing creek
bank. Any on-site storm drainage system that will be connected to th.. creek
should use the District's Standard lateral Pipe Entry, Type II (SF 60a) .
5. Adequate provisions for silt and erosion control in both construction
and post construction phases of development should be provided in accordancE with
applicable portions of Alameda County Ordinance No. 82-17.
6.* Grading is to be done in accordance with grading, erosion and. Sedi
-
mentation control plans approved by the County
7 It should be noted on the plans that:
r.• An 'encroachment pe rmit snail .be obtained from the Alameda County Flood
Control and .Water Conservation District ..prior. to the commencement .of -any work within
.`�•;,�� District right 'of..way and for:the construction, modification, or- connection .to
-,o„uipment� and .materials shall
Cistrict-maintained aci . ..i �_ P, �, .�,:_ .
f
conform to District standards and specifications.
8. This office .recorrrriends thr.t all storm drains be no less than 12" in
t_"
diameter to minimize maintenance main problems.
9. All paved slopes should be at a minimum of 0.51.
10) Do not augrr�-_nt or concentrate the runoff to the adjacent properties
to the east and south.
Ousama H. Kawar
April 28, 1982
Page Three
11� Roof drains should empty onto paved areas where possible.
12. Any water well ,'"cathodic protection well " or exploratory boring
that is shown on this map, is known to exist,' is proposed, or-.is located during
the course of field operations must be properly destroyed, backfilled, .or main-
tained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances." . The`
owner or other responsible party should call Zone 7,.443-9300 for additional '
information. .
(13) This area is within Special Drainage Area 7-1 and is subject to the
conditions of District- Ordinance No. 53. Any applicable conditions of said ordi-
nance will be imposed' at the time of issuance of building permits.
(14� Prior to the issuance of any building permits on this site, this
office should be afforded the opportunity to review detailed grading and drainage
plans with hydraulic calculations.
By
RALPH JOHNSON
INTER-AGENCY C00RDI HAT I0N SECTION
RJ: emr
cc: TO im
ku no & Assoc.
Aone 7
J� C
PLANTING LEGEND _ -
(v �!
SHRUUS EVERGREEN TREE I -
. �� ^ ..:`I - •.' OROUNO COVI3R9
OEGIOUO U9 TRECO .._ .... ... _ C•l,V" �. .. I�.. i; ) `� ) 9
- / �- - ....._._ ..�.. .. .. • IV_ {ham t7 Q
E%IBTINO TPEE9 • /, '/� Y �—� �-./{J— Q �❑ ,',... _\ r V
It
ir-
� II ML,�• r J �� � S 1 � �� l�
' ;`:r_ /,�•y��• •j..- ,' ,� a��1 o-'Mr. � /-.. •m✓.�i••vL(�••�. �.'~� (�'� �'•-;,_ ��,I'•:j�• ^�� �'- � •-� i
�� �,:.,.. .•'i/�J /•�• ( IU✓ Q�(••I �'j „I�'•.-,,.,.' •a�,,., '! lrr..__ �,�, /,�! �.-•,,._ ,�'`: :r� [. _'t;1� •��' � ��� c. 3 '�
,. Ur �'..r' /�' �, *� , }.•. , . ..,I'°'��^',4 1��,��;' SS�_.' i� •.td•• Il�' (7-(;_•�,�,=.��� ,� �'r''w.7-P _�`i r '� ��; ) �I
..ll \'•,. @ �.i,--9 "Sr•'�S_N'J .J. y' '�h.•rt.
' `)'x'•.1.5,. �- ,� '°'7'•�''•• ] �1� ,f;•.0 �'�.., .lr .w �,•;' J• ��� ..�'' �.�. '�'
�� �� �/`��`-,!:Jill -.p/\,n -rtoi.��. {-• �� (•- �'Y`!n� .�. r,l' ����•; •�. , 1'. lr`��. .'
C� \ l �.l _• 1..ice, _ ��.. ! J. �e..,r p i .
-1 �?-J •Y'���� _ I. ICI, �"`.ti.A^':,�. !' iJ•rf' .. l','�.1-;-�L i •�+�•.
{JV ^) 75{`'�.. r� r��,C �I^„�;11,'J (..1�� „n/ Yr.� rJ h~d� •'1� ..�. E •J^°( .' I� U -
5:J 4 l��".� "=U'�° •A�— �?•1'I.!J"V1��I. `��: } I�' - rt. 1, Z-�• °
�•'I � .• ��..LS� JJ�
U)Cc
� r
t
n -/ fir .r• rlo.;J�. ' ' -7-
\_ ,•l /,.� J �
CL
p
• .��•- :^1w;:.✓u.:Y1 i.�••-�•;v �'fs%.i.i:. �M_. '� SS1 -,.�'•, '•'.,t!'\:.-c:c-.+ .'�..'�`.�-.v.._�•-<.�•:�-�•°"c v' -w�?.•.�- I N, s
I Q)J!
k I
ra
r u'T ti,^3 �•' ' nw lu
a B 'I' �,Ml S �J n
General Gffices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 9-'568 (415) 828-0515
= March 4 , 1983:
Mr Larry Tong,, Planning Director
`. City of `Dublin
P . 0 .- Box 2340
Dublin; CA 94568
RE: ' PA- 83-004
Dear Larry:
The proposed conversion to a 288 unit apartment complex
rr does pose some problems in terms of the District ' s ability
to meet fire flow de:zands for the project _ The greater
density and type of building will make a sicnificant
difference in water supply requirements over the previous
proposed development .
Creegan & D 'Angelo ' s staff has been meeting with u5 on
potential solutions to this problem, which may involve
tying the loop system into more than two points on the ,
existing system. Because the plans do not clearly
delineate the sewage and water systems ,-- it is difficult to
make a detailed . anal_ysis. .until a more definitive plan .is .
presented .
.i•':::; `` We look forward to reviewing thisprojec .in detail with
the developer , and reaching a satisfactory- conclusion
..` , _
truly your s
Miles A. Ferris
Director of Public
Works .
MAF : cb
E C E I V E D
enc .
H1"kR - i983
cc : Emil Kattan
iUBLIN pL ,�i?�ING
A POLITICAL SUCOIVICIQN 0V'TF•c STATE OF CAI.IFOANIA • 7TIOVIDES MUNICIP<L TY?E SEF1v;CE3 T.7 C:-�=E'IS.- --O=•�::--.'!C�=�::- �-•.n-n:�___
DUBLIN 5AN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEAOOLIARTERS STATION
9399 Fircrest Lane 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone:
San Ramon, Calitornia Dublin, California 94566 829-2333
May 24, 19S3
Mr. . LarryTong, Planning Director
City _of Dublin .
P.` 0. Box 2340 :.
Dublin, CA 94568 .. .
Dear Larry:
I- h7ive ,rev i'et�ed, the plans received from you in regard to the proposed
Dublin Green apartment complex.
The D-ub7lin San Ramon Services District Fire Departme-at will require a
number of on-site fire hydrants, and/or wharf hydrants (information on
wharf hydrants .enclosed) . . Wharf hydrants would be needed in common
areas of buildings 15, 16, 17 and 18. Hydrants would be required along
the driveway every 300' of travel, with curbs painted' red in front of
each hydrant.
Accessibility for Fire Department apparatus must have an unobstructed
width of 20' and a similarly unobst=cted vertical clearance of
Smoke detectors shall be installed in all units, including- recreation .
buildings, laundries, etc. Fire extinguishers shall be installed in
the courtyard area of each building.
A numbering of each building and unit shall be highly visible from the
street fronting the building. Said numbers shall contrast with their
background: Additionally, a directory system for the; complex shall be
installed at each entrance..
If security gates are installed, at least 12' c1eara-�ce must be available
for Fire -apparatus- to gain .entry. Knox Company key-operated switches, .
keyed to this Fire Department 's code, .shall. be installed for access-
through-the gates.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
V truly yours;
James v 1. Morton
Cautain, Fire Department
JKM:cb 1� ECEIYED:
cc: Emil Kattan
lh AY 2 G 1983
4 - requested clarification of requirement for f e
hydrants for buildings already in exista e ;
requested extension to 5 years .
The Commission s agreed that Conditions of A roval should be
revised as follows
Item ''la : 0. parking stalls . quired; •
2a: ad "A 'perfo ance bond or ;letter of 'intent
may b subm' ted for approval by the City
:Engine •.. .. : .
6 : exte the proval period is 5 years, until
Se ember 16 , 988
Cm. Mack made the tion, with Cm_ Vo eeder ' s second, to adopt
the Resolution A roving PA 83-039 , subj -t to revised Conditions
of Approval _ e motion passed 4-1, with Petty opposed:
RESOLUTION 83-013
APD_ OVING PA 83-029 OAKMONT MEMORIAL PARK CONDIT -AL USE
PER T TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A MORTUARY IN AN AREA D* IGNATED
it is
PA 83-004 DUBLIN GREEN
REZONING
Mr -. .Tong introduced item, which is an. application . for a Planned
Development rezoning to allow a 269-unit apartment complex on a
13 . 4 acre site .. ( 20 dwelling units per .acre : ) He noted several _
technical revisions- to the.' General Provisions provided .in the
.:...-draft .Resolution labelled.•"Exhibit D" , as _ follows
Item. . 2 :', should --read . 50 .units
10 the property .owner (not_.developer) should provide
status report ;
. - 11 : should read " _ wall or heavy timbered fence _
17b : the property owner (not developer) shall maintain
facilities ,-
21 and 24 : add: "This condition will be subject to
modification by the City Engineer, as necessary . "
27 : add: "The possibility for a common water meter
may be discussed with DSRSD . "
{FL H(0 5
47a : should read: "Prior to commencement of any
structures,' grading must. conform. . . . "
47b : should read : "Prior to final inspection of =_
building, the following shall have been submitted.
49 : should read: "Prior to final' inspection of
the developer..shall grade . - -as shown
or:-indicated on Exhibit "A" ; :-and these '
conditions..." (Strike performance bond statement)
Staff 'recommended approval of . the .rezoning, .'subject to the above
noted changes';to .the general provisions
Cm. Tenery 'questioned how the reduction in the number of units
might affect rental price . Mr . Fred Howell, applicant, spoke at
length, regarding the history of this project, and noted that a
_ reduction in the number of units would increase the rental price
by approximately $50-60 per month_
Cm. Petty, at this time, abstained from participating in the
hearing because of an "emotional interest as a Ponderosa Village
resident and a participant in the initial appeal process" .
Major objections to the General Provisions , raised by the
applicant included:
Item 22 : requirement to install a signal at Donlon Way and
Dublin Blvd.
24b : :_requirement to pay 1000 for widening extension of
Amador .Valley Blvd. ;
27 :- -individually metered utility meters ;
4.;�Mr . - Howell . also requested the right.to' convert :th' ..units to
`-.condominiums ;in `seven .years . Also, ,wherever. the word "bond" was
6.
mentioned in the ' General Provisions, :-insert. °letter ,of credit
Rodger .Coupe, of Creegan & D 'Angelo, observed .that--traffic
` problems already 'exist and will not be` created by this project_
Several people--were present to ask -questions and make comments
regarding. this project . Two Dublin residents offered ..the
following observations :
Darleen Green, Pondarosa village homeowner , agreed with the
applicant that there is no need for a signal at Donlon Way and
Dublin Blvd. , however , she felt a need for a pedestrian right-
of-way through the project, from the Pondarosa Village area. She
also felt that the architecture could be improved.
Robert Yee , Pondarosa Village homeowner , asked whether the number
of entrances could be reduced to two, by eliminating the Donlon
entrance . He also questioned the sewer capacity . Mr . Tong
responded that if any of the entrances were to be eliminated, it
would be the minor entrance from San Ramon Road, to the south of
the main entrance _ Mr . Coupe responded to the sewer question by
noting that, to his knowledge , there- are permits available for
any. and all developments _ _
. .Barbara Devalco ;pointed. ,out . that, .in- her ':opinion, :the units are:. .
not"made for' families 'because . of :.the fact
that ;.there is-- such a _
predominance of one-bedroom:.units _
After the close -of the'-public hearing, Cm. Vonheeder made a .
motion to adopt ;the ':foll owing Resolution Cm. 'Mack seconded the
motion, and it was passed by unanimous .vote of ' the commission:
RESOLUTION 83-14
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 83-004 DUBLIN GREEN .
• * x t :k
There was discussion regarding Item 23 , regarding traffic
improvements at Dublin Blvd. and San Ramon Road; and Item 2^_ , .
regarding traffic improvements at Amador valley Blvd_ and San
Ramon Rd. ; and it was decided that the applicant should be
reimbursed in the same manner as described in Item 22 . .
Regarding . Item 27 , it was .suggested that the provision be revised
to read "common water meters may be used, subject to review by
City Staff and City Engineer _ Other utilities shall be
individually metered"
Cm. Alexander motioned, 'with Cm. Vonheeders qualified second, to -
:recommend: Approval of.. the Planned Development Rezoning subject to
revised ,general. provisions . After discussion- of revisions to the
general• pr.ovisions, Cm. . Vonheeder: withdrew .her second_.
There .was.. lengthy discussion regarding the impact' of reducing the
:. "''number of units on 'the amount. .of rents proposed to be charged for
the units . The Commissioners repeatedly agreed that the City was
in need of affordable housing, and it was their desire to see
rents kept at a minimum.
Cm_ Vonheeder then made the motion, with Cm. Mack ' s second, to
recommend approval of Planned Development Rezoning , leaving the
original number of units ( 209 ) and all other conditions . The
motion passed: Cms . Vonheeder, Mack, and Tenery - Aye ; Cm_
Alexander - Opposed; Cm. Petty - Abstain .
RESOLUTION 83-15
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING =
PA 83-004 DUBLIN GREEN
T
.:' Lju to th e . `hour, it was agreed -to move items 9 .1 (Gene
Plan rogram Review of Working Paper 2 : ) to 'an adjourne
mee t in at 7 : 30 :p.m_ ,. on September 15 , 1983, at the Dubl ' n
Library : eeting room. `
:It was a.1so greed to take up .the matter of the -.it 9 . 2 (Sign
, Regulation Co it tee Report) at the next regular meeting, on
September 19 , 1 83 ..
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr _ Tong notified the Comm. sioners of the appeals pending to the
City -Council on the ConLmissi ? ' s nial of PA 83-037 , Pet Medical
Service Administrative Condi_ti 1 Use Permit, and approval of
PA 83-045 , Heritage Commons i�10 ification of General Provisions .
ADJOURNMENT
,.There being no fur per business , the meeting was djourned at
11 : 55 . p .m. ... .
Respectfully .submitt
Planning .Commission Chairman
Laurence L_ Tong,
Planning Director
FREMERY & BERGERON
REAL ESTATE AND INSURANCE
7998 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
DUBLIN, CA 94566
TEL:- (415) 829-5400
September 20, 1983
Mayor Pete Snyder
Dublin City Council
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Snyder and City Council Members;
I strongly support the Dublin Green Apartment project and
ask you to consider the larger number of units (269) because
$45 to $50 per month would make a great deal 6f difference
to most of the employees of our businesses in Dublin.
As an owner of. an insurance business in Dublin, I am constantly
asked by my clients who work in the area to help them find
rentals so they don' t have to commute so faro
It::has been my experience that there are no vacant apartments
and you only get one if you are lucky enough to be there when
someone moves out.
Your affirmative vote, for 269 apartments, will go a long way
toward relieving the critical rental housing situation in
Dublin.
Because I will be out 6f-�town when you hear this project on
September 26th, I will be unable to appear in person on this
important matter. .
Re fully
Leo ergeron
REPRESENTING
�' SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANIES
1
old in heritage - new in ideas
{
bf
R E C E I
SEP 2 2 198
Cbgi ber-of.com erce __September
em er 7'-.l983..:*, r OF
..,. ;..Dubl.i n City Council -
City of Dublin
6500 .Dublin Boulevard, Suite 100
Dublin, California 94568 ;..
Dear. Mayor Snyder.& Council Members:
The Dublin Chamber. of Commerce Board of Directors is in support of having
the apartments in the area located behind Dublin Iceland and the Workbench.
The business community is in great need of housing for its employees and
rentals are practically non-existent in Dublin. This has affected the
businesses ability to hire personnel from other areas because of the lack
of rental housing..
The other reason is the location is' particularly. advantageous to the local
'businesses in the area and it will require less automobile travel for most
shoppi.ng
We hope the City Council will . support this project and make it possible
'.for..•the .rents .to be reasonably -price by approving the .larger number of units
t at :269
Sincerely;
r
:•' AL WHITE First Vice.President
Board of Directors
fAW:o f ,
6500-E Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94566 (415) 828-6200
b
September 21, 1983
ECG 'J ,E D
TO: Peter Snyder, Mayor
City of Dublin !SEP
FROM: Dave Petty 'CITY 0
SUBJ: Dublin Green Apartments
Peter;
I am writing you this letter as a concerned and "fired up' .citizen of Dublin and not
as a member of the Planning Commission. .
.,In my opinion, we will be showing great forethought and concern for the quality of life
in Dublin and for the future quality of the City itself by voting doti,m this proposals
%Let's don't put this dense }sousing project in this part of the City. Down the road, Dublin
will have a good amount of multi-family housing (as an example, the recently approved
project by. the Planning Commission for 555 units Amador Lakes project off Stagecoach Road) .. '
That :is .a good area for multi-family housing where the impacts such as traffic congestion,
noise, etc. are-mitigated.
The area proposed for Dublin Green Apartments should be used for a less-dense patio home
or condominium development. . Along this line, I was approached by a broker with
Marcus & iMillichap, a respected real estate broker in the Bay Area, and told that she
attended the public hearing at the Planning Commission on this project and that she
thought it was "too cheap looking " for Dublin, and that she has a buyer who would be
interested in purchasing the property from CALMET, Inc. and developing it into a
high quality patio home or low density multi-family project.
I believe we should follow-up on this . ' Dublin will have in the future it's share of
apartments but this. is not the best location. Let's bring in the best for Dublin.
Sincerely .
cc: Pete Hegarty, Dublin City Council
Linda Jeffery, Dublin City Council
Paul Moffat; Dublin City Council
Dave Burton, Dublin City Council