HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 StarwardRowResidProjec
CITY CLERK
File # Dm[2]~-[3][Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 15,2005
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04·006 Enea Properties Starward Row
Residential Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning Stage I and Stage 2
Development Plan, and Site Development Review
Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner & Pierce MacDonald, ~
Associate Planner
A TT ACHMENTS:
I. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(attached as Exhibit A which includes Initial Study) and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached as
Exhibit B).
2. Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment to amend
the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure I-Ia), with Map
attached as Exhibit A.
3. Draft Ordinance approving the Planned Development
Rezoning with related Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan
(with Development Plan attached as Exhibit A).
4. Resolution approving the Site Development Review for the
project, subject to conditions.
5. Applicant's Written Statement
6. Streetscape ElevationlView
7. Planning Commission Rcsolution approving the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 7597.
8. Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes for January
25,2005 (with adopted Resolutions attached).
9. Letter received January 25,2005 from Mr. William Atwood
and Ms. Jenny Rustmann
10. Architectural Detail of north elevation of residence on Lot I
with aerial map
RECOMMENDATl0/vRN: 1.
2.
\ 3.
4.
Hear Staff presentation;
Open Public Hearing;
Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public;
Close the Public Hearing and deliberate;
--------------~--~~------------~--------------------------------------------------------~-----~-------------------~~---~~------
G:\PA#\2004\04~006 Starward P.n~ Proj!:ct\City CutIDdl\CCSR2"15"05.doc
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owners
P A file
ITEMNO.~
lt5bl2.--
"
5. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) adopting a Mitigated
Negativc Declaration (attached as Exhibit A which includes
Initial Study) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached as
Exbibit B);
6. Adopt the Rcsolution (Attachment 2) approving a General Plan
Amendment (with General Plan Land Use map attachcd as
Exhibit A);
7. Waive thc reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3)
approving a Planncd Development (PD) Rezoning with related
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan (with Development
Plan attached as Exhibit A); and
8. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 4) approving the Site
Development Review for the project, subject to conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 1963, the existing medical office building complex was built at 7475 Starward Drive on a portion of a
.77-acre parcel (APN 941-0173-002-02) now owned by Enea Properties Company LLC. The size ofthe
cxisting office complex is 5,268 square feet. A small parking lot occupies the area adjacent to the
building. A drainage canal owned and maintained by Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zonc 7 (Zone 7) lies adjacent to the north property line of the site, and it was
constructed during that timc period also. The site has flat topography, indicating previous grading, and
has been only partially developed. In 1985, the current Retail/Office land use designation was established
for the parcel on Starward Drive with adoption of the first General Plan after the incorporation of the City
to accommodate the existing office use on thc property.
On September I, 1998, thc Dublin City Council approved a General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment for a project on Starward Drivc submitted by the DeSilva Group (P A 98-013), which lies
west of the proposed project across Starward Drivc. The General Plan. Amendment changed the land use
designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acrc) and amended
the Downtown Specific Plan to the remove the property from the planning area. On September 15, 1998,
the City Council approved the Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review allowing
the construction of31 single-family detached homes on small lots. These homes were subscquently
constructed by Schuler Homes and are now occupied.
With the approval of the DeSilva Gates/SchuJer project, there were residential uses established on three
sides of the Enea Propcrtics parcel on Starward Drive. The DeSilva Gates/Schuler project establishcd the
Medium Density (6.1-14.0 units per acre) land use designation to the west. To the east of the Enca
Properties parcel, an older 12-unit rental complex with a Medium-High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per
acre) land use designation is established, and a neighborhood of homes with a Single-Family Rcsidential
(0.9 to 6.0 units per aere) land use designation is established to the north. A shopping center within the
Downtown Specific Plan, which is proposed for renovation, is located to the south with a Retail/Office
land use designation.
In October of 2003, the City Council directed Statfto review the feasibility of establishing a small park
on the site. However, on Mareh 16,2004, the City of DubJin Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2004
Update was approved by City Council without identifYing a potential park use on the parcel, and
maintaining the Retail/Office land use designation on the property.
The project application proposes to demolish the cxisting 5,268-square-foot office building complex at
7475 Starward Drive to accommodate residential development of the site. The project Applicant, Enea
Properties, requests approval of the following: a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
2DbI:l--
designation of the site from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre); a
Stage I and Stage 2 Planned Development District Rezoning; and, Site Development Review to allow
construction of 10 detached single-family homes (project plans are contained in Attachment 3).
Thc Applicant proposes two~story homes on individual rectangular Jots ranging in size trOll 2,143 square
feet to 2,652 square feet, with garages to the rear of the lots accessed by a shared private street. The
Applicant's goal is to reproduce a traditional "row house" style of development that is typical of older
suburban neighborhoods and neo-traditional dcvelopment, while providing a detached housing product
(Applicant's Written Statement is included as Attachmcnt 5). The Applicant indicates that the sales
prices of the residences are anticipated to be in the range of$550,000 to $600,000.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The project sitc is currently designated Retail/Office on the City's General Plari Land Use map, which
does not allow residential uses. The Applicant is requesting approval of a land use designation change to
Medium Density Residcntial (a density of 6.1 to 14 dwelling units pef acre) to allow single-family
residential uses for a maximum site development of 1 0 units with the accompanying Planned
Development District rezoning. Thc proposed development is Jess intense than the commercial
development potential undef the existing Retail/Office land use designation and the current Commercial
Office (C-O) Zoning District as it would generate Icss tfaffic, noise and the need for City and other
agency services. The maximum development potential undef the existing Retail/Office land use
designation is compared to the requested land use change in Table I, below.
TABLE 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
GENERAL Existi ng RetalllOffiee Proposed Development with Potential Development Medium
PLAN LAND Potential Medium Density Residential Density Residential
USE (.25 to .60 FAR) (6. t to 14 d.uJaere) (6.1 to 14 d.uJaere)
Building Size or 8,423 to 20,216 sq.ft. 10 Units 4 to 10 units
Dwellina Units
19 to 101 employees 27 residents 10 to 27 residents
Population Yield (200 to 450 sq.ft.lemployee) (2.65 residents per unit) (2.65 residents per unit)
TOTAL Up to 20,216 sq.ft. 10 Dwelling Units 10 Dwelling Units
POTENTIAL Retail/Office Space
DEVELOPMENT
The existing General Plan land use designation of Retail/Office would allow a maximum building size of
20,216 square feet and 101 employees at aFAR of .60. In comparison, the proposed General Plan
Amendment component of the Enea project would allow a maximum of 1 0 units, which would be
expected to create housing for 27 fesidents based on Census Bureau statistics for average household size
in Dublin (2.65 persons per dwelling unit).
General Plan Con.~istency: As the proposed project requires a change in land use designation trom
Retail/Office use to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre), the evaluation of the project
for consistency with General Plan goals and policies is neccssary fOf the introduction of residential uses
on the site. The following issues WCfe evaluated for this project, including land lIse compatibility, traffic
and circulation, and noise to determine if the project is consistent with the goals and policies relative to
the General Plan land use designation requested. Based on the discussion and analysis that follows, the
proposed General Plan Amendment has been determined to be consistent with all General Plan goals,
policies, and provisions.
3 "b I )..
Land Use Compatibility; The current Retail/Office land use designation is described in the General Plan
as "Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and
sale of auto parts."· The proposed change from Retail/Office to Medium Density Rcsidentialland use
designation requires an cvaluation of the compatibility ofland uses relative to the introduction of
residential uses at the requested density of 6.1 to 14 dweIling units per acre. The subject site currently has
established residential uses on threc sides of the parcel. According to the General Plan Land Usc Map,
Medium-Density Residential land use is established on the property to the west (Schuler Homes
development), Medium-High Dcnsity Residential land use (14.1 to 25 units per acre) lies to thc cast (12
single-level multi-family units), and Singlc-Family Residential land use (0 to 6 units per acre) lies north
of the flood control channel adjacent to the projcct site (a standard single-family subdivision). A
shopping center, Shamrock Village Center, containing Big Lots and other retail stores, with a
RetaiVOffice land usc designation is located to the south.
The requested land use dcsignation for the project site is consistent with the Medium Density Residential
General Plan land usc designation of the Schuler Homes project directly to the west, developed with 31
single-family detached residences. To the east, the development of 12 single-story multi-family rental
units having a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation, contain rear yard areas adjacent to
the shared property line and the private street of the proposed development. The proposed land usc for
thc Enea Properties site would serve as a land use transition between the shopping center to the south and
the residential uses to the north, and be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood
than the existing Rctail/Office land use on the site.
The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Rcsidential Land Use Section 2.12,
Neighborhood Diversity, and its guiding policies. Guiding Policy A of that section states, "Avoid
economic segrcgation by City sector." Imp1ementing Policy B states that medium and medium-high
residential densities shall be allocated to development sites in all sectors of the Primary Planning Area.
The proposed introduction of housing at the Enea Project site will be consistent with these policies in that
it provides for the construction of a residential subdivision of small lot detached single-family homes, not
commonly available in the Primary Planning Area close to the downtown core. AdditionaIly, the cost of
the units will be morc affordable than many of the subdivisions under construction in the eastern portion
of the City or areas distant from the downtown core.
Traffic and Circulation: A Traffic Study was prepared for the project by TJKM (2004), which eoncluded
that fully-occupied, the 10 residences would generate 96 daily trips, with 8 trips in the a.m. peak hour
period and 10 trips in the p.m. peak hour period. In comparison to the residcntial project, maximum
development under the existing Retail/Office land use designation would be expected to create 220 daily
trips, with 31 trips in thc a.m. peak hour and 30 in the p.m. peak hour. The proposcd General Plan
Amendment would reduce the potential vehicle trips at the site by limiting the development intensity from
that of a retail or commercial office devclopment to that of a small community of single-family homes.
Noise: A Noise Study was prepared for the project by Thorburn Associates (2004), which analyzcd the
existing conditions and the potential noise impacts of the project. As previously mentioned, the project
site is directly bordercd on the north and east by residential zoning districts, and by Starward Drive to thc
wcst and south. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is located approximately 400 feet to the west of the site
and Amador Valley Boulevard is located approximately 600 feet to thc south. Highway 680 is located
approximately 12 mile to the east of the site. The noise evaluation prepared for the project utiJj;¡;ed both a
24-hour instrument measurcment and several short-term spot measurements.
Thorburn Associates concluded that ambient noise throughout the site was dominated by traffic noise
from adjoining streets. The ca1culated CNEL for the 24"hour measurement location was 58 dBA. Using
411b12-
the spot measurements, CNEL levels werc bctween 59 dBA and 60 dBA. Thesc levels are consistent with
the Genera1 Plan's Noise Exposure Contours plan, and consistent with General Plan acceptable exterior
community noise exposure levels of 60 dBA or less for residential development. lnterior noise levels
would be reduced to 45 CNEL in any habitable room through normal building eonstruction in compliancc
to the General Plan and Uniform Building Code requirements. Thorburn Associates also concluded that
noise associated with the project, such as thc sounds of children playing and thc sounds of residents'
vehicles, is consistent with existing noise sources and levels in the area.
A Resolution adopting the requcstcd General Plan Amendment is contained in Attachment 2 for the City
Council's consideration, with the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit A.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REZONING
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes thc intent and requirements of a Planncd Development Zoning
District, Chapter 8.32. The intent of the Planned Dcvelopment Zoning District is to crcate a more
desirable use ofland, a more coherent and coordinatcd development, and a better quality physical
cnvironment than would otherwise be possible under a standard zoning district. Chapter 8.32 of the
Zoning Ordinancc rcquircs that a Stage I and 2 Development Plan be adopted to establish concise
regulations tor the use, developmcnt, improvement and maintenance of the property within the requested
Planned Development Zoning District. The Applicant is applying for a Stage I and 2 Development P1an
for the subject site in aceordan.ce with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Stuge 1 und 2 Development Plan: The Stage 1 and Stagc 2 Development Plan, included as Exhibit A to
Attachment 3, would establish the land use regulations and implement the density for the .77-acre site.
The proposed development mix consists of detached residential units in a row house architectural style.
Traditional row houses are designed to interact closely with the strcet through porches or stoops that are
raised slightly above street level. Although some row house development, such as traditional townhouse
development, attaches dwellings on one or two sides, the Enca Properties project offers a detached,
single-family home product. Thc proposed Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan site layout is depieted
on Sheets PD-I and SP-1 of the Projcct Plans (Exhibit A of Attachment 3).
Statement of Proposed Uses: The proposed Dcvelopment Plan incl udes a list of permitted and
conditional uses that are specific to this project. Permitted uses for the Enea Propertics Starward Row
project arc consistent with the intent and provisions of the Single-Family Residential (R-I) Zoning
District Chapter ofthc Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.20.020).
Site Area and Proposed Densities: The Dcvelopment Plan provides for a maximum of ten (10) singlc-
family residential dwellings and other accessory uses typical of residential ncighborhoods. The
development of this project is proposed in one phase with construction of the ten rcsidences with
associated landscaping and fencing occurring over a onc-year time period. The project will be built at a
density of 14 dwclling units per acre in accordance with the proposed accompanying General Plan
Amendment. A shared private street wiJI provide acccss ITom Starward Drive to the driveway aprons and
garages behind thc homes. The front elevations of all of the homes will face Starward Drive, providing
pedestrian access ITom the sidewalk.
Development Standards and Setbacks: Pursuant to the Planned Development District provisions ofthe
Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant is requesting flexibility in standard R-l District development
regulations, including ITont and side yard setbacks, modifications to minimum lot sizc, and, moditications
to the standard maximum lot coverage of 40 percent (40%) for single-family residential development.
The following table briefly describes the project characteristics.
5fbl2---
TABLE 2. ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Home Size Footprint Lot Size Lot Front Side Parkl ng Bldg.
LoU (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Coverage Setbacks Setbacks Spaces Height
(feet) (on-site) (feet)
1 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,652 sf 49.6% 10 3' and 5' 2 26'
2 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,464 sf 53.4% 10 3' 2 28'
3 1,595 sf 1,316. 2,464 sf 53.4% 10 3' 2 26'
4 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,466 sf 53.3% 10 3' 2 26'
5 1,595 sf 1,316 2,596 sf 50.6% 10 3' and 5' 2 29'
6 1.595 sf 1,316 2,609 sf 50.4% 10 3' and 5' 2 26'
7 1,595 s,f. 1,316 2,468 s.t, 53.3% 10 3' 2 29'
8 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,418 s.t, 54,4% 10 3' 2 28'
9 1,581 s.f. 1,206 2,143 sf 56,2% 10 3' 2 26'
10 1,342s.f. 1,028 2,452 sf 41,9% 9-12 3' and 10' 2 26'
Other (6,375 sf)
Areas'
Average 1,568 s.t. 1,276s.t, 2,473 s.f. 51.6% 10 2 27 ft.
* Other areaS include landscaping and project features
outside individual lots (not included in average).
Sctbacks: The Applicant is requesting flexibility in standard R-I Zoning District front and side yard
setback rcgulations to allow an average 10-foot front yard setback on StaTWard Drive and a minimum 3-
foot side yard setback for the residenees. Lot 10, the corner lot in the development contains a setback
which varics of ITom 9 to 12 feet, as it is along the roadway curve of Starward Drive. Comparable
standards for a R-l Zoning District under the zoning district regulations in Section 8.36.020 of the Zoning
Ordinancc for a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot lot require a minimum 20-foot ITont yard setback and a
minimum 5-foot side yard setback (Section 8.36.020(A).
The City has approved planned development projccts with setbacks that vary ITom the R-l Zoning District
setback standards in thc past. Projects such as the Greenbriar project on Tassajara Road (P A 02-048), the
DeSilva Gates/Schuler Homes on Starward Drive (PA 98-013), and the Bancor Tralce project on Sierra
Lane (PA 02-062) were approved with front yard setbacks that range from four (4) feet to thirtccn (13)
feet. Side yard setbacks for these projects range from no separation (Tralee) to 3 feet (Shuler Homes) and
3.5 feet (Greenbriar). Thc purpose of the reduction in sctbacks is to alJow the Applicant to provide a
detacbed housing product while managing the unusual site constraints ofthc long, rectangular parccl.
Side Yards: Side yard setbacks of 3 feet are proposed for the majority of the lots in the subdivision.
Three ofthe lots, Lots I, 5, and 6, show 5-foot setbacks on one side ofthe lot (refer to Site Plan in Projcct
Plans, Exhibit A-I of Attachment 3). Lot 10, a corner lot, has a 10-foot side yard adjacent to the sidewalk
on StaTWard Drivc, with a reduced rear yard area (discussed below). To maximize the use ofthc proposed
3-foot side yards, reciprocal easements will be established as part of the CC&Rs of the project (included
as Condition 46 ofthe Resolution for the Vesting Tentativc Tract Map, Attacbment 4). The reciprocal
easement will alJow each ofthc properties to include the side yard setback of the adjacent property within
its private fenced area, thereby allowing the property owners use of a 6-foot area along one side of each
homc. Reciprocal easements were also approved for the Schuler Homes project across Starward Drive
6 ~\¡.,
from this project site to create wider side yards. A fencing detail for the side yard areas is inc1udcd in the
Project Plans on Sheet D-I of Attachmcnt 3 (Exhibit A- J).
Front Yards: The proposed] O-foot ITont yard setback ofthe Enea Properties Starward Row project is
parallel to and facing Starward Drive. The intent is to create a more pedestrian streetscape edge along
Starward Drive with a "walk-up" row house-style that places stairs and porches at 5 feet ITom the property
line. The homes wil1 generally face the DeSilva Gates/Schuler Homes lots across thc street on Starward
Drivc and Galaxy Way, and new landscaping and street trees are proposed to be installed by the Applicant
to furthcr soften and enhance the streets cape view along Starward Drive.
Rear Yards: Rear yard setbacks proposed for the residential lots vary based on the individual lot as the
garages are locatcd behind the homes. The Applicant is requesting that deviations from the standard R-I
Zoning District rear yard setback regulations of a minimum 20-foot setback bc allowed for the project as
the style and design of the homes is different from a standard single-family residential subdivision. As
some garages are located in a portion of the rear yard setback, thc size of the useable outdoor living area
is a more appropriate measure of the rear yard area. The rear yard areas, and the useable outdoor living
space providcd, are further explained below in the section ofthis Staff Report entitled "Outdoor Living
Area."
Lot Size and Lot Coveragc: Other requested Planned Dcvelopment District provisions would allow a
minimum lot size of2,143 square feet on Lot 10, where R-I standards require 4,000 square feet; a
minimum lot width of26 feet, whcrc R-l standards require 50 fcct; a minimum lot depth of80 feet, where
R-I standards require 100 feet; and, maximum lot coverages of54% and 56.2%, where R-I standards
allow a maximum of 40 %. This Planned Development District project includes a request to allow Lots 8
and 9 to exceed the lot coverage of 54% due to the unusual shape of the lots created by the curve of
Starward Drive. Lots 8 and 9 would have lot coverages of 54.4% and 56.2%, respectively.
Small lot development and associated increased lot coveragcs are often allowed in new Planned
Development District projects in Dublin and have been constructed in other cities successfully, such as
the new development in Hercules near the San Francisco Bay in a redeveloped area. Additionally, the
Schuler Homes development west of the project site contains average lot sizes of2,250 square feet. The
Enca Properties project, as shown in Table 2 above, contains an average lot size of2,473 square feet. Thc
average lot covCTage in the proposed developmcnt is 51.6% (reter to Table 2 above). Although lot
coverages have been increased in the proposed Planned Development District Rezoning, careful
consideration has been given to the outdoor living area of the project, described in the following section.
Outdoor Living Area: The Development Plan proposes to create useable outdoor Jiving areas, such as
backyards and patio areas, between the homes and the private street on the east side of the proposed
development. Rear yard setbacks vary and average approximately 30 feet deep and are partially covered
by garagc area. The R-I Zoning District regulations require 20-foot rear yard setbacks without building
area. The open spacc area between the homes and the garage van es ITom II Yo feet to ] 8 feet in depth, as
discussed below, providing increased opportunities for private useable outdoor spaces. Although these
areas are smaller in squarc footage than rear yards in standard residential districts, they are designed to
provide a private outdoor space for each owner's children to play or CTeatc a patio area tor outdoor dining
and relaxation.
The homes on Lots I through 7 contain baekyards of 18 feet by 26 feet, or 468 square feet in area. Thc
homes on Lots 8 and 9 contain outdoor areas ranging from 14 Yo fect to II 1/2 feet by 26 feet, or
approximately 300 square feet in area. Lot 10 provides the smallest rear yard area at 12 feet by 12 feet or
144 square feet, but has a greater landscaped buffer between the house and the sidcwalk (to be installed
by the Applicant) along the south and west property line, generally following the curve of Starward Drive.
Additionally, based on the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.36.050(B)(2), of substituting the
7 Dö IÞ-
side yard setback for the rear yard setback, thc greater landscaped buffer on Lot IO would increase the
outdoor Ii ving area.
As the outdoor living areas are designed to fit each individual lot, any ehanges to the size of the rear yard
any changes in the size of the outdoor living areas on the lots under thc Planned Development Zoning
District regulations and Development Plan in Attachment 3 would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit
application review and approval by the Community Development Director.
lnclu,~ionary Zoninf( Regulations: This project is exempt from the lnclusionary Zoning Ordinancc
provisions as the project contains fewer than 20 units. No Below Market Rate (BMR) units are requircd
to be identified on the site plan and made a component ofthe project pursuant to the lnclusionary Zoning
Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68).
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The Applicant has submitted an application requesting approval of Site Developmcnt Review for the
project. The application submittal consists of the Project Plans contained in Exhibit A-I of Attachment 3,
illustrating the location and design of the features of the Enea Starward Row project, including the siting
of buildings, internal access, landscape plan, and the architectural design (elevations) ofthc homes, which
arc discussed in detail below.
Architectural De~'ign/Concept: The architectural design of the residences in the project consists of
elements offour traditional architectural styles: Craftsman, Italianate, Monterey, and French Country.
The architectural elevations, prepared by the Craig and Grant Architects, are included in Sheets A-2 and
A-3 of Exhibit A-I to Attachment 3. The colored elevation and Streetscape View illustration in
Attachment 7 depicts the homcs along the project frontage on Starward Drive, illustrating the combination
of colors to be used on the homcs. A materials and color board will be available for review at the
Planning Commission hearing.
As mentioned in the Applicant's Written Statement in Attachment 5, the design concept of the project is
to create a unique urban neighborhood containing single-family homes, with attributes similar to those
found in the Victorian row house-style in San Francisco or Boston. The architectural design of the project
is similar in stylc and scale, but with greater variation in dcsign and detailing on the units, to the DeSilva
Gates/Schuler Homc residences to the west of the site across Starward Drive. The DeSilva Gates/Schuler
Home residences generally have stucco exteriors with features commonly found in modern ltalianate and
Monterey style residcntial development (refer to photographs of development on Sheet D-2 of Exhibit A-
I to Attachment 3). The Enea Properties' homes will havc building surfaces consisting of brick, stone,
wood siding and painted stucco with tile or shingle roofs. The building elevations are well articulated
with covered porches ftonting on the strcct and varied rootlines that reduce the massing of the two-story
buildings, and incorporate the architectural elements and features ofthe selected styles.
Each detached row house-style homc is sited to face the public thoroughfare along Starward Drive, with
access to each garage from a common privatc street/driveway. Al1 ofthc units include a small front
portico or porch in the first floor of living area. The detailing, forms and elements such as the window,
door and porch treatments are full y integrated and continue to be articulated on all elevations of the
residential units in thc project. For example, the side elevations of the homes are treated with the same
level of detail in trim and architectural features as the front elevation of the individual unit, with attention
given to the privacy ofresidents as no windows facc other windows on the sides of the houses. Each unit
includes two parking spaces within a detached garage that is constructed to retlect the architectural style
of the home on the lot. The homes on Lots 9 and 10 extend the architectural design to a second floor
above the garage to provide an additional Ii ving area.
8~1~
ParkinglStreetscape: The project establishes on-site parking requirements consistent with parking
requiremcnts for single-family homes found in Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-Street Parking
and Loading. Parking for the residential development on the site is provided at a 2.0 covered parking
ratio per residential unit containcd within a two-car garage located to the fear of each lot. The project Site
Plan is provided on Sheet SP-I of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 3). Guest parking fOf 15
spaces is provided along the east side of Starward Drive, a public street. However, no guest parking
spaces are ineluded within the perimeters of the proposed development. To provide additional safety, the
garagc of the home on Lot 10 is equipped with two automatic garage doors to allow drivers to exit the
garage on to the private street behind the u.nit without backing into the traffic lane on the curve of
Starward Drive.
As the living areas of the proposed homcs, not the garages and drivcways, are oriented towards Starward
Drive, a safe pedestrian atmosphere is created along the street and facing the fesidential development to
the west. Rcsidences along the street afe regularly spaced and provide architcctural features such as
porches and stairs, as discussed in the section of this report on architecture (see Sheet A-4 of the Projcct
Plans in Exhibit A of Attachment 3). Access to the homes is rrom the sidewalk along Starward Drive
with the tirst floors of the units setback rrom the walkway and raised 18" above ground to separate the
staifs and porches from the street level, thereby increasing privacy and security. Project amcnities include
cnhaneed streetscape features such as new sidewalk paving, light poles, street trees, and a landscaped
strip. Enhanced sidewalks are intended to support the pedestrian "walkability" of the street created by the
porches and other architectural features ofthe homes.
Landscape Plan and Exi,\ting Fence: The Landscape Plan is shown on Sheet L-I of the Project Plans in
Exhibit A to Attachment 3). Project development would remove onc olive tree and various shrubs, such
as oleanders, at the project site. None of the trccs planned for removal are "Heritage Trees" as defined in
the City's Tree Ordinance. The pfoject would not result in the degradation of scenic fesources at the
project site or in the immediate vicinity. Th.e Landscapc Plan shows the locations of cight (8) new street
trees along Starward Drive, with the species oftrees to be planted to be determined by the City Public
Works Department. The ITont yards of each individual lot would bc landscaped with appropriate trees,
shrubs, perennials, and groundcover, and an existing multi-branch palm tree on Lot I will be retaincd.
Landscaping plans include the development of a 265-foot long, 5-foot wide bioswale that would lie
parallel to the east property line of the project site. The purpose of the bioswalc is to treat storm water
run-off rrom the site and to slow storm water before it enters the City storm drain. This feature has been
added to improve water quality pursuant to City regulations and RWQCB water quality standards.
Landscaping along the private driveway, including the bioswale would be maintained by the Home
Owners Association which will be required to enter into an Agreement fOf Long-Term Landscape
Maintenancc with the City of Dublin. The final design of the landscaping for the project, based on the
preliminary plan, must be submitted in the form of a final landscape plan for approval by the Community
Development Director prior to issuance ofbu.ilding permits.
An cxisting wooden tence is located along the common property line between the Enea Properties site and
the proposed private street adjacent to the rcntal units to the east. The garages of the homes would be
sited between thc private driveway and the homes to provide additional privacy and sound buffering. The
Applicant is proposing to retain the six-toot wooden fence along the shared property line and between the
units, and construct a six-foot wooden fence along the northern bordef of the project. A concrete block
wall is not rcquired for this location as was required for the Schulef Homes project across Starward Drive.
The Shuler Homes development is adjacent to San Ramon Road to the wcst side, and a parking lot for the
development is adjacent to the flood control channel and existing residential to the north. Because of
these existing conditions, thc Schuler Homes development required a more substantial fence to servc as a
sound buffer.
9t ~
As there is some concern that the existing wooden fence betwecn the multi-family homes to the east of the
Enea project site may be unstable and be damaged during construction, a condition has been included in
the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution in Attachment 4 which requires the Applicant to replace the
eastern fence if it is found to be in poor condition or is damaged during construction (Site DevelopmeI1t
Review Condition 43 of Attachment 4).
Planninll Commission Action:
On January 25,2005, the Planning Commission eonsidered the proposed Enea Starward Row residential
development at a scheduled public hearing (meeting minutcs and the Planning Commission Staff report
for January 25, 2005 are includcd in Attachment 8). Mr. William Atwood of7872 Oxbow Lane spoke in
opposition to the project and reiterated points made in a letter submitted to the Planning Commission at
the meeting, written by him and Ms. Jenny Rustmann, also a resident of the home (included as
Attachment 9). The property at 7872 Oxbow Lane is north ofthc project site in an existing residential
neighborhood. The comments made by Mr. Atwood and Ms. Rustmann related to their concerns that
potential privacy and noise impacts could result from the two-story home on Lot I of the proposed
development, as well as the potential glare impacts from the headlights of vehicles using the private
street.
As presented at the Planning Commission meeting by the Project architect Galen Grant, and also in thc
Staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 8), Enea Properties has designed
the home on Lot I to address impacts to privacy, light and glare, and noise as follows;
· Privacy. As shown on the project plans included in the Development Plan in Attachment 3, and
the detail included as Attachment 10, the second-floor windows on the north elevation of the home
proposed for Lot I do not facc the home at 7872 Oxbow Lanc. Instead, the windowless garage of
thc home is located directly across the drainagc channel and easement (approximately 20 feet in
width) from thc backyard ofMr. Atwood's residencc. The project provides an additional five-foot
side yard setback along the north property line for a combined distance of 25 feet from the
proposed housc on Lot I to the property line of the AtwoodlRustmann property. The map in
Attachment 10 illustrates the distances between the cxisting residence and the proposed home on
Lot 1. In addition, the windows on the north elevation of the proposed home on Lot I do not
provide views to the intcrior living areas of the Atwood/Rustmann residence, and only provides
light to the staircase ofthe proposcd home. The Applicant has proposed an additional change to
the new home on Lot I to provide more screening as noted on the elevation in Attachment 10.
The Applicant proposes to obscure the lower half of the windows with a translucent privacy film
and has agreed to a new dcvelopment regulation of the proposed Planned Development Rezoning
that prohibits additional windows on the north elevation of any structure on Lot 1 (Attachment 3).
· Light and Glare. The Sitc Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan (included in Attachment 3)
illustrates the location of the six-foot wooden fence along the north and east property lincs of the
project site and adjacent to proposcd Lot I. The wooden fencc will block the light ofvchicles
accessing the garagcs ofthe residences and northbound on the private street, as well as provide
additional screening to existing residences on Oxbow Lanc. Relative to the privacy and screening
issues of the Enea project, a wooden fence is more residential in character and would allow better
access to Zone 7 Water Conservation District for maintenance of the drainage channel and
casement.
· Noise. As shown on the map and diagram in Attachment 10, a 20-foot wide casement owned and
maintained by Zone 7 Watcr Conservation District separates the property at 7872 Oxbow Lane
from the proposed Lot I of the Enea Properties project. The private street was designed to meet
108t)1l---
Fire Department requirements and to be located away from the drainage channel for water quality
purposes. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project in
Exhibit A of Attachment I summarized the information in the aeoustical study prepared by
consultants Thorburn Associates dated October 6, 2004. The study concluded that the long-term
ambicnt noise from the proposed Project, such as children playing and vehicles accessing the
garagc, would be consistent with existing noise levels in thc neighborhood and no signif1cant noise
impacts would result from development of the Projcct. Based on the residential nature of the
potential noise ereated by the proposed Project, the separation provided by the Zone 7 easemcnt
will ensure that there are no significant noise conflicts between the proposed home and the
existing homes on Oxbow Lanc.
At the hearing, Planning Commissioners expresscd appreciation for the in-fill nature of the project, the
compatibility of the projcct with surrounding development, the high quality of the project architecture,
and the opportunities for first-time home buyers created by the project. The Planning Commission
adopted Resolutions recommending the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Gencral Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezoning with the Stage I and 2 Development Plan, and Site Development Review
by a vote of 4-0-1, with Commissioner King abstaining.
Additionally, the Planning Connnission adopted Resolution 05-10 (Attachment 7), approving the Vcsting
Tentativc Tract Map 7597 for the project, subject to City Council approval of the General Plan
Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning. The Planning Commission also transferred their
authority to approve the Site Development Review application to the City Council pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.96.20.C.3, bccausc of the interdependency of the application with the General Plan
Amendment and Stage I and 2 Planned Devclopment Rezoning, to be approved by the City Council.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2005, public hearing notices were sent to all
property ownCfS and oecupants within a 300-toot radius, as well as advertised in the Vallev Times and
posted at various sites in the City, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chaptcr 8.132, Notice and Hearing.
The only comments received on the Project were included in the letter from Mr. William Atwood and Ms.
Jenny Rustmann of7872 Oxbow Lane (see Attachment 9) expressing opposition to the project due to
perceived impacts to privacy, light and glarc, and noise. These comments were addressed at the Planning
Commission as discusscd in the section of this report on the Planning Commission's action. Additionally,
the inclusion in the Planned Dcvelopment Rezoning Development Plan of restricting the addition of
windows on the north side of the residence and garage on Lot I, should alleviate the residents' concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City preparcd an initial study
consistcut with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the project, including the General Plan Amendment,
Planned Dcvelopmcut Rczoning and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Dcvelopment Plan, Site Development Review,
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597, to assess whether the project would result in any potential
significant environmental impacts. The Initial Study in Exhibit A of the Resolution in Attachment I
identified potentia] environmental impacts unless mitigations were incorporatcd in the project related to
air quality impacts during construction; strong seisrnie ground shaking; presence of asbestos in existing
retail/office buildings; on-site erosion during construction activities and expansive soils; and, temporary
noise impacts during construction activities.
Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste, and
geotechnical impacts havc been prepared for the proj ect, as discussed above in this report, and mitigation
11 lib' ¡,..
measures were recommended which would reduce the identified potcntial impacts to less-than-significant
levels. Based on this, a Mitigatcd Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan
were prepared for this project. Thc draft Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study was filcd with
the Alameda County Clerk and circulated to applicable agencies for review and comments during a 20-
day review period, beginning January 5, 2005 and ending January 25, 2005.
Subsequent incorporation of an mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design, and further evaluation, has dctermined that the Project, as
designed and proposed, would not resu]t in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental
impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level. As a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for the Project, Statc law requires a Mitigation Monitoring Program to be established and
adopted with the environmental document. The Resolution (Attachment I) adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Exhibit A of the Resolution) and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(Exhibit B of the Resolution) is included with this Staff Report.
CONCLUSION
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and thcir comments
have been incorporated into the Planned Development Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, and thc Site
Development Review for the project. The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan,
and represents an appropriate project for the site as it is compatible with the surrounding residential
development and adjacent roadways. The City Council approves rezonings (Planned Developments and
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plans) and General Plan Amendments, and the Planning Commission
has transferred approval of the Site Development Review to the City Council, to be considered with the
other related project approvals.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is rccommended by Staff that the City Council: I) Hear Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Takc testimony ITom the Applicant and thc Public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; 5)
Adopt thc Rcsolution (Attachment I) adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A
which includes Initial Study) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached as Exhibit B); 6) Adopt the
Resolution (Attachment 2) approving a General Plan Amendment (with General Plan Land Use map
attached as Exhibit A); 7) Waive thc reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3) approving a
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stagc 2 Development Plan (with
Development Plan attached as Exhibit A); and, 8) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 4) approving a Site
Development Review for the project, subject to conditions
12 D:Q 12-
It> lßl
RESOLUTION NO. XX-OS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*******************************
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
THE ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, PA 04-006
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested approval
of an application fOf a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation fÌ'om "Retail/Office"
to "Medium-Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre)", Planned Development District Rezoning
with a Stage I and Stagc 2 Development Plan, and Site Dcvelopment Review for a .77- acre parcel (APN
941-0173-002-02) to construct ten (10) single family dwellings, and associated improvements, on land
generally located north and east ofStafWard Drive, and north of the Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for each of the requested actions is available and on file in
the Dublin Commuoity Development Department; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Enviroumental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study eonsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project to assess any potential
significant environmental impacts which may result ITom the pfoject. Various studies addfessing potential
traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste, and geotechnical impacts were prepared for
the project, and are briefly summarized in the Mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit A, and mitigation
measures were recommended which would reduce the identified potential impacts to less-than-significant
levels. Based on this, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan
were prepared fOf this project. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study was filed with
the Alameda County Clerk and circulated to applicable agencies for review and comments during a 20-day
feview period, beginning January 5,2005 and ending January 25,2005. Subsequent incorporation of all
mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's standards for construction in the
Project design, and further evaluation, has determined that thc Project, as designed and proposed, would
not result in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental impacts have been reduced to a
Jess-than-significant level. As a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project, State law
requires a Mitigation Monitoring Program to be established and adopted with the environmental
document. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached to this Resolution for adoption with this
Project as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 25,2005 was submitted to the Planning Commission
recommending City Council adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) and
the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January
25,2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
I
ATIACHME~~ I
ó)'t) \~ I
WHEREAS, comments were taken at the Planning Commission hearing related to neighborhood
residents' concerns that potential privacy and noise impacts could result rrom the residence on Lot I of the
proposed development, as well as potential light/glare impacts rrom vehicles using the private street; and
WHEREAS, Enea Properties has designed the home on Lot I to address impacts to privacy, light
and glare, and noise as the second-floor windows on the north elevation of the home proposed tor Lot I
do not face the existing home to the north of the Project site; the windowless garage ofthc proposed home
on Lot 1 is located directly across the drainage channel and easement (approximately 20 teet in width)
from the backyard ofMr. Atwood's residence; an additional five-foot side yard setback along the north
property line has been included in the Project for a combined distance of 25 feet rrom the proposed house
on Lot I to the property line of the property to the north; and, the location of a six-foot wooden fence
along the north and east property lines of the Project site adjacent to proposed Lot I will block the noise
and light rrom vehicles accessing the garages of the residences and northbound on the private street, as
well as provide additional s(,1'eening to existing residences on Oxbow Lane in the residential area to the
north; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25,2005, and used their independent judgment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 05-07 recommending City Council
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Enea Starward Row Residential Project, P A 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on said application on February 15, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, proper notices of said hearings were given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council, dated February 15, 2005,
recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project P A 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hercinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make
the following findings and determinations, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section I 5074,
regarding said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program:
I. The Enea Starward Row Residential project application will not have a significant effect on the
environment with the incorporation of the identitied mitigation measures into thc project, and
based on a review of the Initial Study, all comments received, and public testimony.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program in
Exhibit B have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and all State and local environmental laws and guideline
regulations.
2
Btl'@>/
3. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment as mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the Project and are reflected in the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning/Stage I and 2 Development Plan and the Site Development Review for P A 04-006 to
reduce the potential significant effects to a less-than~significant level. The Mitigated Negativc
Declaration reflects the City of Dublin's independent judgment and analysis based on the
studies, reports and public record before it.
4. The project is not within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or within two
nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport.
5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are complcte and
adequate for the project as proposed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin City Council does hereby adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached as Exhibits A and B,
for the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project, P A 04-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this I 5th day of February, 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g:IPA#\2004\04-006\CCRESO IS·MM.doc
3
e
e
e
~
Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward Drive
Stage I and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and
General Plan Amendment, PA 04-006
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Reviewing Agency: City of Dublin
Prepared by; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
January 5, 2005
~I~I
EXHIBIT A
.
5"b
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist....."", "....", '''''' ,.. ""........,.........,..."........,....,.......... ............, ............ 3
Determination........"".,.,.. ,.. ,.., ,.., ,..",.""........,........... ......,.........,......."......................,..,.....,. 13
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................. ".........."........ ",...."....... 26
Mandatory Findings of Significance............,..... """""..,,,,,.,..., .,............, .....,........................ 49
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 2
e
.
.
"D1'b1
Environmental Checklist/Initial Study
e Introduction
.
.
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project
described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation
of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Project Applicant
Robert Enea
Enea Properties Company, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260
Danville, CA 94526
Contact Person for Initial Study
Pierce Macdonald, Associate. Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Project Description
Location and Context:
The project site is a .nacre lot located at 7475 Starward Drive (APN 941-0173-002-02) near the
intersection of Starward Drive and Amador Valiey Boulevard, Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project
area in context of the larger City of Dublin. Exhibit 2 depicts the project site under existing conditions.
The current Retail/Office land use designation was established for the parcel at 7475 Starward Drive in
1985 with the adoption of the first General Plan after incorporation of the City of Dublin. Previously, the site
was within unincorporated Alameda County and subject to County land use regulations. The site has a
current Zoning Ordinance classification of Commercial Office (C-O) District, established under the City's
first Zoning Ordinance. The site has flat topography, indicating previous grading, and it has been partially
developed. In 1963, the existing medical office building complex was built. The size of the existing
building complex is 5,268 square feet. A small parking lot occupies the area adjacent to the buildings. A
drainage canal follows the north property line. The site has little remaining vegetation, indicating previous
clearing. Existing vegetation consists of a mature multi-branch palm tree, an olive tree, and various
shrubs, such as oleanders and underbrush.
Surrounding land uses consist of the following: to the east is a small, 12-unit duplex rental complex on
property with a Medium/High-Density Residential General Plan land use designation; to the north is a
drainage canal and a neighborhood of detached homes with a Singie Family Residential General Plan land
use designation; to the west is a neighborhood of 31 detached homes with a Medium Density Residential
General Plan land use designation; and to the south is a shopping center with a Retail/Office General Plan
land use designation.
Proiect Proposal:
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned
Development (PD) District Rezoning, a Site Development Review, and a Vesting Tentative Map to allow
the development of ten (10) detached single-family homes on ten (10) individual lots, along with associated
improvements typical of a residential development. Exhibit 3 depicts the proposed General Plan
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 3
l't
Amendment and PD Rezoning. Exhibit 4 depicts the proposed Vesling Tentative Tract Map that would
subdivide the site if approved by the City of Dublin. If approved, the lot sizes would range from 2,143 _
square feet to 2,652 square feet for a net density of 13 units per acre. _
The current General. Plan land use designation is Retail/Office and the Applicant requests a new General
Plan land use designation of Medium·Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre). The maximum
development potential under the proposed General Plan land use designation would be 10 units on the .77
acre site. The density of the proposed project is 13 dwelling units per acre. The current Zoning District is
Commerciai Office (CO) and the. Applicant requests a new PD Zoning District for the project.
The new homes would be two-stories and provide lot coverage ranging from approximately 42% to 56%.
Exhibit 5 depicts the site plan for the project. Anticipated sales prices of the residences are expected to be
in the range of $ 550,000 to $ 600,000, according to the Applicant.
All of the homes would provide two-car garages. A private street would serve the garages, which are
located to the. rear of the. proposed lots. One of the garages (Lot 10) is equipped with. two vehicle doors on
opposing sides of the structure, so a driver leaving the garage would enter Starward Drive without backing
into oncoming ttaffic. The driveway is 24 feet in width, tapering to 21 feet, and would access the project
from the middle of the block, forming a "T" configuration, A five-foot landscaping strip or bioswale and a
six-foot fence would separate the driveway from the property to the east. Table 1 describes the pertinent
details of each of the homes, as follows below:
Table 1, Enea Starward Project Description
LoU Home Size Footpri nt Lot Size Lot Front Parking Height
(square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Coverage Setbacks Spaces . (feet)
HomeJGarage (feet)
1. 1,595s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,652 s.f. 49.6% 10 2 26'
2. 1,595s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,464 s,l. 53.4% 10 2 28'
3. 1,595s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,464 s.f. 53.4% 10 2 26'
4. 1,595 s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,466s.f. 53.3% 10 2 26'
5. 1,595 s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,596 s.f. 50.6% 10 2 29'
6. 1,595 s.f 1,316 s.f. 2,609 s.l. 50.4% 10 2 26'
7. 1,595s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,468 s.l. 53.3% 10 2 29'
8. 1,595s.f. 1,316 s.f. 2,418 s.f. 54.4% 10 2 28'
9. 1,581 s.f. 1,206s.f. 2,143 s.f. 56.2% 10 2 26'
10. 1,342 s.f. 1,028 sf 2,452 s.f. 41.9% 10 2 26'
Other Areas 6,375 s.f.
Total 15,683 18,723 sJ. 33,693 s.t, 20
The proposed project would include grading of the site to promote improved on-site drainage. The
preliminary grading plan indicates that grading would be balanced on the site, meaning that import of fill
material would be minimal and export 01 material would not be required to complete the project grading.
Project grading would involve the movement 01 approximately 580 cubic yards of soil. The proposed
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 4
e
.
·
e
-
'3Pb I'Ð t
project would also involve the construction of related improvements as part of the subdivision, including
underground water, sewer, drainage, natural gas and telecommunication facilities.
The project developer would install landscaping along the Starward Drive project frontage in the front yards
of the homes and side yard of Lot 10, as well as planting of street trees in the landscape strip within the
right-of-way. Landscaping plans include the planting of fescue grasses in the proposed five-foot-wide
bioswale adjacent to the 296-foot eastem property line (bioswale extends approximately 250 feet). The
purpose of the bioswale is to slow the flow of stormwater run-off from the project as it drains to the City
storm drain and to allow some filtration and absorption into the ground.
The project developer anticipates that the entire project would be built in a single phase of development
over one year, with the homes ready for occupancy by Fall of 2006.
Existina Entitlements:
Under the current General Plan land use of Retail/Office and Commercial Office (C-O) Zoning District, the
allowable FAR for the subject property is .25 to .60 and employee density is 200-450 square feet per
employee. Based on the current designation, the allowable fioor area would be between 8,423 to 20,216
square feet with a projected employee population of 19 to 101 employees. Development would be guided
by the Zoning Ordinance regulations for the COO Zoning District. Existing setbacks are 20 feet in the front,
10 feet on the sides, and 10 feet in the rear, and the existing maximum building height would be 35 feet in
the commercial district. The differences between the existing land use designation and the current
proposal are summarized below:
Table 2, Development Under Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Criteria Existing Retail/Office and Proposed Medium-Density Potential Medlum·Density
COO Designation Potential Residential Designation Residential Density
.25 to .60 FAR 13 DUlAcre 25 DUlAcre
8,423 to 20,216 sq.ft. 10 Units 10 Units
15,683 s .ft.
10ft. Front
3 ft. Side
29 ft. Rear
20 spaces
+ 14 on-street s aces
27 residents
2.65 residents er unit
26 - 29 feet
Building SI~eI
Owellin Unit
Setbacks
20 ft. Front
10ft. Side
10ft. Rear
34 to 81 spaces
10ft. Front
3ft. Side
29 ft. Rear
20 spaces
Parking Spaces
Population Yield
19 to 101 employees
Building Height
35 feet
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Poge S
t1øo
Reauired ADDrovals:
To allow construction of the proposed project, the Applicant has requested the following approvals from the ..
City of Dublin: ,.,
. A General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Map designation from
Retail/Office to Medium-Density Residential (6.1-14 units per acre);
· A Zoning District change from CoO (Commercial Office) to Planned Development District;
· Site Development Review for ten (10) single-family residences; and
. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create ten (10) lots and a shared private street on a separate lot.
If Ihe approvals described above are granted, the project applicant would subsequently appiy for the
following: encroachment, grading and building permits from the City of Dublin; necessary utility connection
permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District; and, encroachment permits from the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7 because of the development's proximity to the
creek channel.
e
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enee Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
e
Page 6
e
e
e
IÜJb l't>l
Exhibit 1. Project Location
. .
t,:z¡.I..,Ij:,I~:~r~· :" :-i'EiRLI¡J,'A,." " ","'." ,;~. ,.' ," "".
\\,H-c\ ,;,t:,·.."."."" \ '..V:1',.c:ì~,\'" ,,\¡.v:'p ),'.. ··',T,'.; 'I, '. .,," .'-
.",,: .:.\ .:: " (:\,.\, ~.."\ ,'"),, ': V~.,!,/ "~t~ '<'::';'-::".ç.\'J.6-,1..\,\\I~:::\ ;¡... L~ ,(:if),\~,' "\,' ~)- 'r~:, ;,.\ -..;" ':- .,:;(., ~"f < .,". ~_. \', ,,', .',. .
I Vi,..\.. '<"'J--'.'.:"'."' "',;fII! \ 1,-;" L"_'''.'L"'~l~'·'''·:Y.''· ..<\..J;:. >1"",,<:'/ (.,),,~ ,'" .:\." ç~.( v'...:, ,:\.~..~,~tf..:- ' f.' "."',,,.' ,\,'t· ,.~',~ ':".,\:' .')<;. ."( :-:r ..
.\' '1'\ '. ,_~' 1 ~' ,,~." "./,.' r""'\:..4"'I">"\~') 'I-"/'¡ ~' ,'} "''''''~ \ "" ~ ,'.'I!" :' :~-"':"', ' ¡...,;.' '" ,.Q\,.... ..~ .'ð:''''V :..;Iv...... ... \,' '..),
,,,', '. ".:'. "."~~;\X ,.\ "::: ,.",:' :'.'i" ¡.;;.~..~:, ì \,~.J';'~:\.'.(.:-i~.~..: 'x. ,~¡.;:"", \0-";. \> \.~~, ,,;"~ ' ':\: '0» '" .\t.''('>..''.'.' 'I !~,',~ ;, .1'" '0'<"'.'.' ~::, \ '.~~ ~\ .'.,'" A:.. :\\,;~' ," ~' ~)::: 'I
"1"'\.""í'. \.,.",)..-:: . .\".~f~\'.';1.. .,n\'L...'\'.,., .,. ",.("Ji~.. ......'.J",,, ,.'.:,.' ·(,f, .....\ ,'" "/~)-:,,I ~ '-:, \, "t',3(: .~. ~'1~'J;\' ." I, '~~" '1..\.. .."\ ~., \.,' /~ ~'·'PI../ "\' t1P \
".' .."1.'.' ..... .., .".' "'\>:'.'.' ..'\.J. ... ,"..:...'..' .. ."......". \,0., ...).'.....~ ." ......"....'.. .\....!.f'....~..i,¡.è..,...'.¥'...''...:t.'. .. ~"'..' .".'" ',¡po .:......"\.:.' ..... .'." ."I.P': ..'.."'..5:. ,,,,..., .:.'d......,. ....'. ~', ..... .. .....:... ." .'.""""~.'.:> '.: .' t...'......'.;.,'.:'.'.·.."..'.. ."." .;..,:.'.''0...
~' ",._". 1 ~"".",.~'.'Þ~':..., \'.\'\ .".... ~",·I ').1\:;., ".;;, ·í)' ,\t.'~\\·~, ,'.i\\~,';¡, .'\"'~'(0": ~'.;', v'· ~'<¿:':l')-:\>:::': ~~ )'. \~, t~·I' <.':':.-(,;:.:¡ ',::,' ": .~''\'f:N:- ,)... ~/:W;...,)' ~'7\'ç'.f:'J'/).~
;' "'l "Tf'" Ç"..J'>/~)".) '''I ."\ \;~:.~ \;¡}?;~."·l."\ L:1;"-J~::~ ;\,\:... ,., ' ;,'("~.)" ~(::. ¡~. :~"I~:::· , \ "~: "'r .~,,,' ' '.. ~'7~,.,.¡ ! '" .' ".~'<' ..> './",1'( .,.........'-;-,"/, ,,.....(,x>..r-~
""\"!)" \.'. ,~",(:i"".....'> .:.__ ',.:0"'-"'1' "..~'i1-."Ô'. 'I ç ",A" ¡'1' I·,.:.,~, "'- ",,,"\)~'('-"--' V.. .. (oj'--'/. "¡P\'<I':Ö'<%?')í!"
, '.' \' \_ .v' -.Þ":;.{.' ," ,\ ~.",.\ .:(J(" "!,, ',..J'. ':" ',.,' '., ,.' (~,' -~AI" ,. r·" .~" ,", ,", 'I' "," ¡ ;: ;, ":-':'1,·:'\ \ ," .', ,,' .~."'f'- ,',. ~'jí&h: ../'),y , ~I
N.' /..:t RJ.vc\,....,.,.'\:~' ;;;,..¡.('"' ,,~.\ '"."~ .....:".,'" -'. 1.:!i·:....:{L.,·..¡~?n, '.Y>',r¡.{t~;'·, .. .' I':J'~'·."" I;, ;','. ,,~;,-'. "'i,."~,,, .,' ,,:\;<,'." .....)" ":'>"'~':;:./"i/J.(;'.'.' '
L~_li.'l"I\ '~,~,~' /</r',':",\,.,," '.,\.:::':J"'\''', ""f'-": t\" ~,<,),)", ,r'j.î"':;:'jfl', ',', l: ¡~,~~. '~. ':, A~\ \-·'r"'·~ Ir",7\ ,,"~.'....o..:H" (·~':'t'Rf~ ',~",,/)-1''. -I,
~.,\9'J,:,:::.I,:,t:"1')' ".'.;..".' . ",,('.~Ò\r::, ï:'~"". \?'\.Y¡·..I I,~..~~::-I.}··.¡.· .:;1('.''';1"';.(''<'/.).' /~: ..··'i ;'c ;.~'\'~ '\:' \\V.'\~'\": .')'" .":J::'\':. :?;'~''\.'' .y\;, .:: ::'...""..'. ,.' ,J"'........ ,,<..,,·,.·.,~·)j'G\:}~/"
'. ....'..., ¡"", <: '>/'" . ,.....' ',')' \.. .r. I/"",~"Q" ;;,;"·'.''''k''·'I·· . !VO:'I'"'~\''''' If-V:' ,j.'·.!..ì ".n.·.("")"
\:\.;111,[' '.1" (/,r) ,Oy/f<&.:;'J\ )b~(\:\~'Gi;\(~' .:~;~f¡U~';;¡:i?t~(~j,~·J\""\\' ···.·.\~\:0'l '..'....i;;ij;,i.';\,f~~<§Ji\);:.01t:;....'.(.i\>
11'1 '\..¡" . I' '''¡' "'I"" ..1."., ",I ,Wi.. \\,:1rl.,U, :Y';'.' 1'." '.~I ",. (),,"'~ .:h"\..'. <",,'''¡''. \ ',. (!,' .".,.,' .' :.:.,.!\ )','-'" v >,>'::~ r !}r;"y
'.',iIi' 1~1j)\ r......' r,I".:.c1 . \\(0""·.·.:f\Yy"\·J "'l:i··'Y''''\'''''· . r .~'. " ,,' ...>....,\.. /\1/,'{ ^"" .;,;,()" -SY,
r;r:~ln: :,~¡!¿I !..':'~i t::t&~~t:J\;\~iì '\~;:\-YrÖ\lt::')'''''Íi,,-'\ :. /" '/'~"r\,>.'\ "S[~~'/;;;:::'1$r~"i;;;':{;;>'i:,:;ift0:>'(:' '
")J[¡.'r(:.J::.(.,,(jU:Jl.n:':~..-: i.,.1,:,.'21J¡ 0~~\\.'#£'" \."f\ .'.'.' ....' . .~~".'~:.~.',<". \." :,<c ;;:ifÚ:[\...;,~v-.--:><t....·..~.:.,..·""
:. '\:'n,'.\\:~;:', \:,,~\\(3,:\ \0(' \.'ì~,{¡,*~, ',",,, ~,,' I .\.,~:\\.>\ ;,~~¡:::fi'8:::Yl~BÍJß~\\'s0'.i.+I;
')(0 '"\",.\'\.~ ,'.q ....'~,.\.~.,.¡;þ\' '.\'-3' !i::i,~,~"f.\!i~\!'I._;"'r..¡¿...,..,· ,... A""" 1í':X' -ö' "X/")' c, ,,'.:''0* .~
'.! "...:>:.\...:t."",.,,,,,... ":'\")."'\"':)".".. .'. .'.·:.,'.....·..c r;Í\..It.'.i...~".\...\"'.....~....; ..... .'. '\.".....'''.\.:)0,,:'.''...:.....'.....'........'..ó..'.., ..,.... ".'" ...:',.;I."......~.~.~:\.'.:....''Ã.. .'.'. ...."'.<...'¡..;..."'''..;. .: .."'è. ';.""'.,::;,.,<..,...,::,...ZJ. ~'"
1 ',..!f!If- V\,\(:,0'(:"',';<":('"\' I' 'rn ;' / ~':;f1(;):"...".:"."t"fi\""Þ' \'!'i"'~"'4X4J3"\'jll':f,(~V¡ì':-~
".' Uw~i:' -<4', ·1' );!}f!i'J. "\ \ ., ,'., T!:': /.,¡V1'~'!:':<·'¿;1 . ')~' !"~" \:::'''-' < ': j!)~~·,<,:.\<~¡ji/\~~}·"~' ~'i\~;ft.//:~"!r
".'\;:.\ \'.'''1!'''' ,.,,1.1;,. ":;~.':":c' ""(çi"",,.. ',.... .."......' '~."f/) \'.~' ""'i¡Í!': ',' "'1...:1': .';':':' ...".'.''''...... .. ''''I'''' ..' '·'Ie ."....... ."........:é. "7..L'/;"C(Ý. .re/1m..".!). ,.
, :e'i ',I' ,:lo"~ ,8.. . k'''·l\:.....'0';!A'· ,,.,,t.::" r.·"'''''··''':.,:'';·''·''· . ':"i,.;"'. ."'~' '<':j¡f/fh'·J;J,¡f':.OZ
"..__ " :'''."...'''~.".".., .. /."N;~\-', . 1" '''. .(J.'" ..\ \\;...... ..( '''<.'''''''r1i''{' . ,"1,'" ''''J<V..-' "-!¡' "ì/"./.(J·"
:'or,;,(/",., ,,:,: ,.,'.¡\\~~.ß5\\~~~;'~!~ '~::~., .'.:."<,\ <"Lø~·' 1 ..:;..':,~~\"'.' '\";" ' ':,':çí,!;;t:J,::,\!!i" ""~~O\" ",.,,:,~, ~';,.,:~,..;.:;,,:'q"'~ ·~K,'/.~,"·"",,'·,.II'j ~",\,I
"::.'h,~mJ{r' \\(:.:,.t,·.> ':':(, :1I.(i¡¡h¡,( '\" ',c..,~'-'" l~r::'( ,,< "., '>.:.,~x":,~'" ':1.\ry;,'i~~~\·"::'" ,:'i,'"'-·"·,,,T¡.·"'·" .:;:,~'" "",,\;,,~,.,~t,,:,<,:
','.1/''''''''... ,...~,..,"".,... .,'".",1,..... ',> .' ...".'.' ......'....... ~"..... ............ ...'."...·..D\ ....'......,.... ''',........ ""...'...., "". ....,....,,!
,,'" '/"" \\\\ \"~'¡'" ¡,'-'I: '.' '11' . ,,0,,"'''' .....,.," ..'\" '''''''Iu,I'''' ,:" '~')ii·,"·r',,::, "','"'' .'~'.
)"&'. 1;;?,.:~,\;~...>:0.\i:;.(i.~~t'~."'.:;.'Ù.;.".lltf"I, '1(,"",.'.. ..,~~~fi~\.:.'!:.:.;.).'.·. {à:.;:.~·.....,:::,' ...:'"'.'" ...'~",.j'~%i~.:';'.;.i'...":.""'.':... ';~.'.'."'}." ..... ~~¡.'~;:::'.' ... ';'~.'..ð..,.1.~p,..,I'i:
-.l7:¡-,v"" 'V"\\\<"'A""'/ó'\P" .." """'C¡ ,.,'......,,','....\.,...1..··.."0 ·1...· .,\\". '., ""'If"/"
..q:;f~.ii¡\,:;.'.!Ä(;;%~.'.";\~'...,~.\~~1'.A.il::';¡O'-;'II. \.:I.,~;..,··,;~<":..:...\.'·...'::.'''.'.'.·,¡.·..'.·,·.'·..11..·¡~·· .'.'l~~.;t<'~········ .': .. ...... ....;:".".,.... .y".......... ....... ij}),), . A..·.·
~).Ä\\1:':\' \\\1\. ",,0).( . .', ,i...·,.'",,·:: f '-.,.. .¡'(O, s::',,''''') "I'f; '.. ~:""":';' ,'·,."Y,,.
);\.\.c~A\\I/;\~'Ii',\, .,,), \f.\".........:".\,'.. "......D,..·.:...i-,·~····'("oc...",~f,':, I}'
.,:\,:e'.~ \f~,\, ':';J, j~;~.<. ,.-(\\ ',A, ,,,j:" "~"'''.,.. ':' ,..~"..:':"\ \::",;~:; :,',':t~:\,<~' ;.~,\ ~rl!/r·\: ~"~."·:':~'·'-i":'\'~': ' \1·1,,'0.)(&· " R,.,,~ :t: <-':":'~" I·Ai:~·
Ä..\.\P...ç.~"!..",..\¡..",,,,,. ..'~"" '.,.. .....\.. . '. .....".'Y.. I.·..·...·.·.·..·"...'.·· ""'...._.. ....\1ì!...."'."."¡.""....."...,, . .." "-'IIlI. . ~¡, .'... .' "J.. .....
. ,.., "S}'c::5/V:;;¡j"ßt .'. " ",\ '..... . .~ ,,'."., ',;t.~:\'''' "";',,)'111 ',:r;,"t:>" ...).0'.;." '."" .w·"';" ',. . , " 'i, "'" "':
, ,fJ\'\:'(;:.'iíU" \', ,. ,.' __'0 "',{ .. ..\:.,:,,,. : .', \"':,-' ;"r,};~1 ,,-,,~'''''.f:\, ·"\ftJ!:J:'''::/'·;\'~~ :.è., ""."
!', <-:.,\,f;; 'rf:J._I(\;~" '.,.,'1","'8:"":]:;'" '''':. "7,"~, ,..'''~,)ll·· ..';']'<:...""'"
',1'1 \ II ", '.,. '~ ;.1.1<'" \ \. .,," \~:!¡;;:'""'\·.1 " . 'v-''''''''''''\' I/}''''¡ .~:.. """, .,:,,;;
. , 4Þ' ~ ~(, '~ ", '.~~~ '~:í.)~~;,\,: ~'::'.':" ,,,:~J'(" \ ,~_./.. " '':''~:'','' \'::' :":."",..""', \,
/ "",'/\j . >",... c .~,O' ,:. ... ...,......",,,,,·V/I." ....""..",,,..,,,,,,,1.'
/ ,.. ' /. //" ."'. II'';'" ..' . ""." ......",..".,......,.' ."",,,..:¡""iI'·
\' '_' /, . .,,1,'1'........ ....-...."."".~"':::.""''''',,.'.,,'.. '"
,-, I ...._ ._.'f',..: / ,.......... ...·,'<::,j~;:,,:,fjf~.ft:;::..}~,:IW' ····i:...:: .. ...;.
'!;'
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 7
lit
Exhibit 2. Existing Conditions
e
e
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
e
Page 8
\'2.'1) I~\
e
',ª'"
\'\~~"
'~~i
~; \\
'\,\
.
Existing Zcning:C-Q (Commercial Office)
Propòsed Zcning: P·D (planned Development,
.' ~;:'>
..:' ,
~ :\ '(
:,,:,::'::I~,!~~~,::,:-,!:;,;,::;:;:;~:è;:,:;:::,;:::;.:.:::'::;:~:'~r:;;;::;" ·
.
Exhibit 3
General Plan Amendment/Rezoning
Starward Drive Project
I ¿fib
Exhibit 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Attached
City of Dubiin
Initial Study for !he Enea Properties Residential Project on S!arward (PA 04·006)
January 5, 2005
Page 10
.
.
e
I
i I ~ ~ ~ il' I I rri
~ iii Z ~
~ ~ &:'
~ I < U)
~ ~ )..
@J () ~
:z "
s:: '",
~UI ~Ui IU ul~ ~ p ~ r! r~ ~~
~ - - Ojl ~
!i I ~
tJ ~~! ~~-< ill 1M I ~ i ~I~ ~! z s::
:õ~ ~¡i~ I~n 0 ~
lill!1 ;ri
r~ lill !Ii! "'II ¡r~
Í(l (f)
~~fkf Uu
~Ih ~ih
~~ 11 cf
in . ~ n
sri
~~"';~¡W II tA
-
.< .
.
.
·1"
. ..w
",;,
<
m
en
-I
-en
Zc:
Om
n1~
z~
-10
»z
::!......
<01
mc.o
......
...
_.
A
I t:111 I I
I :: .-~ :,' III ) I
, ],1 ~" , ,
ó: j ~ I, :O! ' ,
.(q-. lõt~:.J I I
.~ ~ I·f"'~-- :
,,'¡' 'il': '1,..
,;: ~ . ,<- A
I :;:¡,' I ~ :;...... .
, <I ~ II I
,~. ~, " ,
, "'n II ,
I I! ""'" ¡II r
: ,( ~ê ~Sl~'"
: ! I I:!
: I' .>ilL:
, 'I '11\-,
'¡ ",
'(I) , " ,
'-I ' II I
:> I \ :' 1-
'::tJ I --.,' ,II
:::e ,: ,I ,It :
':?õ I ~ II I I
~j II I
! ~:::
:e I ...~!
, I ¡'"
I, 'I
: I I ,:11:
: . I µ
, I '-----' ,
i i ~Tr-
:~
: -,,~ H :: t-
: ~I I~.._:; I
: ~j I~ :.:¡ II I
<:.. fI1 () 1,1
: ' ~~ ¡¡ II I
, Ii.. III
I ¡¡:.. I
1;"<' --~'
",," \ \ ~ \
1-' I 11 \
I \ \ -It \
, \ (\\ \
\. t'~ \1 \
I \ ,,., \,., \
I \ ". \
\ ~. ,,\ .....
\ \ \ \\ \ .... ......
\0 \ \ ~~~~~:~,~ . '"
\:>ñ ~.: '\ '". .-
\~ \ ) m ....'> "-
\~ ,{~" 't;,~',
\ g~, \ I~ Î~ ~~'-
\\ ',," ~ 2 ~~~.::--...,
"\ '\. '-.... !;1: -.,~.. ----_
"" '\", '\ "'-. iì '-~~lt~;;ú ~Jn,. r--
, ',,'- -~ I~ .~
1~-~~ - -- -
,. ,
..-
M<"
~. ~ - - ~
.m_.__._.__..' ".__'.'.
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CON'FROL
1:/"PIIC
I~
i~
~
t" ~
~
~' .
=
I'·
\'i
I ~ i
'~j¡
,~¡j:
. '~St/
~)·I
<f"
i~
.'
L
,
~
»
""U
' I5'%
9
·
~
'.'
;i' §
!j¡
ë
"..
>--
~
'"
~
".
i~
---
~QgR II~ SJ.Jo . s.£'iII[R
PROPOSED B.: ATER WAIN
7'"
'\
·
~
~( )
....-1
0.»
¡ø:u
~:e
:;E»
~~~
o:IJ
;:00
rií:E
¡~,.
,.
.'.'
i
§
..
. .
~
Q'~'%
"I
·
,
.
"
<
;¡.
..¡¡¡
i~
!G.,
~"
,'I'
,~...¡ !
.
..
'~~~
(
.
ì~-
i· .. ;I~
~ )!
"F-
~~ ~'"
~~i
~ ~¡
r~
,~~
~i
~.
!
·
·
·
\?-q) 1'& t
1. Projecttitle:
Enea Properties Company Residential Project on Starward Drive
2. Project description:
Proposed Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning (Stage 1
and Stage 2) and General Plan Amendment. Project includes 10
single-family homes on a .77 acre lot. Maximum development
potential would be 10 units on the project site.
3. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94588
4. Contact person:
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
(925) 833-6610
5. Project location:
7475 Starward Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
6. Assessor's Parcel Number(s):
941·0173-002-02
7. Projectsponsor:
Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville, CA 94526
8. General Plan designations:
Retail/Office to Medium·Density Residential
9. Zoning: CoO District (Campus Office) to Planned Development
10. Specific Plan designations: None
11. Surrounding land uses: East: a 12-unit rental complex within Medium-High Density
Residential land use designation and COO Zoning District;
North: a neighborhood of detached homes within a Single Family
Residential land use designation and R·1 Zoning District and a
drainage channel owned and maintained by Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7;
West: a neighborhood of 31 detached homes within a Medium Density
Residential land use and a Planned Development District; and
South: a shopping center within a Retail/Office land use designation
and within the Downtown Core Specific Plan area.
12. Public agency required approvals:
General Pian Amendment
Tentative and Final Parcel Map (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 11
I (¿¡ tt> 1<óJ
Planned Development Zoning District Stage I/Stage II
Development Plan (City of Dublin)
Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Dublin) .
Approval of Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
Site Development Review Permit (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building Pelll1its (City of Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment pelll1its (City of Dublin)
Permits for stOIll1 drain oulfall to flood control channel (Zone 7)
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated" as indicated by the .
checklist on the following pages,
" Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources X Air Quaiity
- Biological Resources - Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils
X Hazards and Hazardous X Hydrology/Water Quality X Land Use/ Planning
Materials
" Energy/Mineral X Noise " Population/Housing
Resources ...
- Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings of
Systems Siq nificance
.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 12
IlIb '~I
· Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
·
·
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the
previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately address potential
impacts and mitigate any impacts to a less·than·significant level.
à I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis, as described on the
attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated,"
or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only
analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant affects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier document, including revisions or mitigation measures Ihat are imposed on
the proposed project.
Signature: _Ptl{iu~
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
City of Dublin, Community Development Department
Date: January £... 2005
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 13
1'6 If; I~I
·
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,7)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,7,15)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1,5,7)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 1,5,7)
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,5)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or
a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,9,14)
c) involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, couid result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use? (Source: 1,7,10)
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
Page 14
January 6, 2005
·
·
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
·
III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may
be relied on to make the following
determinations.) Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,6)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 1,4,6,17)
c) Resuit in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Source: 1,6)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 1,6,10)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 1,6,10)
IV. Biological Resources, Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 1,7,10)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 1,7,10)
I¿;¡'t) ,,)
Potentially Potentially less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 15
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other
means? (Source: 1,7,10)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wiidlife nursery sites? (Source: 1,7,10)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 1,7,10,15)
~ Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,10)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (SOUtce: 1.7,18)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuanlto Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1,7,18)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 1, 7,18)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1,
7,18)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project
2D~I~1
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
,'.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
Page 16
January 5, 2005
.
.
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
.
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (Source: 1,2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Source: 1,2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source: 1,2)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 1,2)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 1,2)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of Ihe project and potentially result in on-
and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (Source:
1,2)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 1 ,2)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewets are not available
for the disposal of waste? (Source: 1, 2)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(Source: 1,4,6,17)
'21~ Il£'
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 17
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
b) Create a significant hazard 10 Ihe public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 1,4,6,17)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 1,4,6,17)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 1,4,6,17)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
area? (Source: 1, 10)
f) For a project wilhin the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 1, 10)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 1, 10)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
inciuding where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 7)
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 1, 5, 6)
2.2'b l~1
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
,
X
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
.
.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
Page 18
January 5, 2005
.
·
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following I . Potentially Potentially Less than No
the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporaled
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted?
(Source: 1, 6)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 6,13)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X
the site or area, including through the alteration
of a course or stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site? (Source: 1, 6,13)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 1, 5)
f) OthelWise substantially degrade water quality? X
(Source: 1, 5)
g) Place housing within a 1Oo-year flood hazard area X
as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map7 (Source: 1, 5, 11)
h) Place within a 1 CO-year flood hazard area X
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 1, 5, 11)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of X
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam? (Source: 1, 11)
2-3t) (ßI
·
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 19
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(Source: 1,7,11)
IX. Land Use and Planning, Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 7)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effecl? (Source: 1. 14,15)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(Source: 1, 7, 10)
X. Minerai Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result In:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
general pian or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Source: 1, 12)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or ground borne noise
levels? (Source: 1, 12)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Source: 1, 12)
"2 ~'b \'6/
Potentially I' Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
, X
·
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project an Starward (PA 04-006)
Page 20
January 5, 2005
·
.
.
.
2S~
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following Potentially Potentially Less than No
the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (Source: 1,
12)
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 1, 10)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Source: 1, 10)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 10)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Source: 1, 10)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1, 10)
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 1,10,15)
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 21
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
Fire protection7
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
XIV. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated? (1, 15)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1, 10, 15)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e. tesult in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle Irips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source: 1,3,16)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (Source: 1, 3, 8,
16)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Source: 1, 10)
2wT1f:) tßl
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
. Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
·
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
Page 22
January 5, 2005
·
·
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as fann
equipment? (Source: 1, 5, 10)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source:
1,5,10) _
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 1,
10,14)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle racks)? (Source: 1, 10)
·
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Source: 1,6, 10)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (Source:
1,6,10)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Source: 1, 5)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed7 (Source: 1, 6)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (Source: 1, 6)
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Source: 1, 6, 19)
?'1~ I~I
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04·006)
January 5, 2005
Page 23
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
g) Comply with federal, state and local stalutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source:
Source: 1, 5, 6)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop beiow self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
2tDb \<i'1
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
X
.
X
X
X
·
·
Sources used 10 determine Dotential environmental imDacts:
1. City of Dublin Generai Plan
2. Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by GFK & Associates, October 27, 2004
3. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Study, prepared by TJKM Associates (2002)
4. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Mark Williams, Clayton Group Services, January
8, 2004; and Environmental Review Letter, prepared by Mark Williams, Engineering and Fire
Investigations, December 15, 2004.
5. Discussion/correspondence with City of Dublin staff
6. Communication with appropriate service provider or public agency with jurisdiction
7. Site Visit on October 5,2004
8. Letter from Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, dated October 7,2004
9. Letter from Alameda County Office of the Assessor, dated September 24, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
Page 24
January 5, 2005
·
.
.
.
'2& Ð \~I
10. Other source (Development Plan, Record Search, etc.)
11. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 060705 0001 B, updated 1997.
12. Noise Evaluation Letter, prepared by Thornbum Associates, dated October 6, 2004
13. Discussion of environmental setting with Jack Fong of Zone 7, on October 15, 2004
14. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
15. City of Dublin Municipal Code
16. Traffic Generation Analysis, prepared by Chris Kinzel, TJKM, October 26,2004
17. Asbestos Inspection Report, prepared by Brett L. Bovee, BEM, February 17, 2004
18. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Starward Project (PA 98-013), July 1998
19. SF Environment, environment(a)sfaov.ora, San Francisco.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 25
3D'tI<¿ ,
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Abbreviations Include:
PSI = Potentially Significant Impact
PS/M " Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
LS " Less than Significant Impact
NI " No Impact
.
I. Aesthetics
Project Impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a-b) Affect a scenic vista or view or damage scenic resources? LS. Based on a field observation of the
project site and review of General Plan policies. no existing views or vistas would be blocked or
altered by the project. The primary feature of the site is the existing 5,268-square-foot, single-story
office building complex constructed in 1963. No scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or
historic buildings are present on the site, as the existing building has no historic or architectural
significance. Very little landscaping or vegetation can be found on the site. Vegetation on the site
consists of a palm tree, olive tree, oleanders and various small shrubs, Some mature landscaping
is present on the site. A non-native multi-branch palm, chamaerops humilis, will be retained in the
yard of the proposed home on Lot 1. No mitigation measures are required.
c-d) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualify of the site and its surroundings, or
create a source of light or glare? LS. Construction of the proposed project would change the
existing visual character or quality of the area from a partially developed, commercial property to a
residential area that is similar to the development on the east, west and north sides of the
property. The character of the properties to the south is primarily retail and services commercial
(shopping centers). Based on a close review of the proposed plans, aesthetic impacts of the
project will be less than significant as there are many similarities between the proposed building
types, sizes, colors and materials and that of the existing residential development in the vicinity.
The proposed project will not be a source of significant light or glare, as only 10 single-family units
are proposed, Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant.
.
II. Agricultural Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime Farmland to a non-
agricultural use? NI. According to City records and information provided by the Alameda County
Assessor's Office, the site has not been used for agricultural purposes in the past or present, and no
Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. It is located in an urbanized
portion of the City, completely isolated from other agricultural resources within the region.
Additionally, the site is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Slarward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 26
3lfDl%1
.
Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency. Therefore, no adverse impacts to agricultural resources would result from the
project, and no additional mitigation measures are required,
III. Air Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a)
Would the project conflict or obstruel implementation of an air quality plan? LS. Construction of the
proposed project will add additional vehicular traffic to this portion of Dublin. These additional
vehicles will generate some quantities of automotive vehicle emissions, consisting of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10).
However, the location of the project near major transportation corridors (San Ramon Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard), the proximity of alternative means of transportation (WHEELS bus
service and pedestrian access to shopping), the relatively high density of the project (over 12 units
per acre), and the in-fill nature of the project results in conformity with the local Clean Air Plan
adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
b)
Would the project violate any air quality standards? PS/M. Potential air quality impacts can be
divided into short-term, construction-related impacts and long-term operational impacts associated
with the project.
.
Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and
excavation, could result in exceeding air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. Construction vehicle equipment on unpaved surfaces also generates dust as
does wind blowing on exposed ground surfaces. Generalized estimates of construction air emissions
include approximately 1.2 tons of dust per acre per month of construction activity. About 45% of
construction-related dust is composed of large particles that settle rapidly and are easily filtered
when inhaled by human beings. The remaining dust consists of small particles (also know as PM10)
that could constitute a more significant air quality impact, unless mitigated,
Adherence to the following mitigation measures will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less-
than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and
construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running
order. These dust control measures are essential during construction as the site is surrounded by
residential development and sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measure 1: The following measures (Best Management Practices) shall be incorporated
into construction specifications and shall be followed by the project grading contractor:
. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts
of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice per day with complete coverage, preferably in the
late morning and at the completion of work for the day, or when the wind is blowing;
. All clearing, grading, earthmoving and excavation shall cease during periods of high winds
greater than 20 mph over one hour;
.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 27
32tt> lot\
· All material transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or contained in trucks with
tarps that are securely fastened to prevent escape of dust and debris; .
· All inactive portions of the construction site shall be planted and watered if construction is
accomplished in more than one phase;
· On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph and the site superintendent shall have
enforcement measures in place;
· During rough grading and construction, Starward Drive shall be swept at least once per day,
or as required by the City of Dublin to remove silt and construction debris;
· Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided;
. Equipment engines shall be maintained in propet working condition per manufacturers'
specificalion; and
. Exiting from the site to surrounding roadways shall be performed at low speeds to avoid
roadway confiicts.
Additional potential impacts related to demolition of the existing building are further described in
Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materiais.
Potential long-term air quality impacts related to vehicular traffic emissions and stationary source
emissions would not exceed regional air quality standards or thresholds, for the reasons stated
above.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. The limited scope of the
project, which is located on an .77 acre site within an established, urbanized area of Dublin, would
minimize the potential of the ptoject to contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.
d-e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI.
If approved and constructed, the project would be expected to add 27 to 45 futute residents. The
ptoposed project would not be a source for pollutant concentration or create objectionabie odors as
it is a residential development typical of the surtounding vicinity and consistent with the local Clean
Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Additionally, the location of the
project, which is in close ptoximity to Downtown Dublin shopping areas (Ralph's gtocery store and
the Target store are within 800 feet of the ptoject site), to City services (Senior Center), and to transit
(LA VT A bus line #3), will provide alternative modes of transportation for the residents, reducing
dependency on automobiles.
.
IV. Biological Resources
Ptoiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a-b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or thtough habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
or on any riparian habitat or other sensitive naturel community identified in local or regional plans,
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 28
.
.
.
33<t l'd'l
policies, regulations or by the Department of Fish and Game or the Fish and Wildlife Service? N I.
Based on field observations of the site conducted in 2004, it is highly unlikely that any speciai status
species would locate on the site or use the site as habitat because of the geographic location of the
sile within an existing, urbanized neighborhood and the evidence of previous clearing and grading.
No riparian areas are iocated on the subject site. A channelized creek, owned and maintained by
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7 (Zone 7), is located adjacent to
the subject site and approximately 14 feet from the first proposed residence (measured to the
centeriine of the channelized creek).
c"d)
Have a substantial adverse impact on federelly protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? Or,
inteltere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? NI. A flood control channel held by the Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District 7) is located adjacent to the site to the north. As this existing channel is
constructed of concrete and established within a 20-foot wide corridor with a buffer of approximately
14 feet to the first residence, no waterways will be disturbed as part of the proposed project. It is
highiy unlikely that any native resident or migratory wildiife species would locate on the site or use
the site as a movement corridor because the project is iocated on a parcel developed for office use
with associated improvements within an existing, urbanized neighborhood, and it has been cleared
and graded.
e-~ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances, or conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conselVation plan? NI. The Dublin Municipal Code identifies and protects the
following Heritage Trees: any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore
tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter measured
at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade; a tree required to be preserved as part
of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or
subdivision map; or a tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully
removed tree. The trees on site, a palm and an olive tree, do not fall into the category of
Heritage Trees. The palm tree is proposed to remain as part of the project as it
contributes some screening and shade to the northernmost residence. The subject
property is not part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.
V. Cultural Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a-d) Cause substantial adverse change or restrictions to significant historic, archeological or
paleontological resources {including sites with unique cultural/ethnic value or sites with
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starwerd (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 29
3~IßI
religious/sacred uses) or human remaíns? LS. Based on previous analysis conducted by City Staff
for the adjacent development of the Toi Property (PA 98.013), there is evidence that the site once .
contained a streambed that was filled many years ago. Generally, historic and prehistoric habitation
occurred on sites adjacent 10 creeks, streams, and other bodies of water, although no surface
evidence exists that such artifacts are present on this site. Because the site presents evidence of
previous clearing and grading at subsurface levels, development of the proposed projecl should not
disturb buried cultural and/or paleontological artifacts through additional grading and general site
construction. Adherence to the following mitigation measure would maintain this impact at a levei of
less-than-significant:
Mitigation Measure 2: Should archeological artifacts or remains be discovered during construction
of the project, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified archeoiogist can
evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or
alter cultural resources. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422
(archeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic resources). If human remains are found, Ihe County
Coroner shall be contacted immediately. The project approvals will be conditioned accordingly.
VI. Geology and Soils
(Note: The following information is based on a Geotechnical Investigation for the site prepared by
GFK & Associates on October 27,2004. The field investigation was performed on October 13,
2004, and included the drilling of five (5) exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown in
Figure 4 in the Appendix of the Geotechnical Investigation, )
.
Overall Geoloav:
The project site is situated within the central part of Ihe Coast Ranges geomorphic provinces, which
is characterized by a series of parallei, northwesterly trending folded and faulted mountain chains.
In this part of the province, the relatively flat Amador Valley is underlain by alluvial deposits of the
Holocene Age. Folding and faulting of the hills within the region is attributed to the result of
prehistoric tectonic forces causing major uplifts.
Solis:
The subsurface soils as encountered in the exploratory borings consisted of alluvial deposits that
extended to the maximum depth explored of 21.5 feet. The upper 5 to 7 feet consisted of clayey silt,
and silty and sandy clays of low to moderate piasticity. In Borings 4 and 5, the soils in the top 4 to 5
feet were different from the other borings and most likely these soils consist of old fill that may have
been placed during original deveiopment of the existing StalWard Drive.
Below these upper soils, a stiff layer consisting of dark brown, moderately expansive silty clay about
3 to 5 feet thick extended to an approximate depth of 10 to 11 feet in all borings. Below this layer, a
tannish brown silty clay layer of about 4 t06 feet thick was encountered. Below the approximate
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 30
.
.-
.
35tl<¿1
average depth of 15 feet, tannish and grayish brown silty clay layer extended to the bottom of the
borings. In general, the consistencies of the soils encountered were moist and stiff, and became
very moist below an approximate depth of 15 feet.
Groundwater was encountered in the deeper borings (Borings 1, 2, and 4) at approximate depth of
19 to 20.5 feet below the ground suriace. Fluctuations in the groundwater conditions do occur with
seasonal rainfall.
A more detailed description of the soil conditions is presented in Ihe boring logs found in the
Appendix of the Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by GFK Associates.
Faultina and Seismicltv:
The subject site is located within the seismically active San Ftancisco Bay Area and epicenter maps
show continuing activity in the region. No known faults exist within or adjacent to the site, and the
site is not within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones, running generally parallel to San
Ramon Road.
According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 1982), the nearest known active
fault to the site is the Calaveras Fault that lies about 400 feet west of the site. The Alquist·Priolo
Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone of the Calaveras Fault is shown on the CDMG map at a distance of
approximately 100 feet west of the site. The local secondary faults include: the Pleasanton Fault
(about 1.5 miles east); the Verona Fault (about 6 miles southeast); and, the Las Positas Fault (about
11 miles southeast of the site). Other major faults of the region include: the Hayward Fault (9 miles
southwest); Greenville Fault (about 11.5 miies east); Concord Fault (13 miles northwest); and, San
Andreas Fault (about 27 miles southwest of the site).
Any of these major faults can produce significant shaking at the site. The U.S. Geological Survey
Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities (1999) has estimated that the probability of a large
earthquake in the region during the 2000-2030 period at 70% and the most probable source of
producing such an event is the northern segment of the Hayward Fault. The Calaveras Fault may
produce the most intense ground shaking due to its closer proximity to the site than the Hayward
Fault.
The ICBO (1998) estimated maximum magnitudes (moment magnitude) of 6.8 on the Calaveras
Fault; 6.9 on the Greenville Fault; 6.7 on the Concord Fault; 7.1 on the Hayward Fault; and, 7.9 on
the San Andreas Fault. The peak site acceleration that can be produced by these faults is
addressed below, under Ground Shaking.
Ground Rupture:
Since there are no known active faulls within the site, the possibility of ground rupture from faulting
is negligible.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Proper!ie$ Re$ldential Project on Starward (PA 04·006)
January 5, 2005
Page 31
, 3LÞ't) \~ l
Liquefaction Potential:
.
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of a saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid
during strong ground shaking from a major earthquake. Liquefaction occurs primarily in loose,
cohesion less soil below the groundwater, Considering the cohesive soils encountered during the
geotechnical investigation, the potential of liquefaction within the explored depth on the site is low.
Ground Shakin : :
Any of the major faults in the region can produce significant shaking at the site. The Geotechnicai
Investigation prepared by GFK & Associates indicated that the Calaveras Fault could produce the
most intense shaking at the site, and if a maximum credibie earthquake ruptures this fault at its
closest proximity to the site, peak site accelerations could typicaily range between .51g and .86g .
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death Involving: I) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantiai
evidence of a known fault; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction; and/or Iv) landslides? PS/M, Although portions of the site are located' withili
100 feet of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone identified by the State Geologist, no
evidence of active faulting has been found on the site by the Applicant's geotechnical engineer. The
Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the risk of ground rupture from an active fault appears .
low. Dwellings proposed for the site will be required to comply with seismic requirements
established by the Uniform Building Code.
Dwellings constructed on the site could be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking during an
earthquake. According the Geotechnical Investigation, the structural integrity of the proposed
buildings would be a primary factor in determining the possibie seismic damage due to
groundshaking, Groundshaking is a hazard which cannot be eliminated but can be mitigaled to a
level of less-than-significance based on adherence to the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure 3: The conclusions and recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation
prepared by GFK & Associates shall be incorporated into the design of the project and adhered to
during and after construction. All dwellings constructed on the project site shall conform with
Uniform Building Code Standards for Seismic Zone 4. This mitigation measure will reduce the
geotechnical impacts to a level of less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LS. Based on the geotechnical report
prepared for the project and site observations, the risk of ground failure is anticipated to be low due
to the flat topography of the site,
City of Du bUn
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 32
3.~ \'3\
·
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project and potantially result in on- and off-sita landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? LS. Based on the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the risk of
unstable soil is anticipated to be low due to the characteristics of the soil. Enforcement of provisions
of the Uniform Building Code and recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared
for the project and incorporated into the project will serve to reduce the potential impacts of seismic
ground failure to a less than significant level.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or properly? PS/M. Based on the geotechnical report prepared for
the project, the risk of expansive soils is anticipated to be low due to the characteristics of the soil
taken from sample borings. Localized fill may exist on the site as encountered in borings conducted
for the Geotechnical Investigation. Enforcement of Mitigation Measure 3 (above) requiring the
project proponent to adhere to the conclusions and recommendations contained in the GFK report
will serve to reduce the potential impacts of expansive 10 a less than significant level.
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporling the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? NI. No septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal syslems are proposed for the project. Dwellings constructed as part
of the project will be connected to City utilities, including water and sewer service.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
·
ProiectlIilDacts and MitiGation Measures
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the project in January 2004 by the firm of
Clayton Group Services, Pleasanton. The purpose of the assessment was to identify historical or current
sources of contamination or hazards on the site. The Phase I Assessment concluded that the existing
small office building was constructed in 1963 and may contain asbestos in some of the building materials.
An Asbestos Inspection Report was prepared by Bovee Environmental Management (BEM) on February
17,2004. The report concluded that asbestos containing materials (ACM) were present is some materials
used in the construction of the office complex, such as ceiling tiles, floors, insulation tape, and walls. The
BEM Report provides the regulatory background for the removal of ACMs and the firm's recommendations.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine trensporl, use or
disposal of hazardous materiels? PS/M. Asbestos containing materials are present in some of the
building materials in the existing office building complex on-site, This hazardous material could be a
potential significant impact if it was released during demolition of the building. This potential adverse
impact can be mitigated to a level of less·than·significant by adherence to the following mitigation
measure:
Mitigation Measure 4, The project proponent shall follow the recommendations and conclusions
found in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Clayton Group Services, and the
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Ene" Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 33
~'Dti!
Asbestos Inspection Report, prepared by BEM, prior to demolition, and shall prepare and implement
a containment plan, pursuant to state and federal law. The asbestos removal shall be certified as .
meeting the most stringent regulatory requirements and practices, prior to demolition.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonabiy foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? N I.
Construction of the project and occupation of the units once construction is completed will not
involve significant hazardous materials that could be released in an accident.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? N I. No significant hazardous
materials will be used in the construction of the project or once the units are occupied since this
proposed project is residential. Two schools are within 1/3 miles of the project site. Nielsen
Elementary School at 7500 Amarillo Road is within 1,627 feet and Dublin Elementary School at 7997
Vomac Road is within 1,843 feet. No additional schools are proposed for the project vicinity.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? N I. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled. putsuant
to Government Code Sec. 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area? NI. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of
an airport. The nearest airport is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is over 5 miles away from
the project.
.
Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area? NI. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of
an airport. The nearest airport is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is over 5 miles away from
the project.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed project would not impair implementation or interfere
with any emergency plan or evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? N I. The proposed project would be built within an urbanized area. The project area is
not part of, nor adjacent to, any open space or Wildfire Management areas. All structures proposed
for the project site would be built in conformity with provisions of the Uniform Building Code and
Uniform Fire Code.
City of Du blin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 34
~'b
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
· No surface water exists on the site. The nearest surface water source is an open flood control
channel (Line J-3) located off-site on a parcel which forms the northerly boundary of the site. This
facility has been constructed by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Zone 7 as a regional drainage facility and it continues to be maintained by the District.
According to Staff analysis prepared for the development of Ihe adjacent Toi property (PA 98-013) in
July of 1998, the project site as well as the remainder of the Tri- Valley area is underlain by an
extensive underground aquifer. The aquifer ranges in depth between 15 and 500 feet but is no
longer used as a source of domestic water in the area.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
prepared for this portion of Dublin indicates that the site is subject to flooding during 500 year
flooding events (Area X500). The open flood channel adjacent to the northern property line is within
a flood area identified as AE, or an area inundated by 1% annual chance flooding, for which base
flood elevations have been determined. Base flood elevations are established at 355 feet above
sea level along the northern boundary of the project site. (Community Panel Number 060705 0001
S, updated in September 17, 1997.)
·
Water is supplied to the community by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
headquartereó in Dublin. DSR8D maintains a variety of facilities to distribute water throughout the
District's service area. Facilities include reservoirs, water tumouts, pumping stations and pipelines
to deliver water to customers. The District obtains water pursuant to an agreement with Zone 7 of
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 is a multi-
purpose agenéy that oversees water issues in the Tri-Valley Area, including supplying treated water
to four retail water agencies, providing flood control protection and managing underground water
resources in the area. Zone 7 presently obtains water from three sources: the State Water Project,
local surface water and local groundwater.
Proiect Imoacts and Mitiaation
a) Vío/ate any water qualíty standards or waste díscharge requirements? PS/M. The proposed project
improvements will lead to the creation of new impervious areas within Zone 7's watershed, cteating
additional runoff in downstream facilities. The small size of the project which consists of 10 single-
family units on a .77-acre lot will reduce the potential impacts. In addition, the proposed
Development Plan includes the incorporation of a five-foot wide and 250-foot long bioswale along
the east property line. This landscaped depression would collect stormwater run-off and direct it to
the storm drain inlet. The purpose of the bioswale is to slow the movement of the stormwater and
provide opportunities for absorption into the ground. The following mitigation measure is proposed
to limit impacts created by increase stormwater runoff:
Mitigation Measure 5. The project proponent shall pay Special Drainage Area 7-1 Drainage Fees.
Fees are collected by the City of Dublin for Zone 7 at the time of Final Map approval and building
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 35
t../Dfb( 'Í \
permit approval. A credit is available for the existing development on the site, which will be
removed. The project proponent shall submit plans to Zone 7 for review indicating exisling
impervious area and proposed impervious area calculations.
.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 5 will reduce the potential runoff impacts to a level of less-than-
significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantíally with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g. the production rete of pre~xistíng nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? LS. Homes in the vicinity
of the project are connected to water service through DSRSD. DSRSD does not rely on
groundwater as a source of water for domestic consumption. There are no other sources of water
withdrawal at the site.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteretion of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site? LS. The site has a flat topography with a gradual slope on the northern boundary of Ihe
site. A regional open dreinage channel exists immediately to the north. The applicant has indicated
that the site will be graded in order to provide for future building pads, private driveways and similar
features. Estimated grading quantities would include moving approximately 580 cubic yards of
material at the site (cut and fill would be balanced). Although unlikely, without proper mitigation,
some erosion could result into the adjacent flood channel, onto Starward Drive, and onto the
residential complex to the east. The following mitigation measure is proposed to limit impacts related .
to ,¡iater-bome etosion to maintain a level of less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure 6: The project developer shall prepare and the City shall review an erosion and
sedimentation control plan for implementation throughout the project construction. The plan should
be prepared in accordance with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
design standards. The plan at a minimum should include the following:
- Ail disturbed areas shall be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and
water erosion upon compietion of grading activities.
- Storrnwater runoff shall be collected into stable drainage channels from small drainage basins
to prevent the build up of iarge, polentially erosive stormwater flows:
- Specific measures shall be established to control erosion from stockpiled earth materials:
- Runoff shall be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction;
- Sediment ponds or siltation basins shall be used to trap eroded soiis prior to discharge into off-
site drainage culverts or channels;
- Major site development work involving excavation and earth moving for construction shall be
done during the dry seasons, except as may be approved by the City Engineer.
- Gradingof the property should be graded away from the Zone 7 channel to prevent overbank
discharge into the channel.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 36
·
·
·
%ï)
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 6 will maintain the potential erosion impacts to a level of less-than-
significant.
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? LS. The site is partially developed and
currently water percolates into the groundwater table on the areas on which there is no development
(approximately 2/3 of the project site), The proposed project will add impermeabie and impervious
surfaces on the site in the form of residences, garages, driveways, walkways and similar hard
surfaces. This will result in higher quantities of storm water runoff that must be accommodated by
the local drainage system. Preliminarily, stormwatet will be directed off-site into an existing public
storm drain system within and below Starward Drive. Ultimately, storm water from the project would
be discharged into a Zone 7 facility. The project size of .77 acres will limit the potential impacts. The
following mitigation measure will maintain the impact to a level of less-than-significant:
e)
Mitigation Measure 7: In accordance with City standards and procedures, prior to approval of a
final subdivision map or issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be required, by City
regulations, to submit and have approved a drainage and hydrology study, which will include
detailed calculations regarding the amount of additional storm water anticipated to be generated and
the ultimate disposition of the water. The project developer shall also be required to obtain
necessary permits from Zone 7 to allow for additional discharge into the Zone 7 facility.
With adherence to the standard City procedures in Mitigation 7, no significant impacts are
anticipated with regard to absorption rates or increased storm water runoff and no further mitigation
measures are required to maintain the impact to a level of less-than-significant.
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? PS/M. The preliminary
grading concept for the project involves collecting on-site storm water runoff and transporting it to
the north for ultimate outfall into the unnamed Zone 7 flood control channel via a bioswale. The five-
foot-wide swale would be landscaped with fescue grasses to encourage filtration and absorption
prior to discharging.
It is likely that initial storm water flows after a lengthy dry season may add pollutants into the
adjacent flood control channel, including but not limited to grease, oil, fertilizer and other organic and
inorganic material. Typically, subsequent flows generally contain fewer amounts of pollutant
material.
The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a
coordinated effort by local governments in the County to improve water quality in San Francisco
Bay. In 1994, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a set of
recommendations entitled "New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs." These
recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, minimum non-point
source pollution controls for site planning and post construction activities. Watershed protection
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 6,2005
Page 37
4~~1't.1
goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Control Plan, which
relied on Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its .
source and remove such pollutants prior to being transported into receiving waters. The following
mitigation measure is recommended to reduce surface water quality pollution to a level of less-than,
significant.
Mitigation Measure 8: The project developer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
for approval by the Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7. The Plan shall include specific
BMP measures to reduce water quality impacts from construction aclivities as well as from long,term
operational aspects of the proposed subdivision. The project shall be subject to payment of fees
required by Zone 7.
With incorporation of Mitigation 8, the potential impacts of the project will be reduced to a ievel of
less.lhan-slgnificant.
Q OthelWise substantially degrade water quality? NI. See discussion above.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? N I. The project site lies outside of the
1 OO-year flood plain as identified on the applicable FIRM published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Community Panel 060705 0001 B. A flood channel (100 year) is located
adjacent to the site. No significant impact has been identified and no mitigation measures are
required,
h) Place within a tOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? NI.
The project site lies outside of the 100-year flood plain as identified on the applicabie FIRM
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Community Panel 060705 0001 B. No
significant impact has been identified and no mitigation measures are required.
.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? N I, The project area is not protected from
flooding by eilher an existing or planned levee or dam, therefore there is no impact related to levee
or dam failure and no mitigation measure is required.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? NI. No history of impacts relative to seiche, tsunami or
mudflow have been identified in the projecl area and no mitigation measure is required.
IX. Land Use and Planning
The current General Plan land use designation for the subject parcel is Retail/Office. The
Retail/Office land use is described in the General Plan as "Shopping centers, stores, restaurants,
business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and sale of auto parts are included in this
classification. Residential use is excluded except in the Downtown Intensification Area." The
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 38
q~
·
Zoning District of the parcel is Commercial Office (C-O). Allowed uses on Ihe property include a
range of commercial and office uses. Residential uses are not allowed.
The Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use
designation to Medium-Density Residential for conformance between the proposed project, the
adjacent properties, and the General Plan Land Use Map. As part of the project, the site is also
requested to be rezoned to PD as a residential Planned Development.
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The scope of the project is limited to 10 dwelling
units on .77 acre on one parcel. The small scope of the project would not create any physical and
other potential barrier to free access in the surrounding community or compromise the integrity of
the surrounding community. Medium and Medium-High Density Residenlialland uses have been
established on the west and east sides of the subject site. The proposed Medium-Density
Residential designation would create greater continuity between the residential properties in the
area and buffer the lower density residential land use to the north of the project from the commercial
shopping center to the south of the project.
·
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? PS/M. The proposed project would
change the current Dublin General Plan iand use designation and Zoning Ordinance District.
Although applications have been filed to amend the General Plan and establish a Planned
Development District, such actions may only be approved by the Dublin City Council with
recommendations on these actions bY-the Planning Commission. There is a potentially significant
impact relative to consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
However, proposed densities would be just under 13 units per acre, which would be consistent wilh
the requested Medium-Density Residential General Plan land use classification and would be
consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations of adjacent properties.
The proposed project would be consistent with other provisions of the General Plan such as General
Plan Residential Land Use Section 2.12, Neighborhood Diversity. Guiding Policy A states, "Avoid
economic segregation by City sector." Implementing Policy 8 states that medium and medium-high
residential densities shall be allocated to development sites in all sectors of the Primary Planning
Area.
The proposed introduction of housing at the Enea Starward Project site will also be consistent with
these policies in that it provides for the construction of a small lot, single-family detached home,
which is not commonly available in the Primary Planning Atea. The following mitigation measure is
recommended to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which would
reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for tha Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 39
'1~lß \
Mitigation Measure 9: Concurrent with the approval of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map
for the project, the General Plan will be amended to a Medium-Density Residential land use .
classification, and shall be rezoned to a Planned Development (PD) District.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
This Initial Sludy represents full Califomia Environmental Quality Act compliance with regards to the
project. The City of Dublin has adopted no citywide or specific environmental plan or policy relative
to habitat or natural resources conservation that would affect this application. Further discussion of
this issue may be found under Section IV" Biological Resources,
X. Mineral Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a - b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? N I. Based on
Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by GFK and Associates, the site is not located in an area of
aggregate resources. Therefore, there is no impact and no mitigation is required.
XI. Noise
(The following information is taken from the noise evaluation prepared by Tyler Rynberg and Steven
Thorburn of Thorburn Associates in a letter dated October 6, 2004.) The project site Is directly
bordered on the north and€!ast by residential zones, and by Starward Drive to the west and south.
San Ramon Valley Boulevard is located approximately 400 feet to the west of the site and Amador
Valley Boulevard is located approximately 600 feet to the south, Highway 680 is located
approximately Yo mile to the east of the site. The noise evaluation prepared for the project utilized
both a 24-hour instrument measurement and several short-term spot measurements. The 24-hour
measurement was made on the proposed Lot 5, at a point approximately 40 feet from Slarward
Drive. The spot measurements were conducted between Lots 5 and 6, at Lot 1 and at Lot 10. The
spot measurements were made concurrently with the 24-hour measurements in order to evaluate
how noise is distributed at the site, '
.
The noise evaluation measured noise using a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standard.
A CNEL standard is a descriptor of the 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. The CNEL concept
accounts for the increased noise sensitivity of people during the evening and nighttime hours.
Sound levels during the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p,m, are penalized 5 dB; and, sound levels
during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m, are penalized 10 dB. A 10 dB increase in sound level
is perceived by people to be twice as loud.
Thorburn Associates concluded that ambient noise throughout the site was dominated by traffic
noise from Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Boulevard and Starward Drive, The calculated
CNEL for the 24-hour measurement location was 58 dBA. Using the spot measurements, CNEL
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 40
LfS"b
·
levels were 59 dBA at the north side of the site and 60 dBA at the south side. These levels are
consistent with the General Plan's 1983 Noise Exposure Contours plan, and consistent with General
Plan acceptable community noise exposure levels of 60 dBA or less. Interior noise levels would be
reduced to 45 CNEL in any habitable room pursuant to General Plan and Uniform Building Code
requirements through normal building construction.
Proiect ImDacts and MitiQation
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? LS. The existing noise
levels at the site demonstrate that Ihe project would not expose residents to noise that exceeds
standards established in the General Plan, Uniform Building Code, or State law. Some additional
sources of noise would be created with both development and construction of the project.
Development of the project is expected to create some long-term sources of noise, such as the
noise of children playing, the noise of residents' vehicles entering and leaving the private garages of
the home, and other sources of noise associated with residential development. These sources of
noise may be heard by the residents of the adjacent duplex units to the east, as these units are
within 15 feet of the proposed private driveway. However, the project has been designed to limit the
noise generated by the sources of noise typicai to residential neighborhoods, such as children
playing, visitors' vehicles, gardening equipment, and trash pick-up, to a level of less·than-significant.
·
Trash pick-up is associated with high, spot noise measurements, as pick·up often occurs before 7
a.m., it is a regularly occurring noise event, and the sound of the trucks and cars can exceed 60
dBA. Visitor parking can be a potential adverse impact as any additional source of noise would be
an increase to existing residents. The project has been designed to isolate the noise of both trash
pick-up and visitor parking to the sidewalk along Starward Drive, at the greatest distance from the
bedrooms and private yard areas of the homes in the neighborhood. Similarly, garden areas are
separated from the residences to the east by the private driveway and detached garages of the
homes, which distance (approximately 35 feet) the source of the noise from voices and garden
equipment, as well as insulate Ihe noise behind the garage structures. These project design
features reduce the noise impacts of the property to a level of less than significant, as noise
generated on-site would not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA.
Construction noise levels would create short-term increases in noise exposure levels that would
likely exceed acceptable levels set by the General Plan (60 dBA or less) during certain time intelVals
of construction. See the mitigation measure incorporated into the project as part of Question D,
below.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise
levels? LS. Development of the site would require limited grading and normal wood frame
construction techniques. Sources of vibration such as pile driving or heavy demolition would not be
a part of the project.
·
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starword (PA 04-006)
January S, 200S
Page 41
'1b'"'bIß \
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? LS. See the discussion of permanent increases in Question A, above.
·
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? PS/M. Construction of the project can be expected to generate
short-term noise levels above 60 dBA. Noise sources would include demolition equipment, earth-
moving equipment, saws, hammers, additional personai vehicles, and the sounds of construction
crews. The project applicant anticipates that construction would last 12 months. Noise impacts
would be felt primarily by residents in existing homes to the east of the project. The following
mitigation measure is therefore recommended to limit the potential impacts of construction noise to
an acceptable level.
Mitigation Measure 10: All construction activities on the project site shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, and no construction shall occur on weekends or City holidays, unless
alternative hours are approved by the Dublin Building Official for structural construction and the City
Engineer for grading activities. ConstnJction equipment, including compressors, generators, and
mobile equipment, shall be fitted with heavy duty mufflers designed to teduce noise impacts to a
CNEL of 70 dBA or less.
With incorporation of Mitigation 10, the potential impacts of the project will be reduced to a level of
less-than-significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to~xcessive noise levels? NI. The project is not within an adopted
airport land use plan and it is separated from the nearest airport, Livermore Municipal Airport, by a
distance of 5 miles or more. Therefore no impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures
are required.
·
Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? N I. The project is not within the vicinity of a
private airstrip. Therefore no impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required.
XII. Population and Housing
Proiect ImDacts and Mitiqation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
LS. The proposed project is expected to create population growth of approximately 10 to 27 new
residents, Existing City infrastnJcture can safely accommodate this growth, therefore it is not
expected to create a significant increase. Therefore no impacts have been identified and no
mitigation measures are required.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
Jonuary 5, 2005
·
Page 42
·
·
·
Lfifb
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necassitating the construction of replacement
housing eisewhere? NI. There are no existing residents on the site.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housIng elsewhere? NI.
There are no existing residents on the site.
XIII. Public Services
The site is served by the following public service providers:
Fire Protection. Fire Protection is provided by the City of Dublin Fire Department, contracted
through the Alameda County Fire Department, which provides structural fire suppression,
rescue, hazardous materials control, and public education services. The closest Fire Station os
located on Donohue Drive approximately Y. mile east of the project site.
Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department,
which is headquartered in the Dublin Civic CenteL The Department, which maintains a sworn
staff of 31 officers, performs a range of public safety services, including patroi, investigation,
traffic safety, and public education,
Schools. Educational facilities are provided by the Dublin Unified School District which operates
kindergarten through high school services within the community. Schools which would serve
the project include Dublin High School (grades 9 - 12), Wells Middle School (grades 6 - 8), and
Dublin Elementary (K-6) , '
Parks. The City of Dublin provides park facilities through its Parks and Community Services
Department.
Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks,
street trees, and other public facilities.
Other Governmental Services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin
including community development and building services. Library service is provided by the
Alameda County Library with supplemental funding by the City of Dublin. The Dublin Civic
Center is located at 100 Civic Plaza.
Proiect Imoacts and Mitioation
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could causa significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services, including fire protection, police protection,
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 43
%'b'ßI
schools, parks, or other public facilities? LS. Due to the central location of the project, the small size
of the population generated by the project, and the current capacity of the City's public facilities in .
the central part of Dublin, the project by itself would not require significant new construction to
provide acceptable service ratios or response times. Cumuiatively, any additional population growth
would be expected to add a potentially significant burden on public facilities, which are at or
expected to be at full capacity in the near future.
City Services. The City of Dublin has adopted a Public Facilities Fee for all new residential
development in the communily for the purposes of financing new municipal public facilities needed
by such development. The following standard mitigation measure is applied to all residential
development to ensure that potential impacts can be maintained at a less Ihan significant level.
Mitigation Measure 11; The project proponent shall, prior to issuance of building permits, pay the
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee at the rate that is effective at the time of issuance.
Schools. The Dublin Unified School District recently completed a Facilities Master Plan that includes
estimates of student generation by residential density type. Since many local schools are currently
or are expected to be at full capacity in the near future, the following standard mitigation measure is
applied to all residential development to ensure that potential impacts can be maintained at a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 12: The project proponent shall, prior to issuance of building permits, obtain a
written agreement with the Dublin Unified School District for the project's fair share mitigation of
school impacts. Any fees, which are required putSuant to that agreement, shall be paid prior to .
issuance of building permits.-
With the incorporation of Mitigations 11 and 12, the impacts relative to Public Services will remain at
a level of less.than.significant.
XIV. Recreation
Project Impacts and Mitiaation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
LS. Cumulatively, any additional population growth would be expected to add a potentially
significanl burden on public parks, which are at or expected to be at full capacity in the near future.
However, the incrementai increase of 27 residents is not a significant addition to the population of
residents using the City parks and recreational facilities.
The City of Dublin has adopted a Public Facilities Fee for all new residential development in the
community for the purposes of financing new municipal public facilities, including City parks, needed
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties ResidenUal Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
.
Page 44
·
·
·
'¥1~
by such development. The following standard mitigation measure is applied to all new residential
development to ensure that potential impacts remain at a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 13: The project proponent shall, prior to issuance of building permits, pay the
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee at the rate that is effective at the time of issuance.
With the incorporation of Mitigation 13, the impacts relative to Recreation would be maintained at a
level of less"than-significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? LS. See
Mitigation Measure 11, above.
XV. Transportatlon/Trafflc
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantiai in reiation to the-existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i, e. resuit in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? LS. The project site has a total of
33,693 square feet of land. The southern portion of the property is approximately 14,993 square feet
and is undeveloped. The remaining northern portion's 18,700 square feet is developed with two
freestanding office buildings, totaling approximately 5,268 square feet of office space with 27
existing parking spaces. The existing allowable Floor Area Ratio development regulation could result
in a maximum of 20,216 square feet of office. The following table compares the different
development alternatives for the site.
Table 1, Trip Generation for Alternative Scenarios
Land Use Trio Rates Trios
Dallv A.M. P.M. Dailv A.M. P.M.
1. Existing FAR 01.28- 11.01 1.56 1.49 58 8 8
5,268 'a. ft. of office
2. Den,ity of .28 FAR for 11.01 1.56 1.49 105 15 14
entire ,ite - 9,434 'a. fl.
3. FAR .60 . Max. Den'ity 11.01 1.56 1.49 220 31 30
of 20,216 ,a. ft. office.
4 Propo'ed Project -1 0 9.57 .75 1.01 96 8 10
dwellino units
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 45
~\8'
As shown in Table 1, Ihe existing 5,268 office space generates 58 daily trips, eight (8) a.m. peak
hour trips, and eight (8) p.m. peak hour trips.
.
In Example 2" the existing FAR of .28 applied to the entire site would result in about 9,434 square
feet of office space. This would potentially generate 105 daily trips, fifteen (15) a.m. peak hour trips,
and fourteen (14) p.m. peak hour trips.
However, if the project were built at its maximum development potential of an FAR of .60 as shown
in Example 3., then the development would generate 220 daily trips, 31 a.m. peak hour trips, and 30
p.m. peak hour trips.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and PD Rezoning (Example 4.) would create 10 residential
units. This project would be expected to generate 96 daily ttips, 8 a.m. peak hout trips, and 10 p.m.
peak hour trips. Daily trips are less than those of the potential office development, and the peak
hour trips of the proposed project are essentially the same as the existing office development on the
site.
The site is located within an existing residential community. Starward Drive serves as the principal
access for approximately120 homes within the surrounding neighborhood. Other streets principal
access routes are Shannon Avenue and Donohue Drive. The daily traffic volumes near the site are
estimated to be in the range of 1,200 to 1,800 vehicles per day, which are well within the capacity of
the street. The southern portion of Starwatd Drive has ver¡ few homes fronting on the street; north,
most of the homes front cul-de-sacs that intetsect with Starward Drive. A traffic signal is being
added to the intersection of Starward Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard to Ihe south of the project .
due to the construction of the Dublin Senior Center and, Senior Housing project nearby, which will
further facilitate ttaffic circulation in the project vicinity. The proposed project is not expected to
create any negative traffic impacts on the circulation within the adjacent neighborhood.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ievel of selVice standard established by the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? PS/M. This project
could have potentially significant impacts on a cumulative basis when weighed with all of the
development projects planned for the Downtown Dublin area. The City of Dublin has established a
Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) to anticipate cumulative traffic impacts of development projects
in the Downtown area. This project is located within theTIF area. The purpose of the fee is to
share the responsibility for the traffic and circulation improvements that will be needed among the
many projects that will incrementally increase the number of vehicle trips in the TIF area. The
following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure that potential impacts can be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 14. The project proponent shall, prior to issuance of building permits, pay the
City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Impact Fee at the rate that is effective at the time of issuance.
With the incorporation of Mitigation 14, the impacts relative to Transportation and Traffic would be
reduced to a level of less-than-significant.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5. 2005
.
Page 46
·
·
·
? If()
c) Result in a changa in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks? NI. The project is nol iocated within the vicinity of an
existing or planned airport.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? LS. The conceptual site plan,
including site access points and on-site circulation, has been reviewed for conformance with the City
of Dublin Public Works, Fire and Police Departments' safety standards. Although the final, precise
design for the proposed project has not been submitted by the project proponent, implementation of
the following mitigation measure will ensure that no public safety hazards will be created.
Mitigation Measure 15. The final design of the project shall meet all Dublin Public Works
Department, Police Department and Fire Department policies and standards for site access, internal
driveway widths, and corner radii.
With the incorpøration of Mitigation 15, the impacts relative to design hazards would be maintained
at a level of less-than-significant.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. The project has been designed with aT-shaped,
shared driveway access to rear"loading garages. This complies with Dublin Police Department and
Alameda County Fire Department requirements for a project of this size, All-of the homes front the
Starward Drive public right-of-way and are accessibie to emergency response services from that
approach. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to emergency access and no mitigation
measures are required.
Q Result in inadequate parking capacity? LS. The proposed project would supply parking at a ratio of
2.0 spaces per unit within individual garages. The site plan indicates that the project design would
allow 14 parking spaces along Starward Drive. The number of curb cuts has been minimized in the
project design, to retain on-street parking. This quantity of parking meets City patking requirements
so that no impacts would be created and no mitigations are required,
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporling alternative transporlation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle racks)? NI. The proposed project would not result in baniers or hazards to
pedestrians or bicyclists. A sidewalk currently exists along the west side of the project area along
Starward Drive. This sidewalk would serve as access for all of the units for pedestrian and for
pedestrians walking their bicycles. The sidewalk would be enhanced with street trees. No significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
The project site is served by the following service providers:
City of Oublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 47
i~"b 1'6'
Electrical and natural gas power - Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Communications - SBC
·
Water supply and sewage treatment - Dublin San Ramon Services District
Storm Drainage - City of Dublin
Soiid Waste Disposal- Amador Valley Industries
Proiect ImDacts and Mitiqation
Will the project:
a-b) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board,
or require or result In the construction of new water or wastewater treatment fací!íties or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? LS.
According to the representatives of DSRSD, a sewer line has been constructed within Starward
Drive, which would adequately accommodate anticipated wastewater requirements of the ptoject.
Untreated effluent would be transported to DSRSD's Regional Treatment Plant in Pleasanton for
treatment prior to being discharged in to the East Bay Discharge Authority's outfall line for eventual
disposal into the San Francisco Bay. DSRSD representatives indicate that adequate capacity exists
within the regional treatment facility to accommodate this project. The applicant would be
responsible for any permits or fees necessary to be connected to the system. No significant impacts
are anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.
·
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage fací!íties or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? NI. This topic was
previously addressed in Seclion VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? LS. No new entitlements are necessary.
DSRSD staff indicate that adequate long-term water supplies are available from Zone 7 and other
sources to serve the proposed project. The applicant would be responsible for any permits or fees
necessary to be connected to the system, No mitigation measures are needed.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project, thet It has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In addítíon to the
providers existing commitments? LS. DSRSD representatives indicate that adequate capacity exists
within the regional trealment facility to accommodate this project in addition to the District's existing
commitments. The applicant would be responsible for any permits or fees necessary to be
connected to the system. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
needed,
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
·
Page 48
.
.
.
?3þt)
Q Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with the Amador Valley Industries disposal
company to collect solid waste from households ad businesses and transport it to the Altamont
Landfill, located in Eastern Alameda County. The Landfill currently has capacity that is not
anticipated to be filled until the year 2008. Increased recycling and waste diversion could extend the
capacity of the landfill until 2011, Amador Valley Industries also operates a curbside recycling
service to ensure that the City's waste stream complies with state requirements for the reduction of
solid waste. The most current information available indicates that Dublin exceeds state
requirements for reducing solid waste, citywide. Although approval of the proposed project will
incrementally increase the amount of solid waste, any such increases will be accommodated with
existing facilities in combination with the City's recycling program. The City of Dublin's former
contract with Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company expites June 2005.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The most
current information available indicates that the curbside recycling and construction debris recycling
programs established by the City have exceeded state, federal and local regulations and
requirements for reducing solid waste, citywide. This project will be required to participate in Ihese
programs.
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the-major
periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed
project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including
biological resources or cultural resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limitad, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cwent projects and the
effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental increases in certain areas can be
expected as a result of constructing this project, the impacts of the project were anticipated and
mitigated.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial edverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of
preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 49
Initial Study Preparer
5~1'61
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
Livermore-Dublin Disposal District
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
References
City of Dublin General Plan
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by GFK & Associates, October 27, 2004
Downtown Traffic impact Fee Study, prepared by T JKM Associates (2002)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Mark Williams, Clayton Group Services,
January 8, 2004; and Environmental Review Letter, prepared by Matk Williams, Engineering and
Fire Investigations, Decembet 15, 2004.
Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Starward Drive Residential Project (PA 98-013),
prepared by City of Dublin, Community Development Department, July 1998
Discussion/correspondence with City of Dublin staff
Communication with appropriate service provider or public agency with jurisdiction
Site Visit on October 5, 2004
Letter from Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, dated October 7, 2004
Letter from Alameda County Office of the Assessor, dated September 24, 2004
Other source (Development Plan, Record Search, etc.)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 060705 0001 B, updated 1997.
Noise Evaluation Letter, prepared by Thomburn Associates, dated October 6, 2004
Discussion of environmental setting with Jack Fong of Zone 7, on October 15, 2004
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
City of Dublin Municipal Code
Traffic Generation Analysis, prepared by Chris Kinzel, TJKM, October 26,2004
Asbestos Inspection Report, prepared by Brett L. Bovee, BEM, February 17, 2004
SF Environment, environment@sfaov.ora, San Francisco
City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward (PA 04-006)
January 5, 2005
Page 50
·
·
·
.
'""'
\C>
o
9
;!
<
=-
--
t;
. Z¡:;:g
000
~ ~ ¡:.:: "'.
~ ~~ ~
ª"';¡E-<i:
~_ U Z.Q
-[;¡;¡ '"
rJA[;¡;¡¡;"
~~~1
OE-<~o
E-«~U
~rJ Þ
0'" [;¡;¡ o.~
Z¡:,::u
~AS£J
Z[;¡;¡<.Q
S¡~~~
~g~.ð'
gE-<E-<-o
E-<~VJ:!
1:1 ¡:.:: VJ §'
;¡'¡0e:J."
¡;,.~<
[;¡;¡
~
¡:.::
=-
<
~
.
.'~
'-....... "'0 .ffi rti.~
+-" :>. <p OJ 0 C ~ -u.¡ .......
II ~~= ~ ~~ : '" t~ I;
v.~ ir.æ«i -0 2"'- 2__= .,~ ..>1 "
~O' ~"'--o $ '" "'" Æ~ ð!ð to
~" B_~æ '" ~B ~~~ =0 ~o B
'-'-m '2,! ~ ~ã3 Q.~__~ gg ~
-8'~ ~ ~~=~cc ~ID~~ti~ m~ ID
~ .!!!",W~E~~~o·. '="'- "'~ "'~ ~
~ ~ ß~ ~- ~oE~~8 ~~ .
a> a> "-~:¡:;"..:'§.!'! ..:æ",.¡¡¡o_ '"æ-",
~= ~m OOD~~~ ~£~m~o £~ ~
rn~ ~~~~~~~~ Wm ~m~ ~p ~
~: i8:iR~:~ ~B:~I~ I:
BW ~~~~~~~m o~~EØS %~ j
" a>"" - -~c ti~~~¿~ 2
~~ ~~,5~~E_~ 2~=~E~~-O gj OJ.
r~ =~~j~rn~~m ~~ TI ~ E~
~ ~.~~ ~~~~ ~=~I~~ o_~~~
EÆ ~~"'-~æ-- 8~~ ~~ ti~æ§~
'" u.Jo~=.. ~= c~ ~",¿e8
E_ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~8~ ~~ '-
~]! '" "'-u'¡;.§'§.!!!..= ·"'u!8 ~'æ~;;¡ÌÛ'
~~ ~~~IDmm t-ê~.W~~~~,~8£IOB~
æ-o 5::::Jrn~Q)(:1)"'C'....c:::} t=Q).s=. ocõoo as:
:Et= ~~i- -ê Q)tðO!R tJ'¡ ~1» ~ :ê
.......~ ~o~2~~R~~§~~~~~~~~~~e
Æ ~ ~ ~ 8 -g ~.¡ ~ i! æ i -§ ~ ~¡;, ;'"f~J -~ 2! i
---; -º rJ.. - ",_it__", -"'.. -¡¡¡ C8 ~ ~ -'" i5. ~ ~ E
~~ ~E-~~~~~.~~~ 5~~~~~¡1£2
~- ~"''''-§c-~-o~'I~ ~~~c~~ 0'.
~.~ 'cIDE~-~oS~ ~w~~o8 a c~
~- ~~·~8~rn~~~~ ~~-~~_ m._~~~
E ~ ~ m Q. ~ "8 E :§ ro·6 .m ~ ~ -¡:: æ "0 ê g.. m -x a.
~ Eð~eu'~-~o-~8~ß~~~~ew~
C~ -~'~8~~~8~~~ w _
.~ :§ ä ~ (1) I
~~E. .. ...
'" '= c
r= 8 8
-~,..",~~,~_.
~
u
o
§f(¡
¡¡.
'"
~
..;
~
"
-º
. .
.
£) 5 )~I
~
z
o
u
.----.
f9
õ ~
~ 0
-º B
<:5 c
E '" N -
., '"' "" ~
~ § 5 ~
Ö >'-[ñ @
I:D~ ~ ID
.~ rn:s >-
:;~ m
~ i11-~ª
~ E E =>
~¡~¡
'6-æ~5
~;~j
.¡ij~ m8
Em£;-
~ :S ,m g
015 ~~
CQþ"'ffi.&;;
-0.- :;.. (IJ
~'B Q) m
~.~ ~ ~
1'j'¡;]¡-
-.¡¡¡ ¡8-
~-g",~
~ "- -g £
¡ijið!,,;
:s [~ tê
o Q) 1'ð Q)
m:s 5-£
H
'"
N
EX~""~H:HT 13
.
Œ'
<:>
<:>
,
....
<=>
~
....
U
. z~~
~so~
~ .... CI: .
,,~~ ~
0-'....1:
Cl:Uz.Q
~¡:'¡¡:.¡'"
,,= ~
~~~1
o....~=
t:~~oÞ
~~Cl:U
:2:QS:§
z~<-§
St;:~Q
~g~~
"t:...."C
E:2:<:I1,fj
"'=-
:2:~¡:¡~
""~<
¡:.¡
A..
~
. ;:¡
~
~~"'---'-'~
"'
.~ ~
rt[
c '"
"'.co
g]!:jr
""-<= ,...
a::~~
a... .__
C-ã!
"' ~ E
~ g.ê
c2!]J
o 0
DO",
Q)'C .......
~t18":'
fd;s.G)~
..... ~.D.~
Æ~(ij~
-cr::~8
'(ijn........rn
~oQ)-g
"' ~ ê c
~~8~·
=:I ffi þ-g
~-c8
'" "' =>
~ w 0
"''''oÆ
~ "'
,e~~~
¡¡ .8'", ..,
"'C_cg!
';¡~i!¡;>
t:~Q)8:
~~«& m
-
Þ<
u
o
0..
p:¡
&1 ~ij¡
·0 ( ) ta .sa
:s.~ u'O
w '" I'': '"
c: =. 0 _~ ~
£o]¡¿¡¡<õ
~ C <"J .....
g.!?.s s.s
!ßgj"'"'i!
~'C8~ro
::::~ U'J""O E
rJ 0> 5._
.~ 0 ~ ~ ro
r;;;;"E=WO
-<=.- ~ W·-
MjD"8.§
i~~U(1)
C> 0« o>g
I» e- ¿.~ d;I
~ 8 .0 ;g w
o.5t!.ïì=
=>
~Æ~Eg
Q - c.o --'
=1ö8""D
~.c: -.:= ~
"t:Jcn,-~~
Iii"'.!!! J
ê~~t~
8¡;¡¡¡¡¡::¡¡j
~ ~ 0;1...9 Q)
-o«·E§E
¡=:eð~ot::=
~ ~"'O _ 0 .
~1..L.9(ij'ijJë
oC> {i¡£'rJ
"iñ »"i 19;- ~
-B..o :.u ';;'¡ E-~
s;; li! .co '!"; .'" .'"
ö a~.~F ¡¡¡
'" ., '" e '.co
f=,5.('aQ....:t:o:;:>
~
o-i
,~
~~..,,--,..
"--~",.
;~ t~
,,"~~"""
Þ<
Þ< N
¡¡J 0.. U
p:¡ 0
~--_...
i:S~ 0.. f5
"".... p:¡
Þ<
15
~
A
c w
"' 0 5
.5 ~~~N.s~
~ .s (þ p ~ .u
=> = æ· z:;.iS.",",
S ~~. r-.o~::::J
~ '" -- '" 52
rnQ,..9I;t1:§o Ll..tI;I~"'Ci.'2:
.5 g 5 ~ $:g 8, g- -$ "" 8-
!1:ð·~a.E 0 "':;; o>Æ E
"¡;;. ":ø~ ."1i\o§¡¡¡.-
8~~~:i:S ð~'~"ffim
-00 >-'Ë-- 0 ~'õ aJ"i &.
æ :>"..0 Q) "'53'5. t-- Q) £j _ ~
",.c~Eo ~J.j~liico.
ª -.;¡ Iii ,¡¡¡ Æ'; <>: = >J
+--~c..~ B "',~~8.(a
~c ~ I> S<!'1'R -=.c e
g¡ I> i'i "'t! q; ¡'!i :;Po; J!! "- ë!
Ei'i~ o.'êr--'ffi'1i!'"
~... 'E~D c!1:1 ¡¡;~~
~ ~ 1"1 E æ - Ñ .!!! [._
ª~..!!!~$ '¡;¡~'i'j",¡;
~ ¡g 'ª 19 ffi Æ-~!3 F .~
~ « 2i -g ~ ~ ¡;'Li of( -ri O:J
= .!1 ~ co æ 8- c..à -æ ð ~
~<7.i~~",!!, "ffi0É!!!'"
:~a{j¡ ~F § §&~'" g;
- mB~~.m ffi Q).......""O:p
Iii ¡¡¡.:2ro.m g, :5=l:~~.!:!
§.0ga~~( ) CL:>"(I) ,."
~'~.tO ~ !,j ~ ~ .c~ :;1j.~ .;
5.w 'E ~ ~ & ~ c;;: j.~ §
+=' - m ~4=- ~ Qj "éi -:>:¡::J
U m .. 1::0 "'C,~ '¡¡ö;'_ ~ f;j '" '"
aJUJlU'J.~..... t::-8~ ~_~
'0 a;J B ~ co rn c. ..c. ~
!lIE ~ ~ J9 1i.i Q) (JJ "E 4) """
rn 0 ,.a;;;; L- rn.£:i r- u
ø Q) ....... E I- aJ
¡:2:s "0[1']
~~ p:¡
'-Ó
")
..
'-Ó
'"
..
15 E
uê ~
........ ;;¡ ro.~ d> .....
;=: ~ ¡;;: E UJI.......
to if.! 0 m '~ ~
,Q ~11iS ~.E
ê-¡¡¡" æ ::~
m'~fijp- 0E
æ "-.5 2 ã! 8c
~ (1)::i5 t- Š
~:S::::J. (Ì) 0
.~~~~ W~
:ê ~ð~ ~'ê
en L- tn ]1 aJ
ð'§ ~.§. ~ ~
.6m ~~ g~
~ ~"~~ :g¡~
( ,) IV a _ ~
tij"P- ~ ~.~
5t.~.~ ~ w ~
!lJ:¡ ;r, 12 (;, ~.8
;¡¡¡ M Iii ~.§i ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡
iil5..g-co-º ~.t¡;
~o !l:g:¡:¡ .eã!
j§~ð~ ~j
.¡¡¡ § i5~~ õJ: e
'!1~i;;~~
Q5.......c:v-
[~~.m~
aJ~ IV m.J;;;
F ~¡::~_ID
~
.
,....,
'"
=
=
,
;g
-<:
~
....
U
. z¡:;~
~8~~.
:;¡O....~
~ ~ 3 ~
9'"'¡...E
...u......,
~¡:;;J"'-<o>
Q¡:;;J¡:¡.
~~S1j
~ VJ ~
o ~ =
t:~~~
Z ¡:;;J 0..
OZi¥U
;?j=S;5!
Z¡:;;J:;:-§
8~~Q
~f:::~$
rJ........"o
Ei~~
~~;:¡.g
¡:¡.~-<:
~
~
~
. ~
~
-,.,,,.,,.~,..
...~
---~
--
,~,'~..
~-,,"~.
OJ
'=- !Æ ~
~~ .~~ ~
g f,Q 0 E Q)
~..... "' ¡¡¡ E", §
Ctij E 5-gJi1§~ N
'" "" ° u ~ Q) '" "- "
-<=S "= >-Q)"'Q)~ ..
:-5 " L>¡¡¡-~""
&0.. .~~ ~.þ"fiæ~ g
'" '" € g.. "01'! "=--,
"'", .i3'OO""g >-Q)
~J;1 e",.,.¡¡¡~", ~~
'0 "E "~t;¡",:¡¡ '"-<=
Æ 8 tr.Im~Q "'Cu
~§- ~L>a¡¡¡i::'~.,
"':'2 £I "'O¡¡¡.,"';;: eoS
0'"" ...¡¡¡~.¡¡:oS "'£I
"EL> æ ,u""-,,, "'"
.- '!' ;g¡ E:g ï'!! 'i.! g> . L>'"
~ oS L> .g -00" .s.§ $ ~ ~
-~ '* ¡;,Eªª-¡:¡;¡:.5::S2-5
"8 f¡ ~ __ ~§.¿ ~ § ~ ~_'"
iPa...."O.2i! 1§0"E-c t:::"O
~ £I ¥I <ö'~ I '0; £I iI2 15 ~ ~ ~
(ijm0...c..,æ '-'¡:=;5. Uo¡
....c:t=.~f.nrn Otj)-º~<DÎ5-
"""']j ë! E "" "' ~ 'I! -<= "" '"
'5E", "€ JIJ -g~ ¡¡¡:S..~
""ì!:r,j", &.~"o 'þ;ii<
2~!;:.,,,, 'ffi _._ J!u-¡¡¡ <1>;:
""£1 E-¡¡¡", ""'OO'¡;:i';.,,1!,>
~ -", "' u - >!= 111 B ~"' " lij "-
:3 !J1",~ ""i ° ~O~"'88:t3B
~ Ë"æ·~ ~2 § ~-5-:E ~
:¡::¡..9E~U)tna:::
~ (.I) ( ) 4)
E
,g
,...,.,
~~Y'·
51 \,~
-.
~.._,~ .
~.".
x
x
~"~ '"
F-<
Š
() ~~
~_n._.'
0.. ..,.'"
~
x
æ~§¡
æ~§¡
-0
° "
- ° .
ro JIJ §"" i::'~
"-~2:'J!1!TI
~rn Eo...üSrn
~..t= mmŒl4-
õU'JtI>l&:I"60r-
~-¡;; g'£s:g Q)
~~_~C)(\j~§
0= rn.s EïroN
L- 0....;:; "E ~.E 4J
8:¡¡¡-",,,,,,0,s
"'1::>'0 :¡r"'g °
Ba¡.,~.. _
L-"o:> cn""O"'2.!5
o~P"'''~!I!.
'':= c...iS.~ ro"S ~
"-", "-",';1 ~'"
~,s"']i-!!!!'!'!;j
",gf~"'~JIJ"
""Cj;;-'=uE@
¡>¡ !II -g j 1!._-¡!:!
B D... rn . rn ,£
Q.. 0] ~ :m .8 "1ö ;_
""., '0
-g"15'OB~lti
"'=,,~,,~
wEcn:::l$2i.,š
16 'õ.9 "l:5 ~.2 15
- -"';¡:¡"
.... V/I-- :>
"B,,~. "'1ã
~ ~~,-i æ'O 0
z.'i!'" -5 t;¡ ~ ;:::
(3 -~ 5,i 15 "i5' ID
~QE ~~5.§
-;¡; ¡¡¡-~.¡;- E Q) N
BE'-',;¡¡gFE
æ :51>.:~~i',g
"E'", 1\'§ .4a
§ :::; ] Ë! "" E
",:8 5-~~,ï;! ~
J;~~J:::
~
'"
r--:
§ '"
12 = '§ :!! '"
s=~~ ~ £i
~ f.n t= >->.Q
a... c 8-m..o D...
É ~ ~ R~ ~
W..e.:= E-8- d)
5;1---' ~ o...~ ='"
à:r--:~~cn Š
~ ~ Eo j ~
:2o._~'õ t::h
=8~~~"E E
n.. ffi §. v.! ~ :ß
L-...... \"0 s:.. >
fij5jl¡.,,,, "
;< ~ ~ i5 "- m
!:; ~¡>¡~; ~
t5 ¿g -5 c-:c c..
m [/) I¡) 0 ~ ( )
fa.s ~jg ~
o...~ (I)~
!3) Q) en-æ ro
i5..:g:5 c:=~ :;Jo
~.:5 (/) 0 ti) §..
:;æ ~-¡¡-g g-
....~o...~.[ 4b
!~ ð5 ~ ~ ~
~ Q} ~ J...... .~
~~g r,j g "1'i
(J....Qc...oo·(ð ~
-~~ ~ ~:::; a
c.e::J::s::g 5
~ §~ ~ ~ 0
¡;t ~
0..
0;
00
0;
00
·
G-
o
o
,
;g
<
~
...
u
· zr:;~
~ooo
.....¡:z:M
... ¡:¡.. .
g~ 3 ~
~u~]
'"'r.-"
I;,)Qr.-f;I;,
~~~:¡¡
OE-~g
t: '''q~ u
~~9B
:Ez....u
~~~~
....<~Q
~ I;,) ¡:z: ....
1;,)"",<..0
.....t:E-"I:I
E-~<IJ"
1:i¡:z:<lJë.
;¡';o~.g
f;I;,~<
~
~
¡:¡..
<
r.-
~
·
-".-
1-----
~::\Ì
=-Ìj¡
",.-
""c
515
:'2"-
:ß=
'" "
..
bE
.,. c.
".2
'" g¡
9..
Ec
-" 'i
'i"
::;; æ
"'0::
SJ",
'i.8
E1'i
.. "
~ ~
:ê.8
~'ffi
¡::: "j:::;
'" '"
0::'"
"J"æ
Q) ~.
5108
<')'"
o
..=
£i "(I)
- 13
1J'tI
.~~
I
~
...
u
o
-,~.~.-
z
o
u
. ._"~ ..--
~ <>
..e1::Q>.........
, -.!i!.J:>~
E b_"1 13 _ 0
ci(3 U ,È ro Ld
",~II"",-¡¡jz
00 "
..9w0}8....0
."'C ~ !:: (13
E ,,'- g¡
_ :2 . E 0
rn Q) -- en .......
1" ",.2-",
......... rn~::::)TI
.9 .§~ arf.!l
-oc:-g(ðJ!!E
.ê ~ C <»;g "i¡¡
.5~ID·~E·~
~8:S~-o~
.D=..ð"0)f::Q)
-rn rno
~~-g.aB·"
..",,,,~ 'i
'" 0 e ~
:!:::= ~ c.. ¡;;; ~.s
r.n ("J 0...__ ( )
"'.sm<»5I'i
_<» .. ~ ill <» '"
[8 :::~ff-S!'
"g~';;;O~
i' .<::= ~~
c""'l;;l :0::> (()
oæ~""C§1E
æ ",i6 ¡ij "
""mlj" E
'S:-c 0 ~~
~.~_~ c;:;; =:I
æ I..L I;'Ø Q"6"1:1
-,=..2=>>-
§. Q) tI'J 1t.í l3 :>
__ ;;¡ .. '" " m
t5~-¡;:D·-~<I)ui
.E:i'''-0"E~:ß
.. >-.. 1" g¡.,,-
¡;:;;;(tllñ'~E~5
8 E1 1;' 13 -~1!;¡¡
'ii:~:g~ :i1'=",
-..-..
~1"1
~..
ci
,-<
.....
'"'~~
ci
....~-
"'.-'--.
~ ~
0..
1"1
~
o
~B
0"
'" m
=~
....-
ro-
c. '-'
- '"
_.gj E
E""
~ '"
~=
g>'!õ
-- '"
:'2".
'513
:Bij
2!_",
æ-¡¡;
¡¡¡i'
."J!!
.9~
5~
.,,-
c.-
'"
~d)
'" ..
-¡¡j,,--
"E:ß
"'''''
c::=
8.M
'-'''--
c.o
1J~
'8'''-
o....5iii
",:;5
="
I-C
1"1
-. ~~
_ N
- -
-
-
,
--__ . --.-.h---.~ __,-__.-_
----
0..
1"1
0..
1"1
--...
"
.ê
-"
~"'-
<D ~ <D
~ Æ:s
19:.9
,CI"ffi .......
'-'~ ffi
J!j"~ =:I
'2 áj!5 .
10-- J'J
'" e c.._
0. c...""C E
D)jl) ~ Q.;
_E ~·S Q.
;go5f~
B~:n"O
,+-UL-;o;;;;
0-- m::::J
Q)-m-8~
gÔ:E 0
m-,. 8
¡¡¡ 8 _"
( ) -R tf. m
.smj~
-g~<rB
c." ~
_ _ 0
.~~.-
1öc Q.
...c:;; = '0
~.g c.."æ
æ ð.¡:¡ c.
" "'-8$
8.= -
-<:::,.L::ro
e~M..t=
c... ~_ w
1:> _ '-'-0--'-
in ~ c: c:
p [!1,g ~
i'i""'~
.."'01
F !?~ '"
1"1
. "~
N
-
-.,.--
~
¡..,
1"1
~
'E
b -
OB
g¡ ffi
..~
>-.-
<D-
o. '-'
.,,,,
""E
E""
~ ..
~..
<»-
'" '"
-- '"
:'2 ".
.'" 13
.c..
-""
'-' '"
2! _'"
¡¡¡-¡¡;
=>i'
.!3J!!
.s!"
~ ..
-g i'
o.-¡¡;
'¡ij$
-¡¡ju..
"E8!
'" ""
~ ;=
8.:¡¡
'-'u..
5.0
~~
--"-
g,,,,
..:;5
F'6
1"1
'"
-
'"
-
~
~
0..
>11
"..-.--..
'E
~o
';;;~
i'+"
>-.'"
m=
c.-
J!J (5
.- g¡
~¡
"
~..,
-5 '"
.J:>i'
o,l\!
'" <D
0-
" ..
~~
'" '"
:am
_LL
g~
"cc.
-E
ro_
'\iio
-:E'~
~.=
8.!¡!
g,.s
<:j~
~c 8
c..'" ¡¡¡
OJ:iS ~
==>~
I- Q._
¡:Q
... '"
- -
-
...
-
--
._~""'. ..-
~
~----
0..
¡:Q
~~
I~
!.]¡
~~
o'E
:;:.¡g
~~
"
"-'"
.= ffl
:g~
c-"
'ià"[.
...... +-" ~~
$ 51 Iii
E.6 :::
-m"
]!c.E
.. '" 8
~c'O
-~~ æ
g, ¡:¡: .,
",l;! , õ
£<,,;'Q
--,.
:;~~
.~~ ¡o¡
~ c.-È:
-æ~~
" 2! m
~~i
rd
...~
'"
-
._--
"
;'ß lit) l~
11""
o .51
~~
8..:':6
:~ g'~ ~
-- ¡¡ "" "
A -)3 "
N) J:: 00 t':I
.¡; '-' _EI §"
:.aU"'du
'¡juð8
1"1!>; .II "
"00..0
I"1UOO
-;;;
5
8:
"'"
'-
'-'
>-.a
_ '-'
" 'z=
~'g
" '-'
]~ ~
o-¡:j"t:l.....¡..o
II,) B 0:;1 cQ;
"S ~ E; ~
II.} ILl ¡::. P..
e ~ g;~
.§~ i3."'" ~
Ei o.z"
- '"
.. 8::g·:f¡
·íJ·g;; g
!;t""-El-,,
'.z::;1-p~ 1;1;1
~:¡¡" .J!'
II u~;:¡¡
~o@z~
~U¡:;:::i
"'"
;;
11 ~ ~
t~ -<::g
£ ~'ª 8
.. ¿- ¡¡ 'cO
"-,, 0.. !;t
'£ e §-"
-< ~,,:¡¡
n.~~ II,
~~r~~
o..ÆII~
f--'''~f--'
;e~AS1
·
G-
o
o
,
:;!:
...::
e:,
.....
· ~~~
~...~~
g ~~ ~
¡:¡::........E
....uz.c
," ¡.;¡ ¡.;¡ "
~Qo ;¡;;
~ ~ ¡;;;¡:=
Oi::;~~
L......¡:¡::o
........:::;..u
;.2"...þ
O ~9·....
z....u
~~~~
¡::<~~
<" ¡:c: ...
,,"'<-=
...!::....."t
.....~oo"
~¡:c:ooP..
o¡:¡.g
~t:<
~
....
~
....
~
'"
·
51"bl~ I
-B
o
~
-~
~
II
~
'"
'"
11
.~
o
0::
_8
1
!
"
o
'~
'"
01)
-p
~~
II 0
..... ...
2~
'" '"
"
'r
...
"
0<:
~
a
ft
~
1:1
2
<íJ
]<
""
"
:>
."
S
,,~
_9 OJ)
.~ -13
~~
.; ~
-1:1
¡:),~
~~
",,,,"
·
~
o
.
...
o
~
...
· z~:g
"",000
""....c:::N
~ 3 ~ ~
o . ~ ..
c:::......e
.;~Z.Q
r.;A"'r1:
~~~:e
o...~g
~~~~
~~~g
z~9:§
o...<-§
¡::~~A
~¡::~È
....0..."0
i",,¡f¡..
rFl.....
. c::: ¡:¡ g-
0,-,"0
~¡;¡<
~
o
¡:,::
.;
<
~
'"
·
(PDt l81
'0
,I
lPlO[:) t<6
RESOLUTION NO. XX-OS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********************************
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FROM RETAIL/OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(6.1 TO 14.0 UNITS PER ACRE)
ENEA PROPERTIES ST ARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
P A 04-006
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested approval of
a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from
Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre), a Planned Development District
Re7.oning and Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 7597 to subdivide a .77- acre parcel (APN 941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) singk·family
dwellings and related improvements on land generally located north and east of Starward Drive, and north
of the Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for cach of the requested actions is available and on file in the
Dublin Community Development Department; and -
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project, ineluding the General Plan
Amendment request, to assess any potential significant environmental impacts which may result from the
project. Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste,
and geotechnical impacts were prepared for the project, and mitigation measures were recommended to
reduce the identified potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on this, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan were prepared, and it concludes that with
subsequent incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design that the Project, as designed and proposed, would not
result in any significant adverse impacts. An potential environmental impacts have been reduced to a less-
than-significant level. The Mitigated Ncgative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are
proposed for adoption with this Project and are in elude in the attachments to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 25,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City
Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment in conjunction with the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25, 2005, and used their independent judgment in
recommending the said General Plan Amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 05-08 recommending City Council
approval of the General Plan Amendment for thc Enea Starward Row Residential Projeloi; and
I
tïrTAC~'jMfrn L
~ I 0.. OJ> 1'&1
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on said application on February 15,2005;
and
WHEREAS, proper notices of said hearings were given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council, dated February 15,2005,
recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment fQr the Enea Properties Starward Row
Residential Project P A 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set torth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make the
tollowing findings and determinations with regard to the proposed General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed Amendment is in the public interest and is consistent with the goals, policies and
implementing programs of the Dublin General Plan and an of the Elements comprising the
General Plan, as the project will provide housing to mect the goals of the General Plan Housing
Element and as it will be consistent with General Plan Residential Land Use Section 2.12,
N cighborhood Diversity. Guiding Policy A of Section 2.12 states, " Avoid economic segregation
by City sector." Implementing Policy B of Section 2.12 states that medium and medium-high
residential densities shall be allocated to developmcnt sites in all sectors of the Primary Planning
Area. The proposed introduction of housing at the Enea Project site will be consistent with these
poJicies in that it provides for the construction of a small lot detached home, which is not
commonly available in the Primary Planning Area. The existing and planned transportation
system and utilities are sufficient to provide services to the proposed Medium-Density
Residential (6.1 - 14.0 duJac) land use designation at the Enea Project site, as the proposed
residential development would be less intensive than the existing Retail/Office land usc
designation.
2. The proposed Amcndment is appropriate for the subject property in terms ofland use
compatibility; will not overburden publie services; and will provide a comprehensive plan for
development of the site as the proposed Medium-Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre)
land use would serve as a residcntial transition between the shopping center to the south and the
single-family homes to the north. The proposed residential land use would generally be more
compatible and in scale with thc surrounding residential neighborhood than the existing
Retail/Office land use designation on the site. In addition, the proposed change would provide a
more compatible land use density relative to the Medium Density Residential development to the
west and thc Medium-High Density Residential land use designation on property to the east of
the site.
4. The Amendment will not have a substantial adverse effect on public health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfarc, or be injurious to property or public
improvements, as conditioned, because implementation measures have been incorporated into
the project, based on various environmental studies related to traffic and air quality, noise,
hazardous materials and waste, and gcotechnical impacts, to reduce potentially significant
impacts to a level ofless-than-significance for development at the maximum density of the
General Plan land use designation range (14 dwelling units per acre). Additional privacy, light,
and noise impacts commented on at the Planning Commission public hearing have been
2
0~l'b l
addressed by the design of the subdivision and the individual residence on Lot I to a non-
significant level.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve the
amendment to the Dublin General Plan to change the land use designation of the .77 acre Starward
Drive site from Retail/Office to Medium Dcnsity Residential (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre) for the Enea
Properties Starward Row Residential Project, PA 04-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 2005 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g:\P A#12004\04-006\CCRESO GP.duc
3
2005/.J^·!f7H/'ÌUE 12:30 PM Craig+Grant Arch.
~~~.__._~..,,_. n___.__,_ __. ____... . .___ _.____.~,.. ....." ........". ~,..
e
e
I ~i
æ~
~~
~ II
..
e
~ ~I
~ ~~
FAX No, 925 820 5858
p, 002
-...--------.......,
. ...... ...--. - . ..,,-,.-~.-.,~--.-.
'PA Dlf¿ð-ö ~
It.?~t~l
1
I'
--,------;l
c¡¡-o
:¡;,;u!:'1J 2;;
G)~ ~~ Ž
mo ~ Iþ 1
...j,. (j) ft I
~eJ ¡;¡ 9 I
~ç ~~ ~ 1
OZ :i!~ ß 1
-OZ ~ 'I
'5:;m 0
mO I\)
Zo '1J
=ci!;2 [JIr I
ç~;¡~ I
zo >~
..~ r
~ ~ I
-0'5:; e I
om I $;
o~ ~H1 I
C¡¡;u
;dm ~I I
-N II> I
(")0 0
-Iz '-' I
-0-
:r> ~ ,¡;¡ I
~:r> ~,'
6z I
00
C>
~
~
?ii,
o
o
~
STARWARD ROW
7m..sr.~
_~u.c.
11I~1r¡ ~"i+ 0
lUll ~~-1 ~
EXHIBIT A
01/11/2005 TUE 12:10 [TX/RX NO 5918] ~002
;
ORDINANCE NO. XX -05
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CJTY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***********************************
~'1ev ltl
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELA TED STAGE t & 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXlMATELY .77 ACRES LOCATED AT 7475
ST ARW ARD DRIVE, P A 04-006
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail/Office to
Medium Density Residentia] (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre), a Planned Development District Rezoning and
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7597 to subdivide a .77- acre parce1 (APN 941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) single-family dwellings and
related improvements on land generally located north and east of Starward Drive, and north of the
Shamrock Shopping Ccnter; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for each of the requested actions is available and on file in
the Dublin Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project, including the Planned
Development District Rezoning and Stage I and 2 Development Plan request, to assess any potential
significant environmental impacts which may result from the project. Various studies addressing
potcntial traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste, and geotechnical impacts were
prepared for the project, and mitigation measures were recommended to reduce the identified potential
impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on this, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan were prepared, and subsequent incorporation of all mitigation
mcasures recommended by the various studies and the City's standards for construction in the Project
design, and further evaluation, has detennined that the Project, as designed and proposed, would not result
in any significant adversc impacts. All potential environmental impacts have been reduccd to a less-than~
significant level. Thc Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are proposed
for adoption with this Projcct and are include in the attachments to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January
25,2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, comments were taken at the Planning Commission hearing related to neighborhood
residents' concerns that potential privacy and noise impacts could result from the residence on Lot I of
the proposed development, as well as potential light/glare impacts from vehicles using the private strcct;
WHEREAS, Enea Properties has designed the home on Lot I to address impacts to privacy, light
and glare, and noise as the second-floor windows on the north elevation of the home proposed for Lot I
do not face the existing home to thc north of the Project site; the windowless garage of the proposed home
on Lot I is located directly across the drainagc channel and easement (approximately 20 feet in width)
from the backyard of Mr. Atwood's residence; an additional five-foot side yard setback along the north
property line has been included in the Project for a combined distance of 25 feet from the proposed house
on Lot I to the property line of the property to the north; and, the location ofa six-foot wooden fence
along, the north and east property lines of the Projcct site adjacent to proposed Lot I will block the noise
and light from vchicles accessing the garages of the residences and northbound on the private street, as
ATIAC~~ME.n 3
well as provide additional screening to existing residences on Oxbow Lane in the residential area to the
north; and lP?E!)18
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 05-09 fecommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance to establish a Plann.ed Development (PD) Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2
Dcvelopment Plan for the Enea Starward Row Residential Project, P A 04-006;
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on said application on February 15, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, proper notices of said hearings were given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council, dated February 1 5,2005,
recommending adoption of an Ordinance to approve the Planned Development District Rezoning for the
Enea Properties Starward Row Rcsidential Project P A 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Couneil does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development
Rczoning and Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan:
I. The Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions,
intent and purpose ofthe Planned DevelopmCßt Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 8.32. The Planned Development Rczoning will be appropriate for the subjcct
property in terms of setting forth the purpose, applicable provisions ofthe Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses and Development
Standards, which will be compatible with existing commercial, industrial and residential
uses in the inunediate vicinity, and will enhance development of the general area; and
2. The Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions,
intent, and purpose of the Planncd Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance,
in that it contains all information required by Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and
accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance;
and
3. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on
health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met and, as
conditioned, mitigations described in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
will be incorpofated into the project that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a
level ofless-than-significant; and
4. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on
health or safety Of be substantially dctrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met and, as
conditioned, mitigations described in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been incorporated into the project, in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval for
Vesting Tentativc Tract Map 7597 and the associated Sitc Development Review tòr the
Project, that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a level oflcss-than-significant;
and
l"L., ~ l8 I
5. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not overburden public services or
facilitics as all agencies have commented that public services are available and sufficient to
meet the needs ofthe development, and as the ApplicantlDeveJoper shall be required to
pay fees required by servicc providers and other fees, including but not limited to, the
Public Facilities fee, to sharc the cost of providing City services to new development; and
6 The Planned Development District Rezoning will be consistent with the policies of the
Dllblin Gencral Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential because the
project will allow development at 14 dwelling units per aloTe within the density range
allowed by this Gcneral Plan land use designation, 6.1 - 14.0 dwe1ling units per acre, and
the maximum development under the density range has been evaluated for potential
environmcntal impacts as stated in Finding 3, above; and
7. The Planned Development District Rezoning will create an attractive, efficient and safe
environment though development standards contained in the Stagc I and 2 Development
Plan and Project Plans in Exhibit A, relative to setbacks, building height, minimum lot
size, maximum lot coverage; and fences; and
8. The Planned Development District Rezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenienee
and general welfare as it will develop a compatible residential subdivision in an established
residential community, near commercial services, shopping centers, City services such as
the Senior Center, and Pllblic transportation such as WHEELS bus service; and
9. Thc Planned Development District Rezoning and the accompanying Site Development
Review will be compatible with and enhance the genera] development of the area as it will
be developed pursuant to a comprehensive Stage I and 2 Development Plan, containing
standards for setbacks, building height, minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, and
fences; and
10. The Planned Developmcnt District Rezoning will provide an environment that encourages
the efficient llse of common areas, as well as resources because the design of the shared
private street access to the garages of the homes will reduce the amount of driveway
paving on the site, increasing the land available for outdoor living areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION I
Pursuant to Section 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the City of Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezoning the following property ("Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District (P A
04-006) :
Approximately .77 acres at 7475 Starward Drive (APN 941-0173-002-02) located on the
eastern edge of Starward Drive, and generally located In the Central Dublin area, north of
AmadorValley Boulevard.
·
A map of the Propcrty is shown below:
i.n'b 1%1
SECTION 2.
The regulations of the use, development, improvcment, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in
the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Project Area
(Exhibit A to C) which is hereby approved. Any amendment to the Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in
accordance with Section 8.32.080 ofthc Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
SECTION 3.
Except as provided in the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement, and
maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 4.
This Ordinancc shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. The City of
Dublin City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of
Dublin in accordance with Scction 36933 ofthe Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin this 15th day of
February, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: .
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
·
EXHIBIT A
~~\~}
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND
STAGE lAND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
P A 04-006
This is a Development Plan for P A 04-006 pursnant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dnblin Zoning
Ordinance for the property located at 7475 Starward Drive (APN 941-0173-002-02) loeated on the
eastern edge of Starward Drive and generally located in the Central Dublin area, north of Amador
Valley Boulevard. This Development Plan meets all of the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2
review ofthe project.
This Development Plan is also represented by the accompanying General Plan Amendment, thc Stage I
and 2 Site Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 7597), Preliminary Landscape Plan, Preliminary
Grading and Utility Plan, and Floor Plans and Elevations, consisting of sheets dated January 10, 2005,
labeled as Exhibit A-I to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan (City Council Ordinance No.
_- 05), and on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. The Planned
Dcvelopment Zoning District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while
ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32
of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
The Development Plan consists of:
I. A Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for I parcel, known as the Enea Properties StaTWard Row
Residential Project, consisting of approximately. 77 acres.
The Stage I and 2 Development Plan meets the requirements of Section 8.32.040.B ofthe Zoning
Ordinance and consists of the following:
I. Stage I and 2 Site Plan
2. Statement of Proposed Uses
3. Site Area and Proposed Densities
4. Development Regulations
5. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
6. Lot Coverage
7. Architectural Standards
8. Conceptual Landscaping Plan
9. lnclusionary Housing Provisions
STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. Zoning. This PD Planncd Development Zoning District is to provide for and regulatc the
development of the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project as shown on the attached
Project Plans. The General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential, consistent
with the Dublin General Plan, as amended, for one .77-acre parcel at 7475 Starward Drive (APN
941-0173-002-02).
2. Statement of ProposedlPermitted Uses: The following uses are permitted for this site:
1
EXHIBrr A
A.
PD Medium Density Residential
l,p"'ì~ \ß1
The Medium Density land use designations are established to: a) provide for and
protect a community of detached, single-family homes and residential uses typical of
a quict, family-living environment; b) provide appropriately located space for
outdoor living, such as fenced play arcas; c) provide opportunities for a greater
pcdestrian-oriented, landscaped strcetscape along Starward Drive; d) provide
adequate space to meet the parking needs of residents and guests; and e) provide an
attractive and appropriate transition between the residential neighborhoods to the
north, east, and west and the commercial shopping center to the south.
Intent:
Intensitv ofUsc: 6.1 -14.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Use~':
Per the R-I Zoning District.
Conditional u.~es:
Per the R -I Zoning District.
Acce~'sory u.~es:
All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Prohibited Uses:
Per the R ~ I Zoning District
3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. The Stage I and 2 Site Plan consists of Sheet SP-1 ofthc Project Plans
as attached, dated January 10,2005.
4. Site Area and Proposed Densities. The Project site consists of one parcel totaling. 77 acres to be
developed with ten (10) detached residences on individual lots following subdivision, with one
individual lot for a private street, for an average density of 14 dwelling units per acre.
5. Development Regulations. Residential development regulations have been established to ensure
that the proposed buildings and site plan achievc the desired design character and development
quality. The regulations set forth the minimum requirements necessary for planning ofthc
property. Refer to City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance for any regulations not specified below.
A. Setbacks
Front Yard:
From public right-of-way (Starward Drive): 10 feet average with a range of9 feet
to 12 feet on curved comer lots, superceding previous setbacks. Porches may
project up to a maximum of 5 feet to the rront property line. Steps of porches or
porticos may encroach I to 2 feet into the 5-foot setback.
Side Yard:
From private roadway: 5 feet
2
To property line: 3 feet to 5 feet to parcel boundary as shown on project1~%Þ 1%\
Between units: 6 feet
From garages to side property line: I' 8" and 2' 8"
Between garages: 4'4" and 5'8"
Rear yards:
As shown on Site Plan. A vCfage distance of 37 feet from dwclling to rear property
line. Average distance between garage and unit: 18 feet with 11.5 feet minimum
as shown on Project Plans. Distance from garage to rear property line: a minimum
of 3 feet. Rear yard setback shall be reduced for Lot 10 to five (5) feet due to
unusual site constraints caused by the curve ofStarward Drive, as shown on
Project Plans.
Architectural Projections:
Any architectural projections into setback areas, other than porches or porticos
mentioned in front yard setback regulations above, and those approved on with the
Project Plans, must be approved prior to construction through the Site Development
Review process.
B. Height of Building
No building or structure shan have a hcight in excess of 29 feet.
No building shall exceed two-stories in height.
Living spacc OVcf garage shall not exceed 23.5 feet in height.
C. Lot size and dimensions:
Minimum lot size shall be 2,143 square fect.
Minimum lot width shall be 26 feet
Minimum lot depth shall be approximately 80 feet.
D. Accessory Structures: All accessory structures shall be regulated in accordance with
Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinancc.
E. Parking: Parking shall be provided pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, Off-Street
Parking and Loading, for single-family residential development.
F. Reciprocal Easements and Privacy: The development of this property is predicatcd on
the reciprocal use of side and rear yards through the granting of exclusive use easemcnts.
The purpose of this easCtncnt is to utilize the passive side of the home to increase the
active exterior open space of the home on the adjacent lot thCfeby creating increased
personal private yard areas. Penetrations to the passive side of the home (windows, etc.)
shall be limitcd, opaque material, above normal eye level and away from direct line of site
to insure maximum privacy. These requirements shall be governed by Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) to assure compliance and enforceability.
6. Phasing Plan. The Project Site wilJ be constructed in one phase.
7. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements. Except as specifically modified by the
provisions of this Planned Development District Rezoning/Development Plan, the use,
development, improvement, and maintenance of property within this PD Zoning District shall be
subject to the provisions of the R-I, Single-Family Residential Zoning District of the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance with regard to permitted/conditional uses, land use restrictions,
3
·
1/ÐD Iß')
minimum/maximum development criteria, and shall be Sllbject to all other general Zoning
Ordinance provisions and standards.
8. Ma"imum Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coveragc for Lots 1-7 and Lot 10 shall not exceed 54%.
Maximum lot coverage for Lot 8 shall not exceed 54.4% and maximum lot coverage for Lot 9
shall not exceed 56.2%.
9. Architectural Standards. Refer to Project Plans, Sheets A-I to A-4, attached. Any
modifications to the project design shall bc substantially consistent with these plans and of equal
or superior materials and design quality. and in conformance with the Site Develovment Revicw
for the Project.
10. Landscaping Plan. Reier to Project Plans, Sheet L-I, Conceptual Landscape Plan. All project
monumentation and entry signs shall conform to Sheet L-I. A Final Landscaping Plan will be
required to be submitted and approved prior to building permit iSSllance.
11. Indusionary Zoning Ordinance. This project is exempt from the Inc1usionary Zoning Ordinancc
provisions as the size of the project is fewer than 20 units. No Below Market Rate (BMR) units
are required to be identified on the site plan and made a component of the project unlcss revisions
to unit count increase the number of dwellings to 20 units or greater, pursuant to the lnclusionary
Zoning Chapter ofthe Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68).
4
In i II III I
~
,~
,c
~
~
~
~
~
~
1:1 ~
æ ;:;:¡ :n ~
!: OJ "'
~=-C)~
~ "'" ~ ~
Z N rn I
æ ~ 0 ~
~ ~
-0\
I\)
I
W
I
~
~-i
?5
~......
:::;i~"~C\·,.yi~~·i'~" ,·~,;,:::::~::·::: .:'::H': "~'~~r;.~~'~:
"""""·,·:'1tI'\·"""1 lL¡~'" .,
.',",- :.\ r., ."'âp!' '.,,', ',; .
\ ,.' ":',::I."~~:,,,/~ ,</ :.~:>I
,\ ,~~~!.I~¡,¡B"Ir·"':',lC:;):'I.":-«' ."'.:, \"',,,-'
w:·'f ''''.,:;,:::,~.\ ":..: .' '\:.'~~'\i.¡':. :.:.;,"..,:....~.,~~~~;~
)~íi"""'« ~t 'j"" :'t'(;:/:." -)"~,,,
..;'.... .~ :1~':'" ",", ,~::¡':~>¡¡:'i"
'.. \1.. 'I, ··,·,t',,"" ......1:
\~" "t ,..y,,,,, ".·~.{,,:,~f;,;'(
"'11~'''''''~1 ,....
'.¡;i~t.'..'. .."' \., \~"..¡ I;'".~::.~.~'~,~¡
. \. "'\.~ '~'\:::"\Ji~:'·('\':·~"'.':d!
·.:'f?·~:;¡ II
~~ ~~ ~~~~ ?~J ~
f' ¡IIUllr
, !J I
. .J
I I
I
;
~
Þ:I
2:
Þ:I
.>
ø
~.
'7J?
~
~
»
?ëJ.
t:J
... -:.
.t::f...
od-:'
..._u.
Þ:lt""'CiD
.-~
~z:>
..
- .
Þ:ln~
CiD»
nt""'.
-
0"ZtC
11::0
"'.'=='
>2:-
z:-:;;
.....cI>Þ:I
t"'"
t"'"
n
.
STARWARD ROW
7105 ftrN'NfND DfIYE
9EA~~u.c.
~
o
~
U:¡i ~
.~J
II:I~ §
G>O
~+~
.....G>
_1
N
~
'( i
,-
I~~if
iH~
11 Ii
IUB ~rji
"m5H ~~ IE
fUff JI ji
~55~r ~ ~
! i i
~ 19 ~
f ,~
I ;
HI~~ !ill~!!ß
Q. ~. q ¡ i CD
it 11 U!!~
¡¡? ~ II'
¡¡¡ §
-<
a....¡:>
iI':S:~þp
8.~ti!
~ r::
~
~
"
.
Ii 28
i~:ï ~ i i~~~~HH~~b ~
. ..... ~ WAY
en
'! f' · ¡ ¡ -. I
m
Ii ;~ ~UUUUU z
~t ~! $. IS 1S1S1SJ5J5ISJ5J5fH'j
9q~ :! :! :! :! :! :! :! :! :! :! :! :! :1
Q.! it
j ¡¡I
Ui
~
~:!>
Q
~
~
",en
:.)""U
°1
01-1,
.
H
II
,
¡ II
~~~~~~
~ I ~~"
i ~ lpC ~
I j ~ 'T I"'I~~.
, <¡>~. ~~
,I ¡- \ ..~~ä
. I mzl;)n
! I 'E8~£~
! d~~~
~<
SKI.E FAML Y - ZONED R-1
I
I
L _____ I
CANAL EASEMENT
-~
- '~,
. rrr --].: ¡
.00 I
,
,
·
~
,
I
!
I
~
VAY
~i ! 'I I
11 ¡Ii
! ! . ~
I §
· !
i ~
a !
I I \ I §
29 ,,~
I · I
·
I i , , .. ~ -
I I~ r- 3
I I ! ~"1 Ji:f,
\ . - I <¡>I ~ç~
-I ,~.
\ c~ ~~Qª
\....- h~~~~
- ' ~ª~ R ö
J
:/
.. :/
,
'I
I.
,
¡
STARWARD ROW
7475 STAAWARD DRIVE
DU8U'I CAUFORNIA
ENEA PRõPEifuES COMPANY u.c.
¡rli ~
.~I J:
U:I~ §
(j)()
~+~ -J
Z - ""
-I(j)~
"'"
!i ~ 1III'.o4f" f
2!I'-I f" 11'-'· I 'r....
· 0
· ,
I ~ ~I
~ ~
~
~
§ ...
H·.... ..~:¡¡.
12'..· JI'-r
II ¡~~ !i ------~~-
I I
· 0 ~I~~~
~ . · I
~ .
1'1, § !Ì
ill ð
I I
~ ~ ~ § ---~-~---
~:! ;!I
. II'-It '-r .......
".-..¡-
!i î D·~IIII· f
U·-...· .......
· OJ
· I
~ - I =1 III ;;,
~ .
~ = ~ ~
... ...
§ 1- ~ ~
"
1,'-tO' ..'....
.'..M
>t-OI' \1''0. ""....
III~ ! !i
· OJ
~ I · I
I 1'1 § ~ ~
ill '"
~ ~ J! §
H :!
!i ã"-nr
· » "
· "
d I iI "
~ "
"
... "
i "
"
"
"
» ~ "
~ "
. __J
§§§§§§§§ S'-o- _.111"
OI-'¡CllCII""{o1N~
42'~'lt 1"-.· ...-..
Ii I~ !i r
I i · » ~i.
· I '\
~ ~ ...
I I I I ... , ...
, ,
¡ II '
,.
L.____
~ J! ~ §
:! :! 11 X'-'~
STAAWARD ROW IF Ii ~ (j)()
.....» 7475 STAflWAfD DRIVE ~+~
1HA,~~lLC. . I;¡; -J
91 lI:h§ ....¡:...
~... -I (j) &.
.,q
!!ž '},C,<:"";· !i !~ !~
,:;¡
'» '» '» '»
{ I { I { , { I
~ ~ ~ ~
~ i.;"." ,·'..1', ~
!!ž
~ ::¡
· »
{ ,
êi
~m
~~
z
!~ž
~ ::¡
· »
{ I
8§
~m
~~
m2
~~~
{~I
§~
~m
~I
1B!j~;[1~i¿;Wi
. .," r
",
, , ' I ~
~ ),:'~::\;: ;¡:~ ~~ ,:::..,¡.{)~ :';: ~~::f:{b':..
~J':¡\';(\;;!\t'¡~I\<;'i't~;;\:;t\
''''''\'''-m''''':'' ,IŒ"",/.
'k{::j'::Ell;(!~j;J,;: .
¡~ž
, ::¡
. >
~ :II I
~i
fñm
I
¡¡c
, ~
, »
~ ,
~§
~m
i
~~~
~ :II I
~~
~m
i
···("I:·::,:·:·:i~!~~'[¡i:'¡\¡:"!:f.
;\:- .... \iiM .
:::¡.:::::;~~>,:~<::(~~:\:~:.\ :. ,~~::::
¡~ž
~i::¡
, >
{ ,
~i
~~
~
¡~~
H:»
~~,
~§
~~
~
!~~
n~»
q;,
~~
~~
~
! ~
{
>
I
d
~
z
··<"~':",..',',I'
--<OJO
O--<z
s::
OJ' r
"'IO
;Þ---<
'1
AJr~
0"
U10~
--<,,0
8Ç)~(~C:
ç"-'~ z
b! ~ ::¡
z . >
GO ~ I
~§
~~
ª
II,..
1.1 c:
, ~
. »
{ I
~~
~
~
!~ž p~c: pc: ¡I~
~~~ 'i~
~~::¡
· > . » . >
{ , { ~ I { I { I
Ii ~~ d
~~ ~~
m~
d ~ ~ ~
!'Jþ
~I
~ \)
8T ARWARD ROW
7475 STARWARD DRIVE
DUBLIN CALFORNIA
ENE A PROPER'nEs COMPANY LLC.
IU:J;. ~
. i I ::¡
1- I ã
~ I L ;; '"
00
~+~
~ 0
-J
~,
ø
rÞ
-
n~
læ~
~
¡
!i
. 0
I I
~
;
~
Ii
'0
I ,
~
;
~
Ii
'II
I ,
i
~
~
~~--------------------------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------------~--~~----~
Ii
. II
I I
§
~
~
I!~ Ii !i
'0 . II
r-- ~---------- ~ -------~---I I I I
I ~ , ~ ~
I
I
I I
I
, I
L__ ~
I
I
~ ,
L__________ __ _______~__...J ~
n~
II~
~
.....»
:...
PI
~(.J
!i
iO
,
I
;
~
-----------~.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
L~_________~______~______...J
!i
i~
I
;
;
STARWARD ROW
7475 STARWAIÐ CAM!
eEA~~LLC.
U:li ~
lEU ~
G>O
~+~
-J
.-
ð
i5
u
~
i
I
m
;
;
....»
:...
P,
~~
STARWARDROW
74711 BTARWAAD DfWE
eEA~~LLC.
IFIi ~
lEU §
(j) ()
~+~ j
-I (i) ð
tÞ
-
I~
1'.0
i~
z
.
~
~
rR
z
~
I I rR
,z
I i ~
I +
6 ~
~ ñI
i~~
m
z
i
~.
I!·_ð~
I~
!ñI
~ .
I i
~
<-< -- ! ~
l' r- ·
- ~~ ( ~-
~ S~
I a
I
11'-111·
[I'-iII-
¡ ~ Hi:
8 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ø ø
-I'. I q
~ I
~
,I
.
II~ I~ 6'~(J-
r !'-6"
0 §Oil
-f
~
'" oI¡
.
~
~.
:Þ ...
,
Q q
r !
~
(;,¡
STARWARD ROW
7"'5 BTAflWAAD DfII/E
EtEA~~u.c.
1m IS~ ~ I~ ~ I
,~ oI¡ oI¡
§Oil . I I
~ ~ § i
,
~~ ~
e:;) I
~ ~ » I
:;0 L~__ --- -
! 10> "
! I
+ "\ '"
,
!o> " "
§ ~
","',
. .'~. ' I, e:;)
. :~. ",' , r---------
I .~ ' "j~. ' , » I
t ...'; (;,¡ :;0 I
~. , :. I
,', .
~
Q
rtI
~
~~ .~_._-----"
-,- "^
~~ -._----- - ~
¡ ~~ t a
~ 8~ ~.
t!i!5 ~ ~
¡; ~ i
~o
. I
~.....
U'_'·. " ~i~
-.
IF)i ~
lEU §
-J
~
~
G) 0
~+~
.....(j)
-
ó>
-
c
a~
~ G)
~ ! I
II I
.
.
(-"
I
I
I\..
()
-
-....
....0
~
gl
011\)
"TI
o
STARWARD ROW
]1fltJ STAllWAIEI DII\/E
EtEA~~~LLC.
m
o
IFIi·~
. rl:
U:h §
»
(j)()
~+~
-tG)
-1
~
ð\
-
~
-
¡11m ~
tit,
I:H' 'It
I)'.: U!!J
¡lliI "lrø r;
'I'~ ~ Þ i z
il'~1 r PI'
i!!i! Utili
1111' I ~
'II. p¡
lili! ~
:t~~8
~<t: ~
'!j~l.1('Tl
"CO"
""U3:W-i
Irr¡LC
Þzl"'lÞ
Z- f"lr
'" --<
T AJ- Ç
DI"10Z
",< to
ÏJR2f1
".;,.,.
" ""
~;g~r'l
:;ubV'¡"t'I
e" r
n('Tl"UJ>
- Vlrl2:.
Õ~;U1-o
" --<'"
, ö:1:
DI"'l;g
Zr'"
",,,r
-In:?!
þ ~"
erz
'" ,.
"' "
-<
I
<
. ~
I ~
I
,
¡ ~
"J~
-.. I":"'~
r ¡, ~ ~
~ ¡~ ! .
--1 ~~ ,
(\ ,~
~,
:r: ï ·
m
» .ï
tJ ~ ¡
m ~ ¡ i
~ "~
OJ , " ~
0 ¡¡
» W"U~¡~ !I~;!i¡
~ ,
tJ ~ dil¡ I~~
tJ . i~~i~ ;~~ Jil!Jir
m f
~ · Ë-, ¡~ i~~~i
r þl" E
pI
~m
I~
~r
a~
'-1
l:z
;~
pJ
i~
¡~
z
(j\
o
IU
-1
»
r
~
U ~~I i;1 ~U; i~ IJ I
i¡ III ~111 ~U~ i~ h I
\ UI~ ~I hI! II ·1
~i · ~ I r I;¡~III!·
~; In ! II i!U III!
I! ì§~ ~I Ui h lù
lIli~ h aU I
~~ I~ In !
I~ I
~l
Ii H
J~ II
:1 i
I~ I
þ I
U I
¡ I
I
IiINJLE "AMLV - ztINEI) IH
,:
I'
II ¡ Ii:!
Ii : ¡III
,I II!
I~~ i~ IU~ ~
¡'I ;1 ¡id ~
¡I; U leU ~
I~~ ill! I;~~ ~
~I ¡ j~GI »
~I 13~;J
.~ ! I" ~
;~ ' ~I rn
~.
~ ~
~ i
'"
I i
!:
ill '"
i:! d
¡ !
$!
.ÐO·$O$:O.
"'. ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ m ~ 0 ~ 2 ~
~¡:¡~ ~¡¡;~~~~ lJ
fìí m ;:a c: c::: en ~ s: r
m~ooo(ð>-Ti£>. :Þ
'" " \!! '" ., " /:; ". 2 .....
i ~ ~ \!! ~ .~ ~ '; :::¡
~~~~~¡¡;~ ~ r-
"!lB· ¡ "1
'"
!'3r
!'>
g~
STARWARD ROW
7475 STARWARD CANE
E/IEA~,~lLC.
iI
II -
I II
I I
I
2
~
~
i
¡
I
,:
.'
i.1I
I¡"
IIII
I,
iii
ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ œ ~ ~
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡,dH!x
IFIi ~
·~I
II:~~~
(j)O
~+~ ~
-I (j) ð
)l\
:Q
../"
., -, I~ I' lit ~, .. ,_ ^" ~L' ", '~.
~Il ~I I~. iL¡ 1'1 ! ~.l ~ ~~iíq , ¿;~ Ii ~ ~~
., ~II h.~. '~ '~~l h . ~ ~ , --î
' . . -".. ;.'" . ~-
i I ...." '"'í~ ~ 0.L__- ~-.:.: .__=_~+ I
'/1 11! .0. r~-~ - .<= .,;;;~ . , " 1,'1.. i ~1: t .35.5 ,
/~. I ~ ¡ I '~ ¡ ~.l""'" ,,_, ~. I' r. , '
ì ....
· ~:r. I ~ 1 ~.:h,....
.. I ".I - - " f' '.. ~ ,_ r- ;;;
... , f. ~. "co \
I - 2.i...~ <Jig: ..L' :3 8 r
¡.. !'> - Zo I · ., -..L "" c.. L,~ ~ ._~
~ '"Ii ~~5j œ ~' ., 'II 10,_ - r' ~, _ ; c , ,,' "~", I
' ~. , 1'-111' ~L:".L ~_.., _. . c
: §~i ~ê~i,,' II l 1/ 2-,. ..;.:-¿¡:.~-, ''':: ,~' ~ Ì¡ ~ ~r'd¡ ! 0. J..-~
' " I I. . 'I ~.' , .. _" I: ~, '.-:t... I _ " "'-
· "", "I' !Ii "'I <=II ,~ ,:os
: ,~¡~ , I '. /I.! ~ -- -- " "~ L':J-- +
!ô ~<;: ~<;: I ~.; \~ I .ìl. ¡go 1." ..l..,.::-J.. .. "it. ..._) ~.I I ! I
¡ Ii oj I"!,, -;J ~.L , " -- ". '---1, , . ¡ r
nHI ¡ III, L~ i, ¡ 1 -:c :l~ ~, _',; ""1[. i~ 1.1' l__ .
Iz ;3 :cl I~ I:.~, "U 1 ,.. -,;:n aÞ- II' U,. _~ -+ _ ( , .
" · .' ~ ''I]. 'õ. r . - F _ .n w -, _~ -.-
-. CI) 1.! ~~ ¡go< ~a> .'.~. "jl r'~ I K et· is i I> J. I' "-+_1 "... : ~.... =o",~."
t¡~ ;< ~ I~; , ~"-~ -' ,I ~ ---..L... r _I .....
VI......- . I I' ., 1__. _ .' ,_, . '--' , '" ,
::0 ~. _~ , . ---1 ~
i ~ <: 'I,.~<I;..t. I I ~.. ;~. '" ê:I'J::r: ~ - r-- - I - '" ¡; "'_00" "" ~. . I .'1" ': \
~ þ: "". I a \ ,¡; '" . , ". ~. ¡. I
;; ::0 " . . .., '. - , I r I'
~ ~o~ ~ ,'..' ~I ; i ~. :.·~:i·... I ~¥"-~l·'~~~~=,. ~~;;U:-~I:~.,¡-l.',. \ ~ .:...
- '" "-'- - '. [I ¡¡ " I ¡¡ I" I (r ""~..... W.ILl
~:e ~ /..··/~ ~ tm Tit ~I'.'\""". ! ~~l ~-'!~ L~- ~.' ~ :)i, ~. ¡w.;;¡..... 11 ~ ~I . P
o , .. ,. I - .' :'! --"'1J:± " 8 _ 'I!,,'...., \
. , I;: ~I Uin-? ." , ..::;;.' .L -l. . "" 1_ I .
,I ~ r. -'-. I: ~14-'=,-'- . .. '-, ~ cT -. . . r" r ..' +l--r 'I
~i ,: ~I'¡ I,· ~ ~ ~ r ',' 'I"t/I, I: ~: "'--'røl 'k¡ C--
o !' , ..' ,-, 'r!' ~.l "'~j¡] u ~~ ., -.~J~~ ~~! ~:~ ; I~
;;0 I .! ' ., -. ~ . 'l", ' " ~
: < '! ~m ~¡; 1 ~" , ::b .,_ ..) _.
fTl J (\ ~ '. .-JIm I I:. I, '.... õ-'- _ .L ~ ";;,,:..' ~<--!_ '\ '- '"
«:1;.--.'. ,....- I n.J I 111DJ1~ ML ...... - ·~·";:;¡-"'9 :d; -I, --'- I :'-.1 ~ fU-;" t ¡ I
' I! \ 1\ I. I 'c.... ~ ~~, 'J. '.' .. '_';" Ii ~:', ,) t-
....1'1 , \ . ¡II. 1'.," '1, ",,--.I.,.._ô1 : t ~~¡ \ci1 .
I \ \\"'~~~1 ~ ; "_!'~~ I '~ .
· . \' "=1IL';" .L _ _ _.....' _ _, , ~_
'\ \ " \ K ~ /..-; -~'=~,-..;-~~, r'. !. ~~ _+.': Y. .!l J' O"'i,¡;'.o.
\ \ - r>~~.EI? I¡¡; A' .~" )~ \
\ '.. I!i, r"o ~p... I,... V ;__ Ii!: '" . :..' ,'" II
:.. ""IJ:..., I' 1 - L-'_~ -F
\ ~ 1\ ....\ " ~;, "" '"- _~" -~.-t;;¡
~ \. !I~~· \ 1\\" " '''. ---;:..j...::....." - i~;I··::...,;~s H . v.~ ,._. .. ~'i'.,J. ..JJaW
"'.<p~~ \ i/ \ ('-'5< .... .. 1.,.... _ :. _ J \
.. ~i'sF' i'~ :: / '::1"" , , . .~
~~~ ~ \ '\' ~ ·i~ .,/. . / Œ: 'TS~~~_ [' /
.I!! " \ I.. I \, ,/.~. r 'ill fOil ill-
"" 0.. ~ · \ '" ~ f¿I!.._, ,
ilil ,~ :; ~ \, ""\ \¡ ¡ ~ ~ ". \ _ "'- 7 \ '\,
~ I U I~I~' ~. C~ ~:.) ..... "" 1 . \ . i \\, ~....; ~ ~ ~;~ i;¡~l
'I >. ". . !' . '" , .,
Ii! "uJ" · '/'~~ ~"\' ~_,,--¡")
t .¢"--. i '-~ ~ _ ---"..
' ¡
I
h
~5:
»z
z>
o~
3
~
"'U
~
~
iii
!
I
Ii
'"
"
~:\
"%
'i.
il'¡!:
~,
~
\:,
ti
..
,j
::(.j ~~
~~,
""¡
II .;,.
······1 ...
I ~
"
i ~;;
¡! ~
U ~
i: 1;.1
]' !)..
r! ?
@J
t!
œ&,
:::g.
r~
~r~
~~gi1'
"':Jlr 8
~~~I~'
œ
~""-"';;"'
1:g.e~iN'~lf
iZIt Q ¡;
1
-
·':1
.,
-
$
..
...
'-' "' '~._..,
,...;;...'-
.. , I ':--...""
.~ .... ) "-:~~".ILl
~
.
.........
~. -.
~'
s! ~
- .
~...~
",,:>17
~
. ,I
~tïf1C'WAJ(~
$ERvIct WITH
MEltR (TYP,)
_.-
-
-'
S'!
ð'
J!
'B2-q)l'll
RESOLUTION NO. XX-OS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************************************
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
AT 7475 STARWARD DRIVE, PA 04-006
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail/Office to
Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre), a Planned Development District Rezoning and
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review to subdivide a .77- acre parcel (APN
941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) single-family dwellings and related improvements on land generally
located north and east ofStarward Drive, and north of the Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for each of the requested actions, including the Site
Development Review, is available and on file in the Dublin Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thc City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project, including the request for
Site Development Review, to assess any potential significant environmental impacts which may result
nom the project. Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials
and waste, and geotechnical impacts were prepared for the project, and mitigation measures were
recommended to reduce the identified potential impacts to less-than~signifieant levels. Based on this, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan were preparcd, and
subsequent incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design, and further evaluation, has detenJlined that the Project, as
designed and proposed, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental
impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program are proposed for adoption with this Project and are include in the
attachments to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January
25, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, comments were taken at the Planning Commission hearing related to neighborhood
residents' concerns that potential privacy and noise impacts could result from the residence on Lot I of the
proposed development, as well as potentiallightJglare impacts from vehicles using the private street;
WHEREAS, Enea Properties has designed the home on Lot 1 to address impacts to privacy, light
and glare, and noise as the second-floor windows on the north elevation of the home proposed for Lot I
do not face the existing home to the north of the Project site; the windowless garage ofthc proposed home
on Lot I is located directly across the drainage channel and easement (approximately 20 feet in width)
nom the backyard of Mr. Atwood's residence; an additional five-foot side yard setback along the north
property line has been included in the Project for a combined distance of 25 feet ftom thc proposed house
ATTACHMENT Lt
CZ~Ð\'t
on Lot 1 to the property line of the property to the north; and, the location ofa six-foot wooden fenœ
along the north and east property lines of the Project site adjacent to proposed Lot I wil1 block thc noise
and light from vehicles accessing the garages of the residences and northbound on the private street, as
well as provide additional screening to existing residences on Oxbow Lane in the residential area to the
north; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 25,2005 was submitted to the Planning Commission
recommending City Council approval of Site Development Review for the Project, subject to Conditions
of Approval contained in the associated Resolution, and recommending the Planning Commission transfer
approval authority ofthe project to the City Council pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and in
conjunction with the before mentioned applications for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25,2005 and used their independent judgment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 05-09 recommending City Council
approval of Site Development Review for the Enea Starward Row Residential Project, PA 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on said application on February 15, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, proper notices of said hearings were given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council, dated February 15, 2005,
recommending approval of the Site Development Review for the Enea Properties Starward Row
Residential Project PA 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby make the following findings and detenninations regarding said proposed Site Dcvelopment
Review:
1. The approval of this Site Development Review (PA 04~006), as conditioned, is consistcnt
with the purposes and intent of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinanee as it will promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site development
compatible with site constraints and compatible with surrounding properties and
neighborhoods, because the project's building elevations, landscaping, colors and materials
reflect those of development in the project vicinity.
2. The approval of this Site Development Review (PA 04-006, as conditioned, will comply
with the policies of the General Plan, as proposcd for amendment, and the Planned
Development Rezoning and the Stage I and Stage 2 Dcvelopment Plan for thc project
which allows for residential development at a density of 14 dwelling units per acre for a
total of 10 single-family homes at this location.
3. The approval of this Site Development Review, as conditioned, is in the best interests of
the public health, safety, and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws
2
2ifct I~\
and ordinances of the City of Dublin and implements the General Plan, as proposed for
amendment.
4. The proposed site development, including site layout, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbaeks, height, walls, public safety, and similar elements, as conditioned, has
been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development.
5. The Project has been designed with consideration given to the character, scale, and quality
of the architectural design and detailing with regard to the site and tbe S\lTTounding
residential development. The Project will provide a unique residential development of 10
dwelling units which is eompatible with the urban nature of the neighborhood, and along
with the Conditions of Approval in this Resolution, will provide a high quality residential
subdivision.
6. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of
plant materials, and similar elements in the design of the Project and the relatcd
Development Plan have been made to ensure visual relief and an attractivc environment to
the public as front yard landscaping, street trees, and a landscaped sidewalk strip will
support the pedestrian-oriented character of the development's porches and porticos to
create an attractive place for residents and pedestrians to walk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council docs hereby approve the Site
Development Review for the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project, P A 04-006, subject to
the following Conditions of Approval, and subject to approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Planned Development District Rezoning! Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to thc issuance of
building permits or establishment of use. and shall be subiect to Deoartment of Communi tv Development
review and approval. The following codes reoresent those deoartments/agencies responsible for
monitoring complianee of the conditions of approval. fPL.l Planning. fBl Building. fPOl Police. fPWl
Public Works fADMl Administration/City Attomev. fFINl Finance, fFl Dublin Fire Deoartment. fDSRl
Dublin San Ramon Services District. fCO] Alameda County Deoartment of Environmental Health. rrTl
Information Technolo!!:V Deoartment.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Development pursuant to the Site Development Review approval for P A 04-006 shall generally conform
to the following plans and documents available and on file in conjunction with. the Planned Development
Stage I and 2 Development Plan in the Department of Community Development, as conditioned:
Architectural and Project Plans prepared by Craig + Grant Architects, Inc. for "Starward Row" dated
January 10, 2005; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 and Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
prepared by DeBolt Engineering, dated Jan\lary 10, 2005; and a Conceptool Landscape Plan, Sheet L-l of
Project Plans, prepared by BorreccolKilian and Associates, dated November 12, 2004, by the City of
Dublin and eontained in Exhibit A of the Development Plan for the Project. The Site Development
Review shall also generally conform to the Colors and Materials Board received on October I, 2004, and
3
~$ t!) \~)
the Streetscape Elevation/View submitted by the ApplicantlDeveloper, which are on file in the City of
Dublin Community Development Department.
1.
Standard Conditions. The project shall comply with the PL, B
Cit of Dublin Site DeveJo ment Review Standards.
Fees. ApplicantJDeveloper shall pay aU applicable fees in Various
effect at the time of building pennit issuance, including,
but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin
San Ramon Services District Fees, Public Facilities Fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public
Works Traffic Impact fees, Dublin Fire Services fees;
Noise Mitigation fees: Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water
Connection fees; and any other fees in effect at the time of
building pennit issuance. Unissued building pennits
subsequent to new Or revised TlF's shalJ be subject to
recalculation and assessment of the fair share of the new
or revised fees.
Colors and Materials Board. The colors and materials PW
utilized in the project shall contonn with the Colors and
Materials Board submitted by the ApplicantJDeve10per
dated received October I, 2004, and the Streetscape
Elevation/View submitted by the ApplicantlDeveloper.
Any changes to colors or materials shall be subject to
approval of the Director of Community Development to
reflect an chan es made durin ro' ect review.
House Numbers List. Applicant/Developer shall submit PL, F
a house numbers list corresponding lots shown on the
Tentative Map. Said list is subject to approval of the
Director of Community Development. Approved numbers
or addresses shall be placed on the homes. The address
shall be positioned to be plainly visible and legible from
the street fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their bac ounds.
Term. Approval ofthe Site Development Review shall PL
be valid for one year from approval by the Planning
Commission. If construction has not commenced by that
time, this approval shall be null and void. The approval
period for Site Development Review may be extended six
(6) additional months by the Director of Community
Development upon determination that the Conditions of
Approval remain adequate to assure that the fmdings of
approval will continue to be met. (ApplicantJDeveloper
must submit a written request for the extension prior to
the ex iration date.ofthe Site Develo ent Review,
Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in PL
accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. An violation of the tenns or conditions of
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4
Through
Completion
V ariOlls times~
but no later
than issuancc
of building
permits
Issuance of
Building
Pennits
Issuance of
Building
Pennits
Approval of
Improvemcnt
Plans
On-going
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Municipal
Code
'BlPI1þ I&l
7.
this a roval shall be sub' ect to citation.
Plot Plans. Plotting Plans for each phase of the project PL
and dwelling unit type shall be submitted by the
ApplicantJDeveloper to the Department of Community
Development for approval by the Director of Community
Development prior to submitting for building permits in
each res ective hase.
Antomatlc Garage Door Openers. Automatic garage B, PL
door openers shall be provided for an dwelling units and
shall be of a roll-up type. Garage doors shall not intrude
into the public right-of-way. Garage for Lot 10 shall have
two automatic ara e door 0 eners.
Modification or Amendment to Approved Site PL
Development Review. Modification or Amendment to an
approved Site Development Review shall be pursuant to
Section 8.104.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. The process
for amending a Site Development Review shall be the
same as the process for approving a Site Development
Review except that the decisionmaker for minor changes
in the Site Development Review for individual lots shall
be the Communit Develo ment Director.
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Occupancy of
Unit
On-going
Standard
Standard
z.o.
8.
9.
10.
Building and Fire Codes. The project shall comply with B, F
Uniform Building Code and Fire Code as adopted by the
City of Dublin including opening and wall rating based on
distance from ro ert line.
Smoke detectors. The Applicant/Developer shall provide B, F
smoke detectors in accordance with the Califomia
Buildin Code section 310.9.
Survey. Due to the proximity oftha dwellings, PL
foundation fonus shall be surveyed to verify location prior
to foundation inspection.
11.
12.
13.
Building Permits. To apply for building permits, the B, PL, PW
Applicant shall submit eight (8) sets of full construction
plans for plan check. Each set of plans shall have
attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all
Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Construction plans will not be accepted without the
annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The
ApplicantlDeveloper will be responsible for compliance
with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining th
approvals of an participating non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of buildin or adin ermits.
Construction Plans. Construction plans shall be fully B, PL, PW
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately
drawn (depicting an existing and proposed conditions on
site, and r ared and si cd b a California licensed
5
14.
Issuance of
building
permit
Issuance of
building
ermit
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit and
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
UBC and
FC
UBC
PL
,PL,PW
.PL.PW
'ß1"t) 'ß\
Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and
details shall be consistent with each other.
15. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B,PL Prior to
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with Occupancy of
materials compatible to the main building and shall not be Unit
roof-mounted. Units shall be pennaneotly installed on
concrete pads or otber non-movable materials to be
approved by the Building Official and the Director of
Community Development. Air conditioning units shall be
located such that each dwelling unit has one side yard with
an unobstructed width of not less than 36 inches. Air
conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the
I'D text.
16. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer witb the PL Prior to issuance Standard
local postal authorities to detennine the type of mail of Building
receptacles uecessary and provide a letter stating their Permit
satisfaction with the type of mail service to be provided.
Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction
ofthe Postal Service.
17. Engineer Observation. The Engineer ofrecord shall be B,PL Prior to Final Standard
retained to provide observation services for all components Frame Inspection
of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including and Ongoing
nailing, holdowns, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. Engineer shall certify
elevations above grade of floors and roof framing. A
written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior
to schedulin the final frame ins ection.
18. Fireplaces. Wood-burning fiTt,' )laces are prohibited. B Issuance of Standard
building permit
and on- 0
19. Construction within 3 feet of tbe property line shall be B Issuance of UBC
I-hour rated construction in both R·3 and U-I occupancies building pennit
ofTVN construction. All projections from the exterior of and on-going.
the buildings with 3 feet setback ofthe property line shall
be of I-hour construction. Overhangs / projections may
only project up to 12 inches into areas where opeoings are
prohibited. Openings in R-3 are prohibited within 3 feet of
the property line; therefore no projections are permitted
closer than 24 inches to the property line. (503.2 and Table
5A CB; sheet SP-I. Please see section 705 for
ro' ectionswithin the re uired setbacks for 0 enin s.
20. Electrical and Gas Meters. The ApplicantlDeveloper B,PL Prior to issuance Standard
shall submit the locations of all electrical and gas meters to of Building
the Community Development Director for review and Permit
a roval of ro osed locations.
21. Floor elevations. Pad and finish floor elevation B, PW, PL Issuance of B
certification may be required to certify overall height and Building
height above flood plain. Under-floor areas are not Permits
pennitted in an area within the 100-year of lower flood
lain.
6
22.
Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical, the B
applicant shall incorporatc Green Building Measures.
Green Building Plan shall be incorporated into
construction plans submitted to the Building Division for
review. A copy of suggested Green Building techniques
and materials is available from the Buildin Division.
On-going
Standard
26.
Street Name Sign Content. Street name signs shall
display the name of the street together with a City
standard shamrock logo. Posts shall be galvanized steel
i e.
GradinglSitework Permit. AU site improvement work PW
and public right-of-way work must be perfonned per a
Grading/Sitework Pennit issued by the Public Works
Department. Said permit will be based on the fmal set of
improvement plans to be approved once all of the plan
check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the
handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit
Application Instructions and attached application (three 8-
1/2" x 11" pages) for more information. The
Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant
information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost
of the pennit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance,
although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for
an ado ted increases to the fee amount.
Improvement and Grading Plans. All improvement and PW
grading plans submitted to the Public Works Department
for review/approval shall be prepared iIJ accordance with
the approved Tentative Map, these Conditions of
Approval, and the City of Dublin Mutùcipaj Code
including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). When
submitting plans for review/approval, the
Applicant/Developer shall also fill-out aIJd submit a City
of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Checklist (three 8-
1/2" x 11" pages). Said checklist includes neccssary
design criteria and other pertinent infonnatiolJ to assure
that plans are submitted in accordallCe with established
City standards. The plans shall also reference the current
City (jf Dublin Standard Plans (booklet), and shan include
applicable City of Dublin Improvement Plan General
Notes (three 8-112" x 11" pages). For on-site
improvements, the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to
the City's On-site Checklist (eight 8-1/2" x 11" pages).
All ofthese reference documents are available from the
Public Works Department (call telephone 925-833-6630
for mOre information .
Retaining Walls. Where finish grade of this property is PW
in excess of twenty-four (24) inches higher or lowcr than
the abulting property or adjacent lots within the
subdivision, a concrete or rnaso block retainin wall or
7
bsuance of
Grading Penni!
PW
24.
25.
Issuance of
Grading Pennit
PW
Issuance of
Building Permit
Standard!
PW
27. Walls and Fences. All walls and fences shall confonn to PL Occupancy of Z.O.
Section 8.72.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless Unit
otherwise required by this resolution.
Construction/installation of common/shared fences for all
side and rear yards shall be the responsibility of
ApplicantJDeveloper. Construction shall comply with
fence detail submitted with the Project Plans, Sheets D-l
and D-2. The perimeter masonry wall on the south side of
the ro' ect shall be at a minimum hei ht of seven feet.
28. Fencing. A detailed fencing/wall plan shall be submitted PW,PL Approval of Standard
with the improvement plans for the first phase of Improvement
development. The design, height, and location of the Plan.
fences/walls shall be subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development. Wall sections shall not be
butted together but separated by pilasters. The site shall
be secured during construction with temporary security
fencin .
29. Wall or Fence Heights. All wall or fence heights shall PW Approval of Standard
be a minimum 6 feet high (except in those locations where Improvement
Section 8.72.080 of the Z,oning Ordinance requires lower Plans
fence heights). All walls and fences shall be designed to
ensure dear vision at all street intersections to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
30. Uniform Building Security Code. All residential P On-going UBSC
buildings shall be eonstructed in accordance with the
currently adopted Unifonn Building Security Code,
pursuant to Chapter 7.32.220 of the DubJin Municipal
Code.
31. Perimeter Fencing. The Applicant/Developer shall fence P,PW Prior to Standard
the perimeter of the project site and utilize security grading and
lighting, almm system, surveillance cameras, and patrols through
as necessary. The Applicant/Developer shall work with completion of
the Dublin Police Services Department on an on"going the proj ect
basis to establish an effective theft prevention and
security program. All construction activities shan be
confmed to within the fenced area. Construction
materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored
outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-
way unless approved in advance by the City
En ineer/Public Works Director.
8
33.
and Irrigation Plan, confonning to the requirements of
Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless
otherwise required by this Resolution). The plans shall be
stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works
and the Director ofCommun.ity Development. That plan
should generally conform to the Site Plan and Conceptual
Landscape Plan prepared by Borrecco/Kilian and
Associates, shown in the project plans as Sheet L-t. It
must reflect any revised project design shown on the
Tentative Map with a later date. All trces shall be 24-inch
box size and all shrubs shall be 5-gallon size. Alt utilities
shall be effectively screened. The existing multi-branch
palm tree, chamaerops humilis, shall be preserved on site
within Lot 1.
Review. Shrub, vine, espalier, perennial, and ground
cover varieties shalt be reviewed aod approved by the
Director of Communi Develo ment.
Fire-resistant or drought tolerant plant varieties. Fire-
resistant or drought tolerant plant varieties shall be
re uired in the lant alette.
Backflow devises. Backflow devises shall be hidden
from view by means of fencing, enclosures, landscaping
andlor berms.
Lawn sprinkler control valve. Lawn sprinkler
controllers shall be located in the rear yards ofthe
residences.
Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and
Maintenance Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall
sign and submit a signed copy of the City of Dublin
Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and
Maintenance Agreement prior to the occupancy of any
units.
Water Efficient Landscape Regulations.
Applicaot/Deve1oper shall ensure that the Final
Landscaping and Irrigation Plan conforms to the City's
Water Efficient Laodscape Regulations, including dual
i i to facilitate future rec cled water.
Permits or
according to
Phased
Occupancy
Plan,
whichever is
first
PL
Issuance of
Building
Pennits
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Occupancy of
Any Unit
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Staodard
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance of
an Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the
project site shall meet minimum health and safety
standards including, but not limited to the following:
a. The streets and walkways providing access to each
building shall be complete, as detennined by the City
Engineer/Public Works Director, to allow for safe,
unobstructed pedestrian and vehicle access to and from
the site.
b. All traffic control devices on streets providing access
to the site shall be in place and fully functional.
9
PL,F
PL
B,PL
PL
PL,PW,
DSR
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
PW, B, PL
Occupancy of
First Building
PW
c. All street name signs and address numbers for streets
providing access to the buildings shall be in place and
visible.
d. Lighting for the streets and site shall be adequate for
safety and security. A11 streetlights on streets providing
access to the buildings shall be energized and functioning.
Exterior lighting shall be provided for building
entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security
lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police.
e. All construction equipment, materials, or on.going
work sha11 be separated from the public by use of fencing,
barricades, caution ribbon, or other means approved by
the City EngineeriPubJic Works Director.
f. All fire hydrants shall be operable and easily
accessible to City and ACFD personnel.
g. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e.
HIC parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be
installed and fully functional.
40. Refuse Collection Areas. The refuse collection areas PL Approval of Standard
within the project shall be reviewed by the Community Improvement
Development Director and the refuse collection service Plans
provider to ensure that adequate space is provided to
accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible solid
waste as well as source-separated recyclable materials
enerated b the residents of the ro' ect.
41. Decorative Entrance Llgbts. The ApplicantlDeveloper PL Approval of Standard
shall submit the final design ofthe two decorative Improvement
entrance light posts for review and approval by the Plans
Cornmunit Develo ment Director.
42. GlarelReßective Finisbes. The use of rel1ective finishes PL Issuance of PL
on building exteriors is prohibited. In order to control the Building
effects of glare within this subdivision, rel1ective glass Permits
shall not be used on a11 east-facing windows.
Additionallv. a DrivacV film to obscure the ¡¡lass on the
north"facinl!: window on the residence on Lot I shall be
installed. and installation of additional windows on the
north- facin side of the r ideuce shall be rohibite
43. Details. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant! BL Building Standard
Developer shall submit revised architectural elevations to Permit
the Director of Conununity Development for review and Issuance
approval for all architectural styles indicating additionaJ
architectural embellishments (belly bands, sill bands,
shutters, etc.) for the passive building wall. Architectural
plans submitted for Building Permit applications shall
indicate window recesses or reveals of 2 to 3 inches On all
elevations to the satisfaction ofthe Conununity
Develo ment Director.
10
q¿'lrb IßI
44. Fence on Eastern Property Line. lfthe fence which lies PL
along the eastern property line is found to be in poor
condition or is damaged during construction, the
Applicant/Developer shall replace the fence with a new
fence that is equivalent in design and construction. Fence
plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director or bis designee for review and approval prior to
construction.
45. Lot Coverage Increases. Increases in lot coverage on PL
approved lots shall be general1y prohibited due to the
amount of coverage approved for each of the 10 lots with
this Project. However, minor adjustments to lot coverage
may be permitted by a Conditional Use Pennit approved
for the lot b the Plannin Commission.
On-going
On-going
PO
PD
Acceptance of Standard
improvel11cnts
by City
Council.
46. Geographic Information System. Once the City PW, IT
Engineer/Public Works Director approves the
development project, a digital vectorized file on floppy or
CD of the hnprovement Plans shall be submitted to the
City and DSRSO. Digital raster copies are not acceptable.
The digital vectorized files shal1 be in AutoCAD 14 or
higher drawing fonnat or ESRl Shapefite format.
Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of 0.00.
All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer
and named in English, although abbreviations are
acceptable. All submitted drawings shal1 use the Global
Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone Ill, and U.S. foot. Said
submittal shall be acceptable to the City's GIS
Coordinator.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 2005 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:/pa#12004/04-006/CCRES SDR.doc
II
·EPC
Enea Properties ¿~J~ lLC
190 Hartz Ave., Ste. 260
Danville, CA 94526
(925) 314-1470
fax (925)314-1475
r5e@st-mlchasHnvsstments.com
.
,ea Properties Company, LLC
Written Statement
Project
Information:
Starward Row
7475 Starward Drive
Dublin, CA
The Starward Row project will consist of ten detached individual homes
creating a unique neighborhood feeling. Each individual home has been
painstakingly designed to exude its' own personality and character.
This type of attention is not typically found in suburban subdivisions. The
architectural design is reminiscent of the Bay Back Area of Boston or the
Victorian Row in San Francisco. The high quality of construction materials and
the unique design will make this project a model to be duplicated In other inflll
sites in the Tri-Valley Area.
--
From the stred pedestrians will only see the front detailed elevations and
inviting covered porches. With the exception of one residence, all double
garage doors will be hidden from view and located off the street behind the
residence. Each home will have a detached double door garage and will be
separated by a small private yard to accommodate children, pets or barbeques.
The interior floor plans have been designed and redesigned several times to
maximize efficiency and allow residents the benefit of no wasted space. The
placement of each Individual window has been studied to allow the maximum
natural light while being sensitive not to invade the privacy of the neighboring
residence.
In conclusion, Starward Row represents the compilation and summary of many
creative ideas from many sources resulting In a very unique and excIting
þroduct type that will be the first of its kind In the City of Dublin. We
aþþreclate the efforts and patience of the Planning Staff which have
unquestionably added to the success of the final design. We look forward to
seeing this project gd approved and ultimately built.
Thank you for your consideration of our application.
Best Regards,
e
tlMA~
Robert S. Em~a
ATTACHMENT éJ
'7 _ jl ;. /() /
\..42l~ r/o'¿~)
No warranty or repr(,l:!len1aUQI1, ~)(preS8 c~ imp!løa, 1& madl!! as to the aClJrll.0Y of the inlormatlon cantainad hør/iilli[1, arid same is l;l,Ibmitl:éd subject to
arr'Or'S, om !j;slof'ls, changes 01 priœ, t9ntal or. other conditions, withdrawal without notiee and to any spéC¡~[ listing GGrn::IIUøns, Imposed by the principals.
I
.
'.
. -' -".-.
"tJmen
»:::J!:;'
oCDCD
t'm~
o "tJ (II
00(')
>- C»"C m
CD"C
;:J ::¡.CD
-·m
n CD-
~ (II CD
-<
enm
8 -- ~
m -. ð
~ g
~ m< cb
., -.
Q,CD
c::E
..,
.
.
-.-.--.-.
.
.
-.--.-.-.
oS)
~
a\
"
RESOLUTION NO. 05- 10
,::;¡f%6 \"6\
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (No. 7597)
ENEA PROPERTIES ST ARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(P A 04-006)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 to subdivide a .77- acre parcel (APN 941-0173-002-02)
for ten (10) single-family dwellings and related improvements on land generally located north and east
of Starward Drive, and north of the Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for the requested action is available and on file in the Dublin
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Gllidelines Section 15162 for the Project, including the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map approval request, to assess any potential significant environmental impacts which
may result from the project. Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous
materials and waste, and geotechnical impacts were prepared for the project, and mitigation meaSllres
werc recommended to reduce the identified potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on
this, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan were prepared, and
subsequcnt incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design, and fllrther evaluation, has determined that the Project, as
designed and proposed, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental
impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program are proposed for adoption with this Project and are include in the
attaclnnents to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is the approving authority for all tentative tract maps and
did hold a public hearing on said application on January 25,2005; and
WHEREAS, proper noticc of said hearing was given in all respects as reqllired by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of
Vesting Tcntative Tract Map 7595, subject to Conditions of Approval contained in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25, 2005 and used their independent judgment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 7597 prepared by DeBolt Engineering, datcd January J 0,2005; on file in the City ofDllblin
Community Devclopment Department:
I. The Vcsting Tentative Tract Map 7597 is consistent with the intent of applicable
subdivision regulations and related ordinances as it provides for the orderly development
of land to coordinate lot design, street patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities
with community plans and standards and as it provides for assurances that the development
will not becomc a future burden to the community by establishment of a Home Owncrs
Association with responsibility for maintenance of common areas, as conditioned herein.
ATTACìTIMHH -:r
~\ßI
2. The design and improvements associated with Vesting Tentativc Tract Map 7597 are
consistent with and conform to the City's Gcneral Plan policies as thcy apply to the subject
property as it is a subdivision for development of a residential project on a site with a land
use designation for Medium Density Residential development, as amended.
3. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 is consistent with the regulations and provisions of
the Planned Development District Rezoning proposed for this project, and is, therefore,
consistent with the City of DubJin Zoning Ordinance.
4. The project site is located on a residential collector street, StaTWard Drive, near a major
road, Amador Valley Boulevard, on .77 acres of relatively flat topography and is, therefore,
physically suitable for thc type and density of th.e proposed development of ten (10)
Medium Density Residential units to be developed at 14 dwelling units per acre.
5. With the incorporation of mitigation measures established in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the project and subject to Conditions of Approval, the design of
the subdivision will not cause environmental damage or substantially injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns.
6. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at-
large or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The Director of
Public Works has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
7. Rcquired fire and water service will be provided to the subdivision pursuant to the
requirements of water and scwer providers, as utiJity standards and conditions are
incorporated into the project and service fees wi11 be paid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 for the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project, PA
04-006, prepared by DeBolt Engineering, dated January 10,2005; on file in the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, and subject to
City Council approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development District
RczoninglStage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, and the Site Development Review for the Project.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
buildinf! permits or establishment of use. and shall be subiect to Department of Communitv Development
review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.l Planning. rBl Building. [POl Police. [PWl
Public Works rADMl Administration/Citv Attornev. rFINl Finance. rFl Dublin Fire Department. rDSRl
Dublin San Ramon Services District. rCOl Almneda Countv Department of Environmental Health. [IT]
Information Technologv Department.
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
1. Fees: ApplicantlDeveloper shall pay all applicable Various
fees in effect at thc time of building penn it
issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning
Various time., but Standard
no later than
Issuance of
buildin ennits
2
"'fßt:> IßI
2.
fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services
District Fees, Public Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified
School District School Impact fees, Public Works
Tramc Impact fees, Dublin Fire Services fees;
Noise Mitigation fees: Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water COlmection fees; and any other fees in effect
at the time of building permit issuance. Unissued
building permits subsequent to new or revised TIF's
shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of
the fair share of the new or revised fees.
Building Codes and Ordinances. All projcct B
construction shall conform to all building codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building petmit
Issuance.
Requirements. Applicant/Devc1oper shall meet or PW,PL
perform all of the requirements of the Subdivision
Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, and the
approved Vesting Tentative TractMap 7595 for the
project prior to City Council acceptance of offers of
dedication
3.
Ordinances/General PIan/Policies. The PW, PL
Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin
Subdivision Ordinance, City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, Planned Development District l' A 04-
006 & Development Plan, the City of Dublin
General Plan (as amended), Public Works standards
and criteria, and the Cit Gradin Ordinance.
Infrastructure. The location and siting ofproject pL,pW
specific wastewater, storm drain, recycled water,
and potablc water system infrastructure shall be
approved by the City of Dublin Public Works
Director and the appropriate agency Or utility
rovider.
Drainage Channel. Any proposed modifications PW, PL
or alterations to the Drainage Channel shall be
approved by the City of Dublin Public Works
Director and any required permitting agencies, such
as Zone 7.
Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall B
comply with the City's solid waste management and
rec clin re uirements.
Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service PL, PW
provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate
space is provided to accommodate collection and
sorting of petrucible solid waste as well as source-
separated recyclable materials generated by the
residents within this ro' eel.
Title Reports/Deeds. A current preliminary title PW
report and copies of all recorded deeds, easements,
and other encumberances and copies of Final Maps
for adjoining properties and off-site easements shall
be submitted for reference as deemed necessa b
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3
Through
Completion
Approval of Final
Map
Issuance of
Building Permits
Approval of
Improvement Plans
Approval of
Improvement Plans
On-going
Occupancy of Any
Building
Approval of Final
Map
Standard
Standard!
PW
Standard!
PW
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
the City EngineerlDirector of Public Works which
arc no more than 6 months old as of the date o[
submittal.
9. Document Preparation. The improvement plans PW
[or Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 (including
Improvement Plans, Grading Plans, and subdivision
maps) shall be prepared, designed, and signed by a
registered civil engineer to the satisfaction o[ the
Director of Public Work. in accordance with the
Ordinances, standards, specifications, policies, and
requirements of the City of Dublin using standard
City title block formats and check lists, after
approval. After approval, original mylars or photo
mylars with three sets of blue prints must be
submitted to the Cit .
Approval of Standard
Improvement Plans
10. Action ProgramslMltlgation Measures.
ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with all
applicable action programs and mitigation measureS
of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring program
that have not been made specific Conditions o[
A roval.
11. Drainage Impacts and Improvements.
Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director o[ Public Works that all
mitigation measureS that need to be improved as a
result of drainage impacts ofthis project will be
constructed prior to occupancy of any building. All
drainage improvements shall be constructed to the
satisfaction to ofthe Director of Public Works.
12. Construction Noise Management
Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan.
Applicant/Developer shall con[onn to the following
Construction Noise Managemcnt Program!
Construction Impact Reduction Plan: Construction
of the Subdivision shall be conducted so as to
minimize the effect of the construction as required
by the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the
existing community and on the occupants of the
new homes as they are completed. The foJ1owing
measures shall be taken to reducc construction
impacts:
1. On~site truck traffic shall be routed as directly
as practical to and from the freeway (1-580) to the
job site. Primary route shall be from 1-580 to San
Ramon Road to Amador Valley Boulevard and onto
Starward Drive. An Oversized Load Pennit shaJ1
be obtained from the City prior to hauling of any
oversized loads on City streets.
2. The construction site shall be watered at
regular intervals during all grading activities. The
fre uenc of watenn should increase if wind
PL
Approval of PL
Improvement Plans
through completion
of the project
PW
Occupancy of Any PW
Building
PL and/or
PW
[ssuance of Standard
Grading Permit
4
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should
include an excavated and graded areaS and material
to be transported off· site. Construction equipment
shan use recycled or other non-potable water
resources wherc feasible.
3. Construction equipment shan not be left idling
while not in use.
4. Construction equipment shan be fitted with
noise muffling devices.
5. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by
construction vehicles shan be cleaned-up on a daily
basis.
6. Excavation haul trucks shan use tarpaulins or
other effective covers_
7. Upon completion of construction, measures
shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting
and repaving should be complctcd as soon as
possible_
8. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on
exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the
tonowing methods:
a_ Inactive portions of the construction site shall
be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident.
b. An portions of the site shall be sufficiently
watered to prevent dust.
c. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15
mph.
d_ Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet
the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District.
Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by
the City EngineerlPublic Works Director.
e. The Department of Public Works shan handle
an dust complaints. The City EngineerlPublic
Works Director may require the services of an air
quality consultant to advise the City on the severity
ofthe dust problem and additional ways to mitigate
impact on residents, including temporarily halting
project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining
communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be
addressed. Control measureS shall be related to
wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM
levels shall be provided as required by the City
Engineer/Public Works Director.
f. Construction interference with regional non-
project traffic shan be minimized by:
1. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to
non-peak travel periods.
ii. Routing construction traffic through areas of
least impact sensitivity.
iii. Routing construction traffic to minimize
construction interference with re ional non- ro' ect
5
lís\
traffic movement.
iv. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-
peak travel periods.
v. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor
and subcontractor personne1.
vi. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall
be minimized through a routine mandatory program
of low-emissions tune-ups.
9. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be
minimized through a routine mandatory program of
low-emissions tune-ups.
10. During construction, noise control and
construction traffic mitigation measures within
residential neighborhoods or on public streets must
be taken to reduce noise and use ofpubJic streets by
construction traffic as directed by Public Works
officials.
13. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Applicant! PW
Developer shall include an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan with the Grading and Improvement
Plans for review and approval by the City
EngineerlPublic Works Director. Said plan shall be
designed, implemented, and continually maintained
pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between
October I" and April 15th or beyond these dates if
dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed
by the City EngineerlPublic Works Director.
Issuance of
Grading Permit
PW Standard
14. Ilours of construction. Construction and grading PL
operations shall be limited to weekdays, Monday
through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Director of Public
Works may approve work on Saturday and hours
beyond the above-mentioned days and hours with
the understanding that the developer is responsible
[or the additional cost of the Public Works
inspectors' overtime. For work on Saturdays, said
request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m.
the rior Wednesda .
15. Archaeology. Should any prehistoric or historic PL, PW, B
artifacts be exposed during excavation and
construction operations, the Department of
Community Development shall be notified and
work shall cease immediately until an
archaeologist, who is certit1ed by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOP A), is consulted to
evaluate the significance ofthe fmd and suggest
appropriate mitigation measures, if deemed
necessary, prior to resuming ground breaking
construction activities. Standardized procedures for
evaluatin accidental fmds and discove of human
On-going
PW Standard
On-going through
completion
PW Standard
6
remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections
15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California
Environmental ualit Act Guidelines.
16_ Environmental Site Assessment. According to the PL,PW Issuance: of BAAQMD,
environmental assessment report prepared by Grading Pennit Standard
Clayton Group Services, Inc. dated 01/08/04, and through completion
the Asbestos Inspection Report, pr<-'þarcd by REM,
dated February 17,2004, asbestos is located in
construction materials On the site. The
Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the
requirements of ACDEH, the Fire Marshal, the
City, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, state and federal agencies, and/or other
applicable agency to mitigate the hazard before any
demolition. The Applicant/Developcr shall monitor
and address any hydrocarbons residual found in the
soil during excavation/trenching.
17. Stationary Source Emissions. Applicant! PL,PW Issuance of Standard
Developer shall ensme that stationary somce Grading Permit
emissions associated with project development are
minimized.
A. The houses shall be designed to meet or exceed
the requirements of Title 24 ofthe Califomia Code
of Regulations (energy efficiency requirements).
By meeting or exceeding these requirements, the
houses will require less energy to heat and cool,
thereby reducing the emissions created in the
produdion of electric power and created by burning
natural gas.
B. The subdivision will utilize curbside recycling,
which will reduce the amount of solid wastes from
the subdivision which would be deposited at a
landfill site, thereby minimizing the amount of
nitrous oxide emissions from the landfill.
C. During rough grading construction the
construction site will be regularly watered to
contain dust, and after construction the front yards
and street landscaping will be installed, thereby
minimizing the amount of air pollution caused by
airborne dust from the site.
18. Rodentlcldes and Herbicides. The use of PL Issuance of Standard
rodcnticides and herbicides within the project area Grading Permit
shall be performed in cooperation with and under
the supervision of the Alameda County Department
of Agriculture and will be restricted, to the
satisfaction ofthe Director of Community
Development, to reduce potential impacts to
wildlife and residents.
19. Water QualjtylBcst Management Practices. PW Issuance of NPDES
Pursuant to the Alameda Countywide National Grading Pennif
Pollution Discharges Elimination Permit (NPDES)
No. CAS0029831 with the California Re ional
7
It\
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), thc
ApplicantlDeveloper shaH design and operate the
site in a manner consistent with the Start at the
Source publication, and according to Best
Management Practices to minimize storm water
pollution. In addition to the bio-filtration swales
proposed along the perimeter of the site, in-line
filtration devices may be necessary to serve runoff
areas that wiHnot drain to bio-filtration swales due
to grading constraints_ AH roof downspouts shall
bc tied into the bio- filtration swales before enter the
public storm drain system. All trash dumpsters and
rccycling area enc10sures that arc not located inside
the building shaJJ have roofs to prevent
contaminants from washing into the storm drain
system. The applicant shaH file a Notice ofIntent
with the RWQCB and shaJJ prepare and submit a
Storm Water PoJJution Prevention Plan for the City
Enginecr/Public Works Director's review/approval.
FinaHy, all storm drain inlets serving vehicle
parking areas shall be stenciled "No Dumping -
Flows to Bay" using stencils available from the
Alameda Count wide Clean Water Pro ram.
20_ NPDES Permit. Pursuant to requirements of PW
federal law, a NPDES pennit shaH be obtained from
the RWQCB, and any tenns of the permit shall be
im lementcd, if a licable.
21. Storm Water Treatment Mcasures Maintenance PW
Agreement. ApplicantlDeveloper shaH enter into
an agreement with the City of Dublin that
guarantees the property owner's perpetual
maintenance obligation for all storm water
treatment measures installed as part of the project.
Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision
C.3.e.ii ofRWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the
reissuance of the Alamcda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said pennit requires
the City to provide verification and assurance that
aJJ treatment devices will be properly operated and
maintained.
Issuance of NPDES
Building Pel1llits
through completion
Acceptance of R WQCB
improvements by
City Council
22. Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/ PW
Developer shaH comply with all applicable City of
Dublin Standard Public Works Criteria (as
attached). In the evcnt of a conflict between the
Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and
these Conditions these conditions shaH revail.
23. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597. The PW
Applicant Developer shall prepare Final Map (s)
subdividing the property into the configuration,
size, and number of lots shown on the Tentative
Map 7597 in accordance with the requirements of
the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin
standards_ The ma shaH be reviewed and
Approval of Standard
Improvement Plans
through completion
Approval of Final Standard
Map
8
\~\
approved by the City Engineer/Public Works
Director rior to recordation.
24. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Term. The PW On-going Subdivision
Tentative Map shall have that life expiration Map Act and
determined by the Subdivision Map Act, including City of Dublin
but not limited to Section 66452.6, and as set forth
in the Dublin Munici al Code.
25. Easement Dedications. App1ieant/Developer shall PW Approval of Final Standard
dedicate easements on the final map or by separate Map
instrument as follows:
a. Public emergency vehicle access easement
(20-foot minimum width) granted to the
City of Dublin at the location dictated by
the Fire Marshal.
b. Provide a 5-foot Public Service Easement
(PSE) along the parcel frontages on
Starward Drive and at the rear of the
subject parccl along the bio-swale within
the property. Property owners shall be
notified that any construction within PSE,
including stair steps and fences, may be
removed to accesS the PSE if necessary.
c. Provide a private utility easement for storm
drain, electrical, and any common utilities
being shared by more than 1 parcel.
d. Any other easements deemed fCasonably
necessary by the City EnginecrIPublic
Works Director during the final design
and/or construction.
26. Maintenance Access Easement Zone 7 Fina1 of Vesting Standard
Applicant/Developer shall grant Zone 7 a Tentative Map
maintenance access easement from Starward Drive
over the private street and Lot I Residence for
maintenance of the Drainage Channel. Forty-cight
hour notice shall be given to the Home Owners
Association to ensure two parking stalls are
unobstructed.
27. Final Layont and Design of Streets. Final PW, Is.suan[je of PW
detailed layout and design of the internal private F Grading Permit and
street and drive aisles must be approved by the Building Pennit
Dublin Fire Prevention Services Department
ACFD and Director of Public Works.
28. Abandonment of Easements. Applicant! PW Occupancy of PW
Developer or current landowner shall obtain an affected Wlits
abandonment from all applicable public agencies of
cxistin easements.
29. Site Accessibility Reqnirements. All disabled PW Occupancy of Standard
access ramps, parking spaces for the disabled, and affected units
other physical site improvements shall comply with
CUITent UBC Title 24 / ADA requirements and City
of Dublin Standards for accessibilit .
30. Grading Plans. Grading plan designs must be PW Issuance of Standard
based on approved soils reports. In addition to the Grading Pennit
civil en in.er, a soil en ineer must si the radin
9
Protection from 100 -year Storm Event. The PW Issuance of PW
fin;shed floor elevation ofthc lowest building must Grading Permit
be one foot above 100-year flood levels.
ApplicantlDeveloper shall provide evidence to the
City tbat the building pads are a minimum of I foot
above a IOO-year storm event, especially &om
waters in the north of the property near the Zone 7
draina e channel.
32. Overland Storm Drain Flow. To accommodate PW Issuance of PW
potential overland now, the site grading and on-site Grading Permit
storm drain system shall be designed to convey
stonu water overland to Starward Drive without
inundating the buildings in the event the pipe
network becomes lu ed.
33. Storm Drainage Study/Requlred Improvements. PW Issuance of PW
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a Stonn Grading Permit
Drainage Study for the properties and roads to be
developed/constructed with the project. The Study
shall include a hydrology map and hydraulic
calculations. Since the project will substantially
increase the impervious coverage of the site, the
Study musl demonstrate that design flows do not
adversely impact existing hydraulics downstream of
the project. The Study is therefore subject to
review and approval by both the City of Dublin and
Zone 7. Al1 stonn drain improvcm~-nts and
mitigation measures identified in the Study and/or
specified by the City Engineer shall become
re uirements ofthis TO' ect.
34. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall PW,CO, Issuance of PW
obtain the required permits from Alameda County, Zone 7 Grading Permit
Zone 7, and the California Department of Fish and
Game, lo discharge and construct drainage
improvements within the Drainage Channel, if
nccessa
35. Geotechnical Investigation Report. PW Issuance of PW
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a Geotechnical Grading
Investigation Report covering the project site for Permit
review by the City, and (as a minimum) shall
design the grading plan based the recommendations
outlined in said Report, on the plans and notes for
the project, and as required by the City's Grading
Ordinance.
36. Drainage Fees. This project is subject to the PW, Zone Issuance of PW
payment of draiIJage fees through the City of 7 Grading Pennit
Dublin to Alameda County Flood Control District,
Zone 7.
Improvement Agreement/Security. Pursuant to
Section 7.16.620 of the Munici al Code and
10
iiI
Subdivision Map Act Section 66499, the
Applicant/Developer shall enter into an
Improvement Agreement with the City concurrent
with Final Parcel Map approval to guarantee
required public and site improvements.
Improvement security must be posted to guarantee
the faithful performance ofthe required
improvements and the payment of for labor and
materials. Such security shall be in the form of
cash, a certified or cashier's check, a letter of credit,
or surety bonds executed by the
Applicant/Developer and by a corporate surety
authorized to do business in California. The amount
of the security guaranteeing faithful performance
shall be 100% of the estimated cost of the required
work. The amount of the security guaranteeing the
payment of labor and materials shall be 100% of the
estimated cost of the required work. The
AppJicant/Developer shall provide an estimate of
these costs for approval by the City EngineeriPublic
Works Director with the first submittal of the final
ma and the im rovement lans for checkin .
38. Release of security. When aH improvements PW, ADM
governed by the Grading Permit are completed to
the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer/Public Works
Director, the City Engineer/Public Works Director
will release the security. Prior to the release, the
Applicant/Developer shaH furnish the following to
the City:
a. As-built or record Drawings printed on mylar of
all Improvement Plans and maps associated with
the proj ect
b. A recorded copy of the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions that govern the project.
c. A Declaration or Report by the project
Geotechnical Engineer confuming that all
geotechnical and grading work associated with the
project has been performed in accordance with the
Engiener's recommendations.
d. Payment of any outstanding City fees or other
debts.
e. Any other information deemed necessary by the
City Engineer/Public Works Director.
39. Encroachment in Public Right-of-Way. An PW
encroachment permit shaH be secured from the
Director of Public Works tor any work done within
the public right-of-way where this work is not
covered under the ublic im rovement lans.
40. Public Improvements. ApplicantlDeve10per shall PW
construct the pubJic sidewalk, curb & gutter and
driveways along the Starward Drive property
frontage accordance with City of Dublin standard
dctail SD 306. The fronta e im rovement shall
11
Completion of
Improvements
Is~uance of
Grading Permits
Acceptance of
improvements by
City Council
Standard
Standard
PW
ICI
include the existing sidewalk, curb & gutter area
50' north ofthe property to cover the channel
crossing and adjacent residential property. Also
the applicant shall slurry seal Starward Drive (curb
to curb) fronting the property along with necessary
avemcnt airs.
41. Sidewalks. Applicant/Developer shall construct a PW
minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of
Starward Drive, if necessary, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works, unless otherwise
a roved b the Director of Public Works
42_ Sidewalk Landscape Strip. Applicant/Developer PW
shall design and professionally landscape an
irrigated 4 1/2 foot landscape strip between the
sidewalk and the back of curb in accordance with
the Landscape Plan unless otherwise approved by
the Director of Public Works. Root barriers shall
be installed surrounding each street tree or along
the sidewalk and back of curb on each sjde of the
street. This landscape strip shall be adequately
maintained by the individual homeowners under the
direction and oversight of the subdivision Home
Owners Association and the City of Dublin Public
Worb Department. These landscaped areas shall
be fully irrigated and subject to the City's Water
Efficient Landsca eRe ulations.
43. Improvements Constructed Prior to Occupancy. PW
All improvements (including curb, gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving, landscaping and
utilities) necessary to serve the development, must
be constructed prior to occupancy ofthe fIrst
building in that phase in accordance with approved
City standards and to the satisfaction ofthc Director
of Pub1ic Works/City Engineer only after required
bonds and tees have been delivered and paid to the
Cit.
44. Permits for Oversized and Overweight PW
Construction LoadslHaul Routes. Permits shall
be required for oversized and/or overweight
construction loads, as determined by the Director of
Public Works/City Engineer, coming to and leaving
from the site. If soil is to be imported or exported
from tbe site, a haul route plan shall be submitted to
the Cit for review and a roval.
45. Prevailing Wage. All public improvements PW
constructed by Deve10per and to be dedicated to the
City are hereby identified as "public works" under
Labor Code section 1771. According1y, Developer,
in constructing such improvements, shal1 comply
with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code, sects.
1720 and followin
Acceptance of
improvements by
City Council
PW
Occupancy of
Adjacent Building
PW
Occupancy of Fir't
Building
PW
Issuance of
Grading Pennit
Standard! PW
Acceptance of
improvements by
City Council
Labor Code
section 1771
Home Owners A,soclatlon. App1icant/Developer
shall establish a subdivision Home Owners
12
Association by recordation of a declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern
use and maintenance of City street landscape areas
and common areas and facilitics. Said declaration
shall set forth the name of the association,
ownership of the private access roads, the
restrictions on the use or enjoymcnt of any portion
of the access roads for maintenance and/or access,
and the bylaws, rules and regulations of the
association. Prior to recordation, said CC&R
document shalt be reviewed by the City
EngineerlDirector of Public Works and the Director
of Community Development for compliance witb
this condition.
The CC&Rs shall address the foltowing:
a. Maintenance of the private access roads,
any common utilities, and any common
areas. Tbe CC&R shalt ensure that thCfC is
adequate provision for the maintenance, in
good fCpair, and on a regular basis, of all
commonly owned facilities and areas. In
the event that any such area or facility falls
into a state of disrepair or fails to meet
perfonnancc standards established by the
CC&RB, , the City will have the right, but
not the obligation, to take cOlTective
measures and bill the association for the
cost of such repair and cOlTective
maintenance work plus City overhead. The
declaration shall specify that, as it pertains
to the maintenance of the above-listed
items, it cannot be amended without the
consent of the City.
b. The parking ofrecreational vehicles
between a building and a public street,
along a public street, and on the private
street shall be prohibited. Recreational
Vehicles are defmed as a motorhome, travel
trai1er, utility trailcr, boat, boat on a trailer,
horse trailer, camper whefC the Hving area
overhangs the cab, camping trailer, or tent
trailer, with or without motive power.
c. No vehicle parking will be allowed on both
sides ofthe private strccts. This parking
restriction shall bc indicated with red-
painted curbs, and with R26F "No Stopping
- Fire Lane" signs installed on both sides at
a spacing not to exceed 200'. Parking shall
also be restricted along designated drive
aisles to assure unobstructed access through
the site.
d. Exclusive use, fencing, and maintenance of
reciprocal casements as shown on
develo ment Ian that altows the usc of
13
side yard areas to access rear yards of
homes.
47. Landscapin~. The Developer shall construct an PL,PW Completion of Standard
landscaping within the site and along the project Improvements
frontage from the face-of-curb to the site right -of-
way to the design and specifications of the City of
Dublin, and to the satisfaction ofthc Director of
Public Works and Director of Community
Development and in conformance with the
Landscape PJan, Sheet L-I. Street tree varieties of
a minimum 24-inch box size shall be planted at a
minimum of 30 feet on center along all street
frontages, and shall be shown on the Final
Landscaping Plans. Exact tree locations and
varieties shan be reviewed and approved by the
Directors of Public Works and Community
Development. The proposed variety oftrees to be
planted adjacent to sidewalks or curbs shall be
submitted for review to and approval by the
Director of Public Worb. After acceptance these
trees and the associated irrigation system shall be
maintained b the Home Owners Association.
48. Landscaping at Private Street Intersections. PL,PW Completion of PL
Landscaping at private street intersections shan be Improvements
such that sight distance is not obstructed. Except
for trees, landscaping shall not be higher than 30
inches above the curb in these areas.
49. Decorative Paving. Applicant/Deve1oper shall not PW Acceptance of PW
construct decorative pavement within City right-of- improvements by
way unless otherwise approved by the Director of the City Council
Public Works. The type of decorative pavers and
pavement section shall be subject to review and
approval ofthe Director of Public Works.
Decorative pavement across entrances to all private
streets shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
50. Relocation of Improvements. Any relocation of PW Completion of Standard
improvements or public facilities shan be Improvements
accom lished at no ex cnse to the Ci
51. Layout and Design. Layout and design ofthe PW Issuance of PW
project parking, striping, drive aisles, and sidewalks Building Pennits
within the project shall be configured to maximize
safety, circulation, convenience, and sight distance
per the City of Dublin zoning ordinance, standard
p1ans and details, and current policies as approved
h the Director of Public Works_
52_ Transitioning Existing Improvements. PW Approval of Standard
ApplicantlDevelopcr shall be responsible for Improvement Plans
transitioning existing improvements to match
improvements required as Conditions of Approval
for this Vestin Tentative Tract Ma .
53. Vehicle Code Enforcement on Private Pro e PW Acceptance of of California
14
The ApplicantlDeveloper shall support the City in
adopting an Ordinance pursuant to California
Vehicle Code (CVC) §21107.6-8 for the
enforcement of the eve along the private street
main entrance (Parcel A) and parking drive aisles.
Upon the effective date of the Ordinance, all eve
provisions will be enforceable on the private street
including speeds, traffic control devices, noise, and
other driving regulations. Although the evc does
not allow general enforcement of traffic regulations
within the entire parking ficld, it does specifically
allow enforcement of sections pertaining to unsafe
speed, exhibitionist speed, reckless driving, and off-
TOad vehicles. Appropriate signs shall be posted
within the property that indicate the area is subject
to ublic traffic re ulations and controL
54. I.A VT A. ApplicantJDevcloper shaJJ consult with PW
the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LA VTA) on the bus TOute, on the periphery of the
proposed project. The location and configuration of
all bus stops, if required, and shelters shall be
constructed under direction of the City's Director of
Public Works.
55. Construction Traffic Routing. All construction PW
traffic may be subje<.i to specific routing, as
determined by the Director of Public Works, in
order to minimize construction interference with
re ional non- ro'ect traffic movement.
56. Stop Controls. Stop control devices for vehicles, PW
including an RI STOP sign, STOP pavement
legend, 12"-wide white stop bar stripe, and
appropriate delineation, shall be provided at the
following location: At tbe exit aisle approaches to
Starward Drive.
improvements by Vehicle Code
City Council
Occupancy of Any PW
Building
Issuance of I'W
Grading Penni!
Approval of Standard
hnprovement Plans
57. Lighting System. The Developer shall construct a PW, P, PL
site lighting system in accordance with the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall
submit a preliminary lighting pJan showing the
distribution of lights on the site, type and location of
yard lights, and shall be reviewed and approved prior
to construction to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works, Dublin Police Services Division and
the Communi Develo ment D artment.
58. Streetlights. Streetlights for City streets PW
constructed with the project shall be the City
Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles located in the public right-of-way. Either
standard City cobra head luminaries or approved
decorative lights may be used on private streets.
All publicly-maintained street lights shall be
annexed into the Citywide Street Light Maintenance
Assessment District 1983-1. All decorative street
15
Approval of PW
Improvement Plans
Acceptance of PW
improvements by
City Council
lights shall be maintained by the Home Owner's
Association. A street lighting plan which
demonstrates compliance with this condition shan
be submitted prior to recordation of the Final Map
and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Cit En ineer.
59. Yard Lighting. The Developer shall specify the type
and location of all yard lights on the on-site
improvement plans_ These improvements shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Director of
Public Works rior to construction.
PW,P
Approval of
Improvement Plans
Standard
60. Utilities Service Report and Plan.
Applicant/Dcveloper shall submit a utilities service
report and plan to the satisfaction ofthe Public
Works Director and Community Development
Director along with documentation that domestic
fresh water, electricity, gas, telephone, and cable
television service can be provided to each residence
within the project and when such service will be
available.
61. Construction of Utilitics. The Developer shall
construct all utilities as may be deemed necessary
to provide for the proper, clean, and safe
functioning of utility services for each proposed
residence within the project. All utility
construction is subject to the requirements and
specifications of the agency having jurisdiction
over the res ective uti lit facilities.
62. Utility UndergroundingIPSE's. Utilities shall be
installed in accordance with the criteria established
in the Standard Public Works Criteria attached
hereto as Exhibit C. All utilities within the project
and to each lot shall be underground in accordance
with the City policies and existing ordinances. All
utilities shall be located and provided within public
service easements and sized to meet utility company
standards.
63. Transmission Lines. All transmission lines shall
be away from sensitive areas unless otherwise
a roved b the Director of Public Worb.
64. Joint Utility TrencheslUndergrounding/ Utility
Plans. Applicant/Developer shall construct all joint
utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable
TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate
utility jurisdiction. All communication vaults,
electric transfonners, cable TV boxes, blow-off
valves and any utility items thereto shall be placed
underground and located behind the proposed
sidewalk within the public service easement, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer/Director
o[ Public Works. Conduit shall be under the public
sidewalk within the right-of-way to allow [or street
lantin . Utili lans showin the location of all
PW,PL
Approval of
Improvement Plans
PW
Occupancy of Any
Building
PW
Approval of Final
Map
PW
Completion of
Improvements
PW
Acceptance of
improvements
16
Standard
PW
Utilities
PW Standard
Standard
PW
Utilities
proposed utilities shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer/Director of Public Works prior
to installation..
65. Recycled Water. The Applicant/Developer shall PL,DSR Occupancy of PW
contact DSRSD as to the potential use of rccycJed affected units Utilities
water and, if necessary, contract with the Dublin
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) to provide
water, wastewater, and and/or recycled water
service connection points to the project, including
all landscaped common areas_ The plans for these
facilities shall be reviewed and approved by
DSRSD.
66_ Recycled Water Laterals. Ifit is determined that PW Occupancy of any See DSRSD
recycled water will be available to the site: the Building conditions
landscaped common areas of the project shall have below
laterals installed to the satisfaction of the Director
ofPub1ic Works to enable future recyc1ed water
connection in addition to potable water connection.
Recycled water lines shall be installed to serve
landscaped areas. All landscaped areas shall be
subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Re lations.
67. Utility Installation Prior To Installation of PW Approval of PW
Paving, Curb, Gutter or Sidewalks/Utility Stub Improverneot Plans
Conncctions. All water, gas, sewer, undergrOlmd
electric power, cable television or telephone lines,
and storm drain facilities shall bc installed before
any paving, curb, gutter, or sidewalks are installed
or as approved by the Director ofPuhlic Works.
Utility stub connections to property boundaries
shall be required unless waived by the Director of
Public Works in writin .
68. Fire Rules, Rcgulations and Standards. F Issuance of Standard
ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with all Dublin Building PennilS
Fire Prevcntion Services (ACFD) rules, regulations and through
and standards, including minimum standards for completion
vegetation management and emergcncy access
roads and payment of all applicable fees, including
City of Dublin Fire Facility Fees. The
ApplicantIDeveloper shall comply with applicable
ACFD, Public Works Department, Dublin Police
Service, Alameda County Flood Control District
Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon Services District
re uiremcnts.
69. Fire Hydrants. The Applicant/Developer shall PW,F Completion of Standard
construct all new tire hydrants in accordance with Improvements
City of Dublin and Dublin Fire Prevention Services
standards. Final location of fire hydrants shall be
approved by the ACFD in accordance with CUlTent
standards. Minimum fire flow design shall be for
1500 gallons per minute with 20 psi residual
(flowing from a single hydrant). Raised blue
reflectorizcd traffic markers shall be e oxicd to the
17
center of the aved street 0 osite each h drant.
70. Fire Conditions. Applicant/Developer shall F
comply with all conditions ofthe Dublln Fire
Department (ACFD) including:
a. Article 87 ofthe Fire Code shall be followed
concerning fire safety during the construction,
demolltion, or repair, and the following
requirements shall be provided to the proj ect
manager and job contractor who shall notify aU
em 10 ees and sub-contractor< of the re uirements.
b. Access roads, turnarounds, pullouts, and fire F
operation areas and tIre water supplies shall be
maintained clear and free of obstacles, including
parking. These areas are required fire lanes and
shall be assable to fire e ui ment at all times..
c. A means to contact emergency services and a F
minimum of one 4A 20BC fire extinguisher shall be
provided at the project site.
d. Prior to delivery of any combustible material F
storage on the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and
roadways shall be installed and suftlcient water
storage and pressure shall be available to the site.
Approved roadway shall have the required
aggregate base compacted to 90% minimum.
e. Hot work activities such as welding, cutting, F
torches, and flame producing operations shall be in
accordance with the Fire Code.
I..uance of
Building Permits
and through
com letiQn
¡ssuance of
Building Permits
and through
completion
Standard
Issuance:: of
Building Permit.
and through
completion
Il"ì~mance of
Building Permit«
and through
com letion
Issuance of
Building Permits
and through
completion
71. J<"ire Accesses. Fire access between residences F, PO
shall be controlled by fences and adequate gates to
revent unauthorized edestrian traffic.
72. Projected Timeline. Developer shall submit a PO
projected timeline for project completion to the
Dublin Police Services Department, to allow
estimation of staffing requirements and
assi nments.
73. Residential Security. The project shall comp1y PL, B
with the City of Dublin Residential Security
Requirements. Home Owner Association CC&Rs
for the project will include posting of private street
areas in accordance with Ca1ifornia Vehicle Code
Section 22658, sections I and 2. Fire lanes will
also be posted in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 22500.1. The Developer
and/or Property Owner shall keep perimeter walls
clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and
continuous basis at all times. GratTiti resistant
aints and fo1ia e shall be used. The CC&R's shall
18
Issuance of
Building Permits
and through
completion
Issuance of
Building Permits
and through
com letion
Finaling Building
Pennits
F,PO
f. Plans may be subject to revision following review. F
Issuance of
Building Permit.
PO
Occupancy of
Units
PO Standard
74. Wells. Known water wells without a documented
intent of future use, filed with Zone 7, are to be
destroyed prior to any demolition or construction
activity in accordance with a wcll dcstruction
permit obtained from Zone 7 and thc Alameda
County Department of Environmcntal Services.
Othcr wclls cncountered prior to or during
construction are to be treated similarl .
75. Salt Mitigation. Recycled watcr projects must
mcet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of
Zonc 7.
76. Requirements and Fccs. ApplicantlDeveloper
shall comply with al1 Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7
Flood Control re uirements and a licable fees.
Zonc 7
Zonc 7,
PW
Zone 7,
PW
Issuance of
Grading Pennit.
On-going
Issuance of
Building Pennits
Standard
Zone 7
Standard
77. DSRSD Conditions. ApplicantIDcveloper shall
comply with all conditions ofthc DSRSD
including:
DSRSD
DSRSD
a. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD
DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the
DSRSD Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures,
Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities," al1
applicable DSRSD Master Plans and policies, and
al1 Recycled Water Design and Construction
Standards.
b. Al1 mains shall bc sized to provide sufficient DSRSD
capacity to accommodate development project's
demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utilit master lannin
c. Sewers shal1 be designed to operate by gravity flow DSRSD
to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be
allowed under extreme circumstances fol1owing a
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any
pumping station will require specific review and
approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports,
design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment
of present value 20-year maintenance costs as well
as other conditions within a separate agreement
with Applicant/Developer for any project that
re uires a um in station.
d. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD
residential tracts or commercial developments shall
be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid
dead-end sections in accordance with requirements
of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
en ineerin ractices.
19
Issuance of DSRSD
Building Pennits
Issuance of DSRSD
Building Permits
Approval of DSRSD
Improvement Plans
Approval of DSRSD
Improvement Plans
e. DSRSD policy requires public wat,,'T and sewer DSRSD Approval of DSRSD
lines to he located in public streets rather than in Improvement Plans
off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If
unavoidable, public sewer or water easements must
be established over the alignment of each public
sewer or water line in an off-street or private street
location to provide access for future maintenance
and/or re lacement.
f. The locations and widths of all proposed easement DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD
dedications for water and sewer lines shal1 be Gr.ding Permit
submitted to and a roved b DSRSD.
g. Al1 easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall DSRSD Approval of Final DSRSD
be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to Map
DSRSD or b offer of dedication on the Final Ma .
h. The Final Map shall be submitted to and approved DSRSD Approval of Final DSRSD
by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and Map
restrictions.
1. Ail utility connection fees, plan checking fees, Issuance of DSRSD
inspection fees, permit fees, and fees associated Building Pennits
with a wastewater discharge pcnnit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with ¡he rates and schedules
established in the DSRSD Code.
j. All improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall Issuance of DSRSD
be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing Building Permits
of improvement plans shall contain a signature
block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown.
Prior to approval by the District Engineer,
ApplicantlDevcloper shall pay all required DSRSD
fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of
construction costs for the sewer and water systems,
a perfonnance bond, a one-year maintenance bond,
and a comprehensive general liability insurance
policy in the amounts and fonns that are acceptable
to DSRSD. ApplicantlDeveloper shall allow at
least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the
District En ineer.
k. No sewer line or water line construction shall be Issuance of DSRSD
pennittcd unless the proper utility construction Building Permits
pennit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction and all DSRSD
permit will only be issued after all of the DSRSD requirements
conditions herein have been satisfied.
1. The Applicant/Developer shall hold DSRSD, its On-going DSRSD
Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and
agents ofDSRSD harmless and indemnify the same
from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from
com letion of the ro·ect
78. Construction by Applicant/Developer. AI] in- DSRSD Completion of Standard
tract potable and recycled water and wastewater Improvements
pipelines and facilities shal1 be constructed by the
ApplicantIDcve10per in accordance with all DSRSD
master plan!;, standards, specifications and
re uirements.
20
79. Sanitary sewer capacity rights runs with the DSRSD Issuance of any DSRSD
land. The property being subdivided has construction
previously been allocated 4.45 dwelling units permits or
equivalent (DUE) sewer capacity rights. The building permits,
Applicant/ Devcloper shaH submit a written notice whichever comes
to the Uistrict indicating the reallocation of the t1rst,
existing sewer capacity rights to the new ly created
lots or arcels.
80. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. PL, ADM Throngh Standard
Applicant/Developer, and any parties or individuals completion of
granted rights-of-entry by Applicant/Developer, Improvements and
shaH defend, indemnify, and hold hannless the City Occupancy of the
of Dublin and its agents, ofttcers, and employees Last Building
from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
City of Dublin or its agcnts, ofttcers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the
City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City COllllcil, Director of
Community Development, Zoning Administrator,
or any other department, committee, or agency of
the City conceming a subdivision or other
development which actions are brought within the
time period provided for in Govemment Code
Section 66499.37; provided, however, that the
ApplicantlDeveloper's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shaH be subject to the
City's promptly notifying the ApplicantIDeveloper
of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the
City's full actions or proceedings.
8L Conditions of Approval. In submitting subsequent B, PW, PL Issuance of PW Standard
plans for review and approval, each set of plans Building Perm its.
shall have attached an annotated copy of these
Conditions of Approval. The notations shaH clearly
indicate how aH Conditions of Approval will be
complied with. Construction plans will not be
accepted without the alUlotated conditions attached
to each set of plans. ApplicantlDeveloper will be
responsible for obtaining the approvals of all
articÎ atiu non-Cit a enci~s.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day ofJanuary, 2005 by the following votes:
AYES:
Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, Fasu1key, and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Cm. King
21
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
22
Inllblil
I 18 Jt¡ltl
CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS CRITERIA
The Developer and it's representatives (engineer, contractor, etc.) must meet and follow all the
City's requirements and policies, including the Urban Runoff Program and Water Efficient
Landscaped Ordinance,
BONDS:
1. Developer shall provide perfonnance (100%), labor and material (50%) securities and a. cash
monumentation bond to guarantee the installation of subdivision improvements, including streets,
drainage, grading, utilities and landscaping subject to approval by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer/City Engineer prior to approval ofthe Final or Parcel Map.
2. Prior to acceptance of the project as complete and the release of securities by the City:
a) All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement Plans and Specifications.
b) An required landscaping shall be installed.
c) An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape Arclùtect and a declaration by the
Project Landscape Arclùtect that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the landscape and soil erosion and sedimentation control plans
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
d) Photo mylar and, if available, AutoCAD (or approved equal) electronic copies of the Improvement,
Grading and Stonn Drain plans along with the Final or Parcel and Annexation Maps, if any, which
are tied to the City's existing mapping coordinates including all as-built plans prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer.
e) A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density tests, and a summary of all
field and laboratory tests.
f) 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.
3. Upon acceptance of the improvements and receipt of required submittals, the perfonnance security
may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the perfonnance security. The
maintenance bond is released one year after acceptance of the project and after the repair of
deficiencies, if any, are completed.
4. The labor and materials security is released in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and
the Subdivision Map Act.
DRAINAGE:
I
Il'1'b\ßt
5. Each lot shall be graded so as not to drain on any other lot or adjoining property prior to being
deposited to an approved drainage system.
6. Where possible, roof drains shall empty onto an approved dissipating device and then over lawn or
other planted areas to street or approved drainage facility. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to
drain across sjdewalk areas.
7. An 18" minimum diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) shall be used for all public storm drain
main lines and 12" minimum diameter RCP shall be used for laterals connecting inlets to main drain
line.
8. Storm drainage facilities shall be designed to meet the following capacity:
Drainage area
Design Storm
less that I sq. mile
1 to 5 sq. miles
over 5 sq. miles
15 year
25 year
100 year
9. All streets shall be designed so that the IS-year storm is contained within the gutter and shoulder area.
In addition arterial streets shall have one lane of traffic in both directions of travel above the 100-year
storm level
10. No buildings or other structures shall be··constructed within a storm drain easement.
11. The storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed to the standards and policies of the City
of Dublin..
12. All concentrated storm drain flow shall be carried in concrete curb and gutter, concrete valley gutters
or storm drain pipe and shall discharge into an approved drainage facility, not onto slopes.
13. The developer shall comply with Alameda CountyFlood Control District requirements. If there is a
conflict between City and County Flood Control requirements the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer shall determine which requirements shall apply.
NPDES (172 & 173):
General Construction:
14. For projects disturbing five (5) acres or more, the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention PIan (SWPPP) for review by the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading
permits. The SWPPP shall be implemented by the general contractor and all subcontractors and
suppliers of material and equipment. Construction site cleanup and control of construction debris
shall also be addressed in the SWPPP. The developer is responsible for complying with the SWPPP.
Failure to do so will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop work order.
2
2.o'G})It.\
For projects disturbing less than five (5) acres an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the
grading plan (169 & 201).
15. Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation resulting in a land disturbance
greater than five acres, the developer shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent (N0l) has been
sent to the Califomia State Water Resources Control Board. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at
the construction site at all times.
16. Construction access routes shall be limited to those approved by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer and shall be shown on the approved grading plan.
17. Gather all construction debris daily and place them in a covered dumpster or other container which is
emptied or removed on a weekly basis. A secondary containment berm shall be constructed around
the dumpster. When appropriate, use tarps on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could
contribute to storm water. pollution.
18. Remove all debris from the sidewalk, street pavement and storm drain system adjoining the project
site daily or as required by the City inspector. During wet weather, avoid driving vehicles offpaved
areas.
19. Broom sweep the sidewalk and public street pavement adjoj¡~ing the project site on a daily basis.
Caked on mud or dirt shall be scraped from these areas before sweeping.
20. Install filter materials (e.g. gravel filtcrs, filter fabric, etc.) at all on-site storm drain inlets and existing
inlets in the vicinity of the project site prior to:
1) start of the rainy season (October 15)
2) site de-watering activities,
3) street washing activitics,
4) saw cutting asphalt or concrete
Filter materials shall be cleaned or replaced as necessary to maintain effectiveness and prevent street
flooding. Dispose of filter particles in an appropriate manner.
21. Create a contained and covered area on the site for the storage of bags of cement, paints, flammable,
oils, fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials used on the project site that have the potential for
being discharged to the storm drain system. Never clean machinery, tools, brushes, etc. or rinse
containers into a street, gutter, storm drain or stream. See "Building Maintenance/Remodeling" flyer
for more information.
22. Concrete/gunite supply trucks or concrete/plasters or similar finishing operations shall not discharge
wash water into street gutters or drains.
23. Minimize the removal of natural vegetation or ground cover from the site in order to reduce the
potential for erosion and sedimentation problems. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as
possible after completion of grading. No site grading shall occur between October 15 and April 15
unless a detailed erosion control plan is reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and
implemented by the contractor.
3
\21~l~/
24. Fueling and maintenance of vehicles shall be done off-site unless an approved fueling and
maintenan.ce area has been approved as part of the SWPPP.
Commercial/Industrial Develollments (172 & 173):
25. The project plans shall include storm water pollution prevention measures for the operation and
maintenance of the project for the review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
The project plan shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted
on-site to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff.
26. The project plan BMPs shall also include erosion control measures described in the latest version of
the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management
Practices Handbook, to prevent soil, dirt and debris fÌ'orn entering the storm drain system.
27. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of, and implement, all storm
water pollution prevention measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will
result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a project stop order.
28. All washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped facility which drains to
the sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be managed in such a way that
there is no discharge of soaps or other pol1utants to the storm drain system. Wash waters should
discharge to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and
conditions of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
29. All loading dock areas must be designed to minimize "run-on" to or runoff fÌ'om the area.
Accumulated waste water that may contributc to the pollution of storm water must be drained to the
sanitary sewer, or filtered for ultimate discharge to the storm drain system. BMPs should be
implemented to prevent potential stonn water pollution. Implement appropriate BMPs such as, but
not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clcan-up.
30. All metal roofs and roof mounted equipment (including galvanized), shall be coated with a rust-
inhibitive paint.
31. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area( s) must be completeJy covered; no other area shall drain onto
this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Drains
should connect to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and
conditions of the DSRSD.
32. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to eliminate the potential for runoff to carry
polJutants to the storm drain system. Bulk materials stored outdoors may need to be covered and
contained as required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
33. AlJ landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices
to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides which
contribute to rwlOff pollution.
34. Sidewalks and parking lots must be swept weekly, at a minimum, to prevent the accumulation oflitter
and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm
4
1,,~l~1
drain system. No cleaning agent may be discharged to the storm drain. If any cleaning agent or
degreaser is used, wash water shall not discharge to the stonn drains; wash waters should be collected
and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review,
approval and conditions of the DSRSD.
35. A structural control, such as an oil/water separator, sand filter, or approved equal, may be required to
be installed, on site, to intercept and pre-treat storm water prior to discharging to the stonn drain
system. The design, location, and a maIDtenance schedule must be submitted to the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
36. Restaurants must be designed with contained areas for cleaning mats, equipment and containers. This
wash area must be covered or designed to prevent "run-on" to, or runoff fTom, the area. The area shall
not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should drain to the sanitary sewer, or collected for
ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. Employees must be instructed and signs posted indicating that
all washing activities be conducted in this area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review,
approval, and conditions of the DSRSD.
37. Commercial Car Washes: No wash water shall discharge to the storm drains. Wash waters should
discharge to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary cOlmeCtions are subject to the review, approval, and
conditions of the DSRSD.
38. Vehicle/Equipment Washers: No vehicle or equipment washing activity associated with this facility
shall discharge to the storm drain system. Wash areas sho1ll.d be limited to areas that drain to the
sanitary sewer collection system, or the wash water collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary
sewer. This wash area must be covered and designed to prevent "run-oJ}" to, and runoff fTom, the
area. A sign must be posted indicating the designated wash area. Sanitary connections are subject to
the review, approval and conditions of the DSRSD.
39, Fuel dispensing areas must be paved with concrete extending a minimum of8'-0" fTom the face of the
fuel dispenser and a minimum of 4' -0" from the nose of the pump island. Fuel dispensing areas must
be degraded and constructed to prevent "run-on" to, or runoff from, the area. Fuel dispensing
facilities must have canopies; canopy roof down spouts must be routed to prevent drainage flow
through the fuel dispensing area. The facility must have a spill cleanup plan. The fuel dispensing arca
must be dry swept routinely. Dispensing equipment must be inspected routinely for proper
functioning and leak prevention.
40. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping-Drains to Bay" uSIDg an approved
method.
41. All on-site storm drains must be cleaned at least twice a year; once immediately prior to the rainy
season (October 15) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the Director of
Public Works/City Engineer.
GENERAL DESIGN
42. The developer is responsible for the construction site and construction safety.
5
12~CCbI'Ýj1
43. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of-way or in a pedestrian easement except as
specifically approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
44. All of the plans, including Improvement and Grading Plans, and subdivision maps, must be designed
to the City of Dublin's standards plans and specifications, policies and requirements using standard
City title block and format. The grading plan design must be based on the approved soils report. In
addition to the Civil Engineer, a Soils Engineer must sign the grading plans. The Soils Engineer or
his technical representative must be present at all times during grading. All engineering plans must be
designed and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Plans are subject to the review and approval of
the Director of Public Works, and after his approval, original mylars or photo mylars with three sets of
blueprints must be submitted to the City.
45. The minimum uIÚform street gradient shall be 1%. The structure design of the road shall be subject to
approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Parking lots shall have a minimum gradient
of I % and a maximum gradient of 5%.
46. No cut and fill slopes shall exceed 2: I unless recommended by the project Soils Engineer and
approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Slopes shall be graded so that there is both
horizontal and vertical slope variation where visible from public areas and the top and bottom of
slopes shall be rounded in order to create or maintain a natural appearance.
47. In the 100-year Flood Hazard Zone, all residential units shaH have their fiIÚshed floor elevation a
minimum of one foot (I') above the ! OO-year flood level. Commercial buildings shall either provide
flood-proofing, or have their finished elevation above the I OO-year flood level.
48. A registered civil or structural engineer shall design all retaining walls over three feet in height (or
over two feet in height with a surcharge) and a building permit shall be required for their construction.
A maintenance and inspection program shall be implemented by the developer or homeowncrs'
association for the periodic inspection and maintenance of all retaining walls that could possibly affect
the public right-of-way.
49. MiIÚmum sight distance for public streets, including intersection sight distance, shall meet the
CAL TRANS Highway Design Manual.
50. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans 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 review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer.
51. The soils report for the project shall include recommendations!) for foundations, decks and other
miscellaneous structures, 2) for design of swimming pools, and 3) for setbacks for structures ITom top
and toes of slopes. Additionally, the soils report shall include a professional opinion as to safety of
the site ITom th.e hazards ofland slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
52. The Contractor shall be responsible for acquiring permits required by other agencies. (Fish & Game,
Amy Corps of Engineers, Zone 7, Etc.)
6
/ZG lib tß\
EASEMENTS:
53. The developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property
owners for improvements required outside of the subdivision. The easements and/or rights-of-entry
shall be in writing and copies shall be furnished to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City
Engineer.
EROSION:
54. Prior to any grading of the site and filing of the Final Map or Parcel Map, a detailed construction
grading/erosion control plan (including phasing); and a drainage, water quality, and erosion and
sedimentation control plan, for the post-construction period, both prepared by the Project Civil
Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist; shall be approved by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer. Said plans shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria, of all erosion
and sediment control measures. The plans shall provide, to the maximum extent practicable, that no
increase in sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The post-construction plan shall provide
for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as slope
vegetation. The construction grading/erosion control plan shall be implemented in place by October
15th and shall be maintained in place until April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City
Engineer. It shall be the developer's responsibility to maintain the erosion and sediment control
measures for the year following acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the_City Council.
FINAL MAP / PARCEL MAP:
55. Prior to filing the Final Map or Parcel Map, precise plans and specifications for stre~t improvements,
grading, drainage (including size, type, and location of drainage faciJities both on- and off-site), and
erosion and sedimentation control, shall be approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
56. Submit three (3) sets of approved blueprints and approved original mylars or photo mylars of
improvement plans, grading plans, and recorded Final/Parcel Map to the City of Dublin Public Works
Department. Upon completion of construction, the City's mylar shall be modified to an "Record
Drawing" plan (mylar) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. A declaration by a Civil Engineer
and Soils Engineer that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance with
recommendations contained in the soils report shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
57. For storm drains outside the public right-of-way, a "Storm Drain Easement" or "Private Storm Drain
Easement" shall be dedicated on the final map.
58. Provide an access road and turn-around and maintenance easement to storm drainage detention
facilities and trash racks.
59. A current title report and copies of the recorded deed of all parties having any recorded title interest in
the property to be divided, copies ofthe deeds and the Final/Parcel Maps for adjoining properties and
easements shall be submitted at the time of the submittal of the final subdivision maps.
60. Existing and proposed access and public utility easements shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to approval of the FinallParcel Map. These
easements shall allow for vehicular and utility service access.
7
12t.Þ1è 11&/
61. A I 0- foot public service easement shall be shown on the Final/Parcel Map along all street frontages,
in addition to all other easements required by the utility companies or governmental agencies.
62. The boundary of all lots and the exterior boundary of the Subdivision, as well as the centerline of the
streets, shall be survey monumented. At least three (3) permanent benchmarks shall be established.
Plats and elevation data shall be provided to the City in a form acceptable to the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
63. Dedication ofland shall be made to the City of Dublin such that it conveys land sufficient for the
approved streets' right-of-way. Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within
the development and as required off-site including curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work
on the existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint.
GRADING:
64. Grading shall be designed in conformance with the approved tentative map. The grading plan shall
incorporate the recommendations of the soil report. The grading plan shall conform with the City
specifications and ordinances, City policies and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In case of
conflict between the soil engineer's recommendations and City ordinances the City Engineer shall
determine which shall apply. .
65. Grading shall be done under the continuous inspection of the Project Soils. Engineer. Grading shall be
completed in compliance with the constructioh grading plans and recommendations of the Project
Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and the approved erosion and sedimentation control
plan, and shall be done under the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, who shall, upon its completion, submit a declaration to the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer that all work was done in accordanCE) with the recommendations· contained in the soils and
geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications. Inspections that will satisfy
final subdivision map requirements shall be arranged with the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer.
66. If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map or Parcel Map, a :roTety or guarantee shall be
filed with the City of Dublin. The surety shall be equal to the amount approved by the City Director
of Public Works/City Engineer as necessary to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion
resistant state if the project is terminated prematurely.
67. Any grading, stockpiling, storing of equipment or material on adjacent properties will require written
approval of those property owners affected. Copies of the rights-of-entry shall be furnished to the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to the start of work.
68. The developer shall keep adjoining streets clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris.
69. 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
8
1d.1~ l8/
be submitted for approved by the Director of Public Works/CityEngineer. It shall be accompanied by
an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards ofland slippage,
erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.
70. Grading plans shall indicate the quantity of soil that must be imported or off-hauled. If soil must be
imported or off-hauled, the Applicant shall submit details as to how it will be done and routes of travel
for the Director of Public Work's approval.
71. All unsuitable material found at the site shall be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in
landscape areas.
72. The project civil engineer shall certify that the finished graded building pads are within ± 0.1 feet in
elevation of those shown on approved plans.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS. AGREEMENTS. AND SECURITIES:
73. Obtain copies of and comply with conditions as noted on "City of Dublin General Notes on
Improvement Plans" and "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List."
74. TheApplicantlDeveloper shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City for all
improvements.
75. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and calculations shall be submitted to, and be approved
by, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over
public improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Improvement
plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements along adjacent public street(s) and property
that relate to the proposed improvements.
76. The Developer shall have their engineer provide the City AutoCAD electronic copies of the
Improvement, Grading and Storm Drain plans along with the Final Map which is tied to the City's
existing mapping coordinates if available.
77. The Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for all subdivision
improvements prior to issuance ofimprovement permit. Complete improvement plans, specifications
and calculations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer
and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements prior to execution of the
Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements
along the adj acent public street and property that relate to the proposed improvements.
78. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of
improvements, and a labor and material security, equal to 50% of the construction cost, shall be
submitted to, and be approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public
improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
MISCELLANEOUS:
9
12ßcJb \ i I
79. Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating all lots, streets, and drainage facilities
within the subdivision shall be submitted at I" = 400' scale, and I" = 200' scale for City mapping
purposes.
80. The developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to
construction activities.
81. All constroction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements as determined by the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
82. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans shall have attached an
annotated copy of the project's conditions of approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all
conditions of approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the
annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for obtaining the
approval of all participating non~City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits.
PERMIT:
83. Applicant shall obtain Caltrans' approval and permit for any work performed within their right-of-way
or impacting their facilities.
84. An encroachment pennit shall be secured from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for any
work done within the public right-of-way where this work is not covered under the improvement
plans.
85. The developer and/or their representatives shall secure all necessary pennits for work including, but
not limited to, grading, encroachment, Fish and Game Department, County Flood Control District,
Corps. of Engineers and State water quality permits and show proof of it to the City of Dublin,
Department of Public Works.
UTILITIES:
86. Prior to the filing of the Final Map or Parcel Map, the developer shall furnish the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
stating that the District has agreed to furnish water and sewer service to each of the dwelling units
and/or lot included on the Final Map of the subdivision.
87. Any relocation of improvC111ents or public facilities shall be accomplished by the developer and at no
expense to the City.
WATER:
88. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be
installed at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District standards and specifications. All
material and workmanship for water mains, and appurtenances thereto, must confonn with all of the
requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to fi.eld
inspection by the District.
10
12<q lib l"t I
89. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on the map, that is know to
exist, is proposed, or is located during the course of field operations, must be properly abandoned,
backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For
additional information contact Flood control, Zone 7 .
90. Developer shall design, incorporate, and institute water conservation measures for the entire proj ect.
Refer to "Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance # 18-92."
91. Developer shall design and provide inftastructure for recycled water use for landscaping in
accordance with DSRSD and to the satisfaction of the Public Work Director.
92. Developer shall design and construct the water and sewer system in accordance with the DSRSD
requirements.
NPDES REQUIREMENTS: COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL
93. The project plans shall include stormwater pollution prevention and control measures for the
operation and maintenance of the proj ect during and after construction for the review and approvaJ
of the City or County Engineer. The project plan shall identifY Best Management Practices ..
(BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted onsite in order to limit to the maximum extent
practicable the entry of pollutants into stormwater runoff.
The project plan shall also include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris ftom
entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the practices outlined in the ABAG Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook, California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks,
and Regional Water quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual.
The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and
implement all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to comply with the approved
construction BMPs shall result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop
order.
94. Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation resulting in a land disturbance
of five acres or more, the developer shall submit evidence to the City or County that a Notice of
Intent (N0l) has been submitted to the (California) State Water Resources Control Board.
95. Most washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped facility that drains
to the sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be managed in such a way
that there is no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain. Sanitary connections are
subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for
receiving the discharge. These requirements shall be required for automotive related businesses.
96. All loading dock areas must be designed to minirnize "run-on" or runoffftom the area.
Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of stonuwater must be drained to
the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer, or
11
'~DZbI 'i I
intercepted and pretreated prior to discharge to the storm drain system 1. The property owner shall
ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution. These BMPs shall
include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean-up.
97. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto this area.
Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains
should connect to the sanitary scwer. The applicant shall contact the local permitting authority
and sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific connection and discharge requirements.
98. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to reduce/limit the. potential for runoff to contact
pollutants, such as bulk materials stored outdoors may need to be covered as deemed appropriate
by the City or County Engineer.
99. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface
infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater
pollution_ Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to treat stormwater
runoff.
When and where possible, xeriscape and drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new
development plans.
100. Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and
debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm
drain system 1. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used, washwater shall not discharge to the
storm drains; washwaters should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. --Discharges to
the sanitary sewer are subj ect to the review, approval, and conditions of the sanitary district with
jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.
101. The design, location, maintenance requirements, and maintenance schedule for any stonnwater
quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the City or County Engineer for review
and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
102. Restaurants, where deemed appropriate, must be designed with a contained area for cleaning mats,
equipment and containers. This contained wash area shall be covered or designed to prevent run-
on or runoffftom tbe area. The area shall not discharge to the storm drains; washwaters should
drain to the sanitary sewer, or collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. Employees
shall be instructed and signs posted indicating that all washing activities shall be conducted in this
area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and eonditions of the wastewater
treatment plant receiving the discharge.2
1 Mobile wa,hing and discharges must be conduated according to the Mob;!e Cleoner Best Management Practices for Waste
Water Runoffdeveloped by the Cleaning Equipmenr Trade Assodarion September 23,1994.
2 The Alameda County Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health will normally check that these requirements are
met as part of thoir review of new restaurants and remodeling of ""isting restaurants.
12
I~l~ ¡II
103. Commercial Car Washes: No washwater shall discharge to the storm drains. WashwateTS shall
discharge to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and
conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.
104. Vehicle/Eouipment Washes: No vehicle or equipment washing activity shall discharge to the
storm drain system. Wash areas shall be limited to areas that drain to the sanitary sewer collection
system, or shall be collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. These wash areas shaH be
covered and designed to prevent run-on and TUnofffrom the area. A sign shall be posted
indicating the location and allowed uses in the designated wash area. Sanitary connections are
subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for
receiving the discharge.
105. Fuel dispensing areas must be paved with portland cement concrete (or, equivalent smooth
impervious surface), with a 2% to 4% slope to prevent ponding, and must be separated from th.e
rest of the site by a grade break. that prevents run-on of storm water to the extent practicable. The
fuel dispensing area is defined as extending a minimum of 6.5 feet from the comer of each fuel
dispenser or the length at whieh the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus a minimum of
I foot, whichever is less.
106. The fuel dispensing area must be covered, and the cover's minimum dimensions must be equal to
or greater than the area within the grade break or fuel dispensing area, as defined above. The
cover must not drain onto the fuel dispensing area.
107. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" or equivalent using
approved methods by the City or County.
108. All on-site storm drains must be cleaned at least onee a year immediately prior to the rainy season.
Additional cleaning may be fequired by the City or County Engineer.
NPDES REOUIREMENTS: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONSTRUCTION
109 The project plans shall include stormwater poHution prevention and control measures for the
operation and maintenance of the proj ect during and after construction for the review and approval
of the City or County Engineer. The project plan shall identify Best Management Practices
(BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on-site in order to limit to the maximum extent
pfacticable the entry of pollutants into stormwater runoff.
The project plan shall also include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the practices outlined in the ABAG Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook, California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks,
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual.
The applicant is responsible fOf ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and
implement all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to comply with the approved
construction BMPs shall rcsult in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop
work ordef.
13
1~-¡'bI~1
110. Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation resulting in a land disturbance
of five acres or more, the developer shall submít evidence to the City or County that Notice of
Intent (N0l) has been submitted to the (California) State Water Resources Control Board.
111. All on· site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" or equivalent using
methods approved by the City or County.
I l2. All on-site storm drains must be cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season.
Additional cleaning may be required by the City or County Engineer.
113. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto this area.
prains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains
should connect to the sanitary sewer. The applicant shall contact the local permitting authority
and sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific connection and discharger requirements.
114. The design, location, maintenance requirements, and maintenance schedule for any stormwater
quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the City or County Engineer for review
and approval prior to the issuance of a building pennit.
115. When a common area car wash is provided, no washwater shall discharge to the storm drain
system. The car wash area should drain to the sanitary sewer, The area should be covered and
designed to prevent excess rainwater ITom entering the sanitary sewer. The applicant shall contact
the local permitting authority and sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific connection and
discharger requirements. If no common car wash area exists, means should be taken to discourage
car washing, e.g., removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such use.
116. A property owners association shall be created and shall be responsible for maintaining all private
streets and private utilities and other privatdy owned common areas and facilities on the site
including landscaping. These maintenance responsibilities shall include implementing and
maintaining stormwater BMPs associated with improvements and landscaping.
CC&R's creating the association shall be reviewed and approved by the City or County Attorney
prior to the recordation of the Final Map and recorded prior to the sale ofthe first residential unit.
The CC&R's shall describe how th.e stormwater BMPs associated with privately owned
improvements and landscaping shall be maintained by the association.
117. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface
infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to the stormwater
pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to treat stormwater
runoff.
When and where possible, xeriscapc and drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new
development plans.
14
'~1
I ~IÐ I !
I _ ~ .... III I I
: j' ~[:: ~" " "
(11 ~ ~. ~.
-(t.,t .' t.õ.~ ~ I I
,]I I' I I~ìf. IT I
,. ,\ ,'1' ',---- '
I:: ,~I ~t (...,
I~'" 4'SSl~^J
<I' (1,1 I' L
I ~ ~I " '
: I A1 II:
: 'I -I Ii f
I I ~- &Sl~"
'I " I
I I I:,
¡ I,' +i_
'¡ ¡II...... +
'(J) I " ,
'...... III
i> I ~ ',,-
l-n ;, ' ~
',~ II ",I,ll'
c:: I ~ II I
:> I J 1~ I
1::0 I j It:: ¡
:0' I 'II
I I '"
I II I
, I I'"
, I '" I
, , ,
: I I I-~-
i i t-¡-¡- ...
f j1t.-!l! r ¡
, ~I iii II +1
: '~I I~ __,,__,11
i .~,J \; r~ ¡¡ ¡
I J~. ~ II r ~
...- I ">iL' -
'~ \ ", ",'
",:i,; \ \ ~'l
I'" I IJ \
I \ \ "1~\ \
\ ~ \~ \
\ . \ :.'. "" \ '.
'\ '"' \\ \ ~
\ \ L~ \\ \
\ ~ \' ~ .
\, \ \\ ~,,\'P
" \ J""~ \ ....,.
\0 ¡¿: "'\'\.~",... "w '"
\~ \~) " .". .
\~ ,i~ 11 ""1'-'
\ ,~~~ :ì<Î"'" \
\ !.-oN.... b: ... ,
\ ~ if\ '- \II ~~ "~
\. '........ ~ r.!-"':~:!I.~~
\. \ "-. ~ !;! -...:. ",.;~~:: -.. -
.... ~..... ~, --~... -~ - ---
" ' ,,:i -1.B.~~"'~·-r"JII-!!!; ~-----------'
\.. '-..., "~ '. () (,
.... ....., "" bi (.I ¡.,
........ !'" ~~ g:
....... ...., ~- !~ ~ .~
ltw
. 4·--l~~~ ...-
-",~.
"'II
-'" ?ii,
.;~~
I ~»
j~ -
."_,,., .., _ O,~"""",. ~B~ ~:,,'~~~ :
-.-...,..," . r<1,~.....~~.º-,,~ "!-,!!,,!.,,,",AlN,,,,,,,,,?t- 8 _
9 -r;c;;
~ " ~ ~
,. ~ ~
~ œ fTI
t~:¥
,i~""
-+~!~
æ
I I ; -1 ~ II I I -I
m
z ~o
'iI W E 1;;
~ ..
~ ~ < OJ
..
~ ~ 0 ~
z 0
'"
¡nl ¡¡Ii II! !IIi ¡ II IiI Iii :s:: =:;t
~
z :s::
~~t~ ~'iI¡a ~I~ C~· i ~I~ I I s ~
,i!1 Ip ! i ¡iii III! m
Ih~ ~~! Ii II ~ ~ ~I Ii CfJ
!III ¡'i' II II .-
. ~ ~I ~ ~ n s:
Ir; II "
-
I I¡>
.
i
.,<',:{
1'.'.
,
',,~?I
:r
.~, ;
<
m
( )
::I en
Zc:
C>t[J
ñ1~
~~
»~
::I.......
<01
m<D
.......
.,.
"
f'
;~: .
"
..i·.~1
1'\1
Iii
:'I':i,
,"rt
r.:~í':
s:::
»
""U
~,."..
g
Ii1
ë
-.1m
:!:¡-t
"'»
¡CfJ:D
" ~:E
"".'j ~~~
1',':'.
',i1iJ\
0°
0:0
;!!O
ñ1:E
,
','
.'
,\L~.
i
;~.
"
(:,
,
'¡,,~
'f'
i~i
iti.'.'¡'~'.·'.
1
;f,~'I'
.
i
~
~ .
@J
m tJ
......... ~~
,...,. ~ "
:r ~[[
-- w~ "'f
ÐtJ egri .
::¡ ihl .
.. ..
:Þ 19:~~;,PW
~. . ~
.
ALAMEDA COUNTY nOOD CON1'lIOL
1:1" "'.....:
I~
i~
¡j
o
~
"
-
i~
- -
j
.
fl5':I:
~
"
,
~
'"
t
~
~
I~
ø~'.t.
~
I YH.
-- l_______J
~..,'~~~~
-----,...
. .
........
.
, ~
ì~-
'"
i ~- -tI...
'"
~ I!
r
~~ ~'1
~;i
:i!: q
,~
.~
~~
~~
,f
__ --I Form,tted
œt:annino Commission !Minutes
12>t1"b [~\
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting 01 tho City 01 Dublin Plaruling Commis>ion was he1d on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, in
the Council Chambers located allOO Civic Plaza. ChaírSchaub called the meeting to order at 7;00 p,m.
ROLL CALL
Pre>ent: Chair Schaub, Commissioner's Biddle, King, Fasulkey, and Wehrenberg; Jori Ram, Planning
Manager,; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner¡ Charity Wagner, Associate Planner; Pierçe Macdonald, Associate
Planner¿Man'Lie_N~cc.!o.AS89£~lannc1.:....an~~a~iafa!!a~o!....R~o!..di:!!g.?ecre~ry....:. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --(Ø~leæd:;
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
Mayor Janet Lockhart welcomed Bob FasuIkey back to the Planning Commission and looks lorward to
his sage adviçe. Sh~ thanked the new Commissioners doíng such an exçel1ent: job at their first Planning
ComnliSS10n meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATION-
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - December 14, 2004 and January 11, 2005 - The minutes wcro
spproved .s submitted.
WRITfEN COMMUNICA nONS - None
PUBUC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 04-048 Dublin Toyota Vehide Storage Lot- Conditional Use Permit -TItis is.
reque~t to operate a vehicle storage lot located at 6459 Dublin Court,. to accommodate up
to 40 used vehicles to be sold in connection with Dublin Toyota..
Cha ir Schaub asked for the staff report.
Charily Wagner, Associate Planner presented th~ staff report and explained that th1~ was a continued
item from the December 14, 2fJ01 t11e~I~. _TI~ E!:0~c~is ~ r~u~s~to ~pE.rove,,~ ç.e.n~t:i~~ 1!....se .Ee!!IlJ! to_ __
allow a vehide storage lot for Dublio Toyota. At the December 14, 2004 meeting. opposition was
expressed by an adjacent property owner so the çasc was continued to a date uncertaÎn_
--10""""'\
J
,,--------------. . .--------.-. ...-.-....--.--
The proposed storage lot is a. vacant parcel located at the terminus of Dublin Court, just north of the
existing Toyota dealership. The property is zoned M-l which allows vehicle >torage lots, subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit. This parcel is own~ by Cal Trans and was most recently used to
store modular office trailers.
.- -t~..~: ~
Toyota leased this property" from Cal Trans in October... 2004 with the intent of improving the property to
accommodate storage of up to 40 used vehicles. The proposed improvement61f'1dude repairing the chain
link fence, installation of security lights and resurfacing the cracked asphalt as needed. Condition # 16 of
the draft resolution also requires that: applicant to complete the sidewalk connection benveen the
existing Toyota dealership lot and the proposed vehicle storage lot.
/ Del~: ~bff
/ Deleted:,:
/ / Deleted: 11
I I;
. formltted¡ Font~ 10 pt
-"'~"f¡'¡/-
J
I
J
1
When evaluating vehicle storage lots,~ considers 4 ker.land use issu.s_
?f-ioø~ ~7 .~ _ _ _ _
'ii¡pJ4r~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - -
Æ ~~ ~ .f'";.¡-~¡:O:~- 1II""~"~flII' !>~
. ~ "I" g t:;1 If.:\il'h·';-.Ij
..~ j tI";''t\'~' ,;i.ii;,;:~''''t:~::.I.~.:\!1J
8
Phst, S~[[~'o~~e~ It!!.e E..ro'po~dJo~a~n.:.. T~e ~ublec!. si~ ~ a!!. a~~éi!.dly sllaped.pa.!Cl?! 1o~a~d ~t ~e_
ternrinu5 of a cul-de~sac in a commercial/ industrial zone. The shape and size of the subject property
makes the property relatively unfit for development.
Second, S~ff ~o~i~eI.! if _~ s~r¥e lo~s £.0I!P':!...ti~e ~it.!! s~rr_~1U1di.ng lafl.d ~Sí":!. ~e"'pa.!.ce.!. is ~ ~c~n~
industrial parcel and is located immediately north of the affiliated dealership. Surrounding land uses
indude industriaL conunercial and auto rela~d uses_
TIrird, with regard to activity, the applicant does not intend tOI nor would it be perIIÚtted to, wash,
detail, sell modify or repair tarS within the storage Jot. The intent of the proposed lot is to store uæd
vehicles that will be sold in conneçtion with Dublin Toyota_ The applicant has indicAted that the vehicle
storage lot will not re.sult in an inn'ease of employees_
Fourth,~ta~£01~¡~er~Y~~,ib!!ity a,~~d ~r~e~nK o!.. th~v~h~le.!. '!!œ yeÈÍc.!.es ..!V~ul~not ~e visi.b,le_!ro...!!l_
Dougherty Road because the parcel is situated down slope from the Interstate 580 i1\ierchange. Vehicles
will be visible from Dublin Court right of way as the applicant proposes to mainWn the existing chain
link fence.
Since the planning commissjoJ'l meeting in December 2004, a representative for Dublin Toyota, Cuy
Houston, has met with the adjacent property owners, namely Mr_ Plisskin of Dublin Station, who
attended thli! previous hearing to express his opposition. 1Jr_ Houston has submitted a letter outlîning
their discussions and means for rasolvÎng any parking conflicts that were discussed at the previous
hearing. As a result of their discussÎons, Mr. Plisskin has subIIÙtted a letter in support of the proposed
vchide storage lot. Both Mr. Houston's and J\.1r. Plisskin's letters are ìnduded as Attachment 6
Also of note, since the December 2004 n1ecting, Staff has modified condition #8 to allow the chain link
fence without slats along Dublin Court. Staff feels that a chain link fence is sufficient because Dublin
Court is not a h.iglúy trafficked street and the chain link would provide a clear view of activity within the
lot.
Based on tJw rather ¡t'!nocuous location and the limited activity" proposed, Staff continues to reçommcnd
approval of this conditional use permit for vehicle storage in connection with Dublin Toyota, Ms_
Wagner condurlad her presentation and was available for questions.
Chair Schaub asked if tl-.ere were any questions for Staff; hearing none he opened the public hearing_ ~
stated that anyone that wishes to speak should organize their comments and keep within 3-4 minutes.
He appreciates everyone's opinions. They arc looking for facts that help the Commission make better
decisions regarding the projects under review_ He stated that once the public hearing is çlosed, it will not
be reopened unless the majority of Planning Commission agrees to reopen it.
Assemblyman Guy Houston, representing Dublin Toyota stated they agree with Staffs presentation and
with the conditions Joo%. They met with Dublin Station owner, Mr. PIisskin, to discuss the parking
issues between the tw"o properties. They ha.ve a.greed to have an ongoing program educating Dublin
Toyota's employees, They are going to implement a parking policy and tommunk.a1e it to the
employees on an annual ba.sis, which is acceptable to :Mr. Plisskin. The parking policy will be included
in the Dublin Toyota employee manual. The other issue that was raised was th~ issue of garbage
collection and parked cars along Dublin Court. They investigated with Waste Management and found
that garbage was collected Monday through Friday for one or mOre tenants usually between 3 and 4 in
the morning_ He stated that talking to the drivers; the cars parked along DubHn Court belong to
commuters. There has been, on occasion¡ a car has been parked for 3-4 days, The drivers have been
instructed to call Dublin Police SelVices and have the car towed away to carry on with their collection.
I
I;
¡f'f4"""w.~~_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ¿s ~ _ _ ~~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l:""'fff'1JJ,,l005.d/1'·
~-.m,¡
-,,,,,---,.
.
13SIf)IßI
-{ ..,-, ,t.ff -·l
-§!~~'.~,~~'ff~.
.-, Deleted: ~t~ff
Dt!IIøh!Id:,
Deleted: 11
Formtltœd: Font: 10 pt
. ..._-.J
)
I
I
They have found that the CHP uses Dublin Court as a drop off for disabled vehicJes from the freeway;
but it happens very seldom. They can solv'::'! the probJeo~, of the commuters parking there by posting a
sign that ...tates no parking betWeen 2 2I.m and 6 a.m. These solutions seemed to satisfy Mr. Plisskin,
They know that these issues are separate from the proposed application but they felt it wç"H> important to
Dublin Station and Dublin Toyota to find a good solution to their problems. They also felt it was
important to read the solutions into the record. He stated that he would appreciate the Commission's
support and asked if there were any questions.
\~.tt:>I~1
Cm. Schaub asked if there were any other speakers; hearing none he dosed the public h~arÎng.
Cm. King thanked Assemblyman Houston for his role in resolving that ';tuation.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she appreciates the good neighbor effort they extended towards with Mr.
Plisskin in resolving the matter.
Cnl. Schau,b commented that there will be a change to the sidewalk. He suggested that the chain link
fence be removed and to complete the wrought iron fence that is going from the rental yard. It would
make a nice Jooking court.
Cm. Biddle stated it is a good use for this piece of property. 11tere is the potential that it may become a
public nuisance and it would be better to have it occupied.
Cm. Schaub asked for a motion.
On motion by Cnl. Fasu,lkey, seconded by Cm. King, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05·04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AN
AUTOMOBILF/VEHlCLE STORAGE LOT FOR DUBLIN TOYOTA
AT 6459 DUBLIN COURT, PA 04-048
~~
8.2 PA OHJU pfieffer Ranch Inve,tors II, Inc. - Development Agreement for Silveria Ran"h
(Pinn Brothers Homes) to construct Z54 multi-family and sing1e-family residential units
within the :northern portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area on 93.4 al~re61ocated
at the southeast and northeast of the î.nterseçtîon of Tassajara Road and the future
extension of Fallon Road.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for tile st"ff report.
Janet Harbin, Seruor Planner presented the staff report. She explained that the project is for a
development agreement for Silveria Ranch. On October 21, 2003... the City Council adopted Resolution
No, 15-03 approving a Planned. Developn\et'lt R~zoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, for the Silveria
Ranch,. loçab?rl within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. This approval established the final zoning
for a 93.4 acre property currently owned by Pfieffer Ranch Investors II, Ine" and proposed for
development by Pinn Brothers Fine Homes. Additionally, the PlaMin.g Commission adopted Resolution [D;I~j .,
No. 03-48 approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review for the projecl The I: { ..,_, 11
.{ 'ormattecli Font' 10 pt
I ~Com~_ _.._ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .!Y ~ _ _ _ _ _. - - - - ~IY~';'Q/}l,/'
~'Mmio¡¡
l
J
rlatu\ed Develop_';'t rezoning and the Easwn Dublin Specific Plan require that a Developmenl
^8r(!~m~nt be approved prior to the issuance of building permits for the development of the property.
The benefit to the City of entering into a Development Agreement with the pmperty ownP.t' i~ that the
document is a {~ontral..~t that ensure£ that the goals of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met and the
Înfrastructure facilities fOf the ,area are constructed with each development phase. Additionally, it
ensures that dedications of property and easements are made, project phasing :is fOllöwed, the
appropriate fees are paid for the development and any additional terms of the agreement are met as the
development proceeds.
The agreement has been drafted and negotiated with the owners on record for the property, Pfieffer
Rançh Invastors, Jnç. The property owners are represented by Alan Pinn of Pinn Brothers Fine Homes
I for purposes of this appHçatio:n. Pinn Brothers Fine Homes is also the Developer of this uroDosed
~,µþ.º.~'y'i,~.!9!!., This Development Agreement covers all four development phases of construction of
Tentative Tract 7441 for the Silveria Ranch Project The term of the development agreement is for five
years. There are rnro side agreements; one is a letter of agreement dated January 13, 2005 betweef'l
Pfieffer Ranch Investors and Robert Nielsen Jr. to bring resolution to the concerns he expressed about the
project's effect on his property and the businesses he operates there, The City Counçil requested that
Pìnn Brothers provide the following; 1) grant an access easement to the Nie(sen property from the
development; 2) improve the granted access easement area; and, 3) reJorate 1"1 existing parking spaces on
the property.
Afler several months of negotiation with Mr. Nielsen and determining the cost of the various jtems
needed. to alleviate his concerns, Pinn Brothers Fine Homes has reached an agreement with Mr. Nielsen
to pay him $180,(XX) to cover the projected cosÍB. Mr. Nielsen and Finn Brothers Firle Homes have
negotiated a side agreement in the fonn of a Letter of Agreement dated January 13, 2005 for this amount
to be paid and the a.ssociated wnditions of payml?:nt. Mr. Nielsen may then implement. the
improvements to his property ill aççordance with his business schedule, timing and œed.
The second side agreement has to do with the Golden Eagle mitigation measureS. lli. Harbin stated that
this particular project co",es under the Easlorn Dublin Specific Plan and the ElR that was prepared for
that plan. There are certain mitigations within the plan to preserve golden eagles and their habitat. To
allevialo the concerns of the City's biologist and to further preserve the Golden Eagle habitat, rinn
Brothers Fine Homes desires to make certain contributions to the City for the impJementatbn of
I mitigation measures for further preservation bevond that recruiTed bv the East Dublin Sve(':jfjç Plan EIR,
of the Golden Eagle nesting and habitat areas by installing and maintainin,g an "Eag1e Cam/ or video
(arnera, installed for visual mOIÚtoring of the eagle nesting site on the City's website during U1e nesting
season for a period of three years to ensure that the birds are not disturbed.
The hnp1emen.tation of these additional preservation measures constitutes a minor change in the project
and E-':nvironmental review under CEQA guidelines Section 15164(a), a.nd will have no adverse
signifiçant impact on the spedes that was not addressed in the previous EIR. All other environmental
impacts of this project were fully addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the addenda mentiuned
abover and no new significant information has arise.n for this project dUfingthe preparation of the
Development Agreement, which would require further environmental review.
Ms. n~\rbin stated there are two rhanges h1 the resolution..J!l. th~ f!!stya.!.a~ar..h.Qle.!.€ ~ alin~ t!!:at_
addr~~s~..s the p€rmanent open space and conservation easemen~ and Staff is adding to that line "or
similar legal instrument. " In paragraph tltree.£ Staff has added the word - t~l1.mtarl11l to the last sentencc..
Slaff also deletcd from l:)ara~raDh three. the sentence statim!" as discussed in the. accomvan1lÚH! staff report
and rdf.renœ¡J in the subiect Deoelormw.nt A ç;reen~~nt~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1?1øv1tl
.......'",_.
---1
J
___ DlI!deted: In
/
.-",- --1DII!II~::
t1 Dllldltbtcl: -TI(I/untarily. 11
I beleted: ~
¡
/ I I Deleted: U
I; _ Ponnattec!¡ fOl'lt: 10 pt
/1/
C" - - - - - _ ~"JþlfJl'&
I~£~-
~"'"'"'ø
.ow
-----------
-----
. ..,.-,..-.---
Staff recommends for the Planning Comrnission to adopt the resolution ra:ommending that the City
Council approve the development agreement.
Chair Schaub asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Cm. King asked about the description of eagle protection zone.
MS. Harbin stated that the eagle protection zone is in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and there is a m
I in that pIanLÆhictu~,Ë!tn~.ä~ th;~ Within that zone there shall be no grading or development
during the nesting season for the golden eagle.
Dale Garren, 5039 Preston Ave., Livermore, staled he is representing the applicant. They would like to
thank Staff and are În full agreement with the Staff report and all the conditions.
On. Schaub dosed the public hearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is Staff to momtor the golden eagle.
Ms. Harbin stated she would be the Staff person and would periodically momtor it during the nesting
season. She explained that ther~ is the potential to start a program with the University of CalifornÎa,
Davis to do some monitoring also.
Cm. Fasulkey commended Staff on such a creative solution.
Cm, Wehrenberg asked for clarification on the camera and where it would be located.
I :. Ha~b~ S:t~d: is_a ~~ll :~r~ ~t will be mounted ~_~ the wate~_~ ~v ~~~}i: f:n~th~ ~ee_
Cm. Biddle asked the scheduling of the project.
I\Æs. Ram stated their plans are in and they want to get started as Soon as possible. Construction may
occur as soon as this spring
On motion by Cm. Biddle. seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Comrnission
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR P A 02-024 SILVERIA RANCH,
PFIEFFER RANCH INVESTORS n, INC. (PINN BROTHERS FTNE HOMES)
~'---...)
1'-
--
-- .- -.. --. .-- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
I Jl'f-<mgC_
tiiJofir,¡¡..iiõ,¡- -
2.1_
- - - -
___ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :L""'f'f.'YJþ~
-----.-.--......
-...----
13ß ~ I'?;.!
ap
-1 ..,....: , -. -~=~
-
n
-- Deleted: '\I
-- -- -
Deleted: "II
I DlI!dt!lh!ld: 11
I; .~{ Fonnilttl!ld: FDnt: 10 pt
/(" ---..-..-.
~:f
8.3
PA. 04-0<\6 Dublin Gateway Medical Center (Triad Partners. Inc.) - Conditional U.e
Permit and Site Develoopment Review. The Applicant Triad Partners, Inc., is
proposing to cOIlBtruct approximately 179,000 "'¡uare teet of medical offices and
associated uses on 7:(39.:: acres of la:nd within the Kol1 Dublin Corporate Center located
at the southwest çorner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Apn 986-0016-015)
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Mamie Nuccio¡ Associate Planner presented the staff report and advised the CommÍS5icn that the
proposed project is for !he Dublin Galeway Medical Center. She staled thai attachments 3 and 4 had
some pages missing when originally copied and Staff has provided the Commission wìth tho5e missing
pages to have full copies of those documents.
Ms. Nuccio stated. that in November 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Parcel Map
and Site Development Review for a 37i. acre parcel to create the Koll Dublin Corporate Center... loçated
south of Dublin Boulevard between John Monego Court and Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area. In December 1998, the City Council adopted an Ordinan"e approving a Stage 1 and 2
Planned Deve¡opmentRezone and together with the Planning Commission approvals,e.tablished the
land uses and development standards for the Koll Dublin Corporate Center,
Phase I was constructed in 20QO.2oo1 and phasell is the proposed project before the Planning
Commission. The project will be located on 7.139+ acres of land at the southwest comer of DubHn
Boulevard and Tassajara Road. The Project proposes the construction of three, 3-story buildings (178)XXJ
square feel) and a 4-1evel parking structure rather than the 6-story building (178,849 square feet)
previously approved for the site. The decision to reduce the number of stories was thought to be a better
design when taking into consideration the scale of existing buildings on surro'Uf'1ding properties. The
existing Koll Dublin Corporate Center office buildings to the south 01 the site are 4-slories high and there
are two, existing single-story banks to the west (!lank 01 America) and north (Wells Fargo). The KolI
Center has a Planned Development zoning designation, WÎthin the Planned Development zoning, the
permitted and conditional uses are Set forth for the site. The pennitted uses proposed for the projecl
include a variety of health services, professional offices, a café and general retail. T1\e çondîtional uses
proposed are an indoor recreational facility, a massage component, outdoor seating, request for a
reduction in parking and a. minor amendment to the adopted Planned Development zoning_
Based on preliminary floor plans and approx:i1nate square footages of the uses within Phase I of the
Project, it is estimated that 679 pa.rking stalls wOlÙd be required in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance. A:s distlissed in a previous section, Parking Reductions for an /ndi1Ji.dual Use, the parking study
conducted by 1JKM Transportation Consultants concluded that the amount 01 parking proposed for
Ph""el, 459 spaces, would be adequate to serve the l.ifestyle R, Wellness Center and Medical Office
Building One. Parking for Pl\ase I would be provided on a surlace parking lollocaled generaily on the
western and southern portions of the site. Approximately thirty-;;even parking sfa lis would be localed
on the south side of Koll Center Drive.
This application has been reviewed by applicable City departments and agii!ncics and their comments
have been incorporated into the Project and the recommended conditions of Project approval. The
proposed Project is consÍstent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the
Planned Development Zoning for the Koll Dublin Corporate Center and represents an appropriate
project for the sIte.
1.-
- -- .-. .-.
...
-------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I .Œf!!","-"IIº,,"~_
~",...m,¡
I
1/
~'Y.l.1_,;,(I/JJ,//
l2~ ~ _ _
-----------
. ."
- - - - ---
--. - - -
I ?>"'Pù III
/
~ ..,eted: I
DaI8h!cl:,
.-".--
-
.-.-
-.
Deleted: H
.' 'onnatted~ Font 10 pt
~Del_'"
I Dsletwi: 11
I; r
" Form~~: Font: 10 pt..
1/..... ,.
!/J""!!'7,JJ..!00&
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution approving 04-046 Dub.lin Gateway
Medical Center Conditional Use PernùtjSite Development Review, with project plans attached as
Exhibit A. J\.1s. Nuccio stated she was available to answer questions.
Crn, Kjng askp.d where the O\otor vehide ac.cess would be to the parking area.
Ms. Nuccio showed the entrances on the PowerPoint presentation.
Cm. King asked about traffic flow for the area.
Ms. Nuccio stated that the parking study did do a trip generation analysis and recommendations were
made to improve possible stacking instances. With respect to the parking structure, the parking study
made a few recommendations for onsile circulation. The study did not identify any stacking problems
with. the nvo access points to the stxucmres.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that during the presentation the garage waS desl~ribed as 3 to 4 levels. She asked
for clarification.
Ms, Nuccio stated that originally the project was proposed as a 4 level parking structure. The 4'" level
would accommodate 56 parking stalls. Once the traffic study results were determined, the Applicanfs
proposal was in ,",cess of that. They requested that they have the option lliatwhen Phase II moves
forward and there is adequate parking on site and there not additional need for those 56 stalls, could
they remove that top level.
Cm_ Wehrenberg asked if there is a schedule for the Phase II garage.
Ms. Nuccio stated Staff does nM have a sl~hedule for Phase II.
Cln. Wehr~nberg asked for clarifiçation on the emergcncy vehicle access.
Ms. Nuccio said the Depuly Fire Marshal reviewed the plans and indicated that the emergency vehicle
access proposed was acceptable.
Cm. Schaub stated that when working in P1easantot\- the wind would blow through the breezeway that
made it almo,t impossible to walk through. lIe sugge5ted for Staff to look into the potential wind
problem that may occur within the proposed corridor.
Cm. Schaub asked if anyone wished to spea k
Joe Carron,! Appliçant, 8001 Irvine Center Drivel hvÎne, CA stated that they have been working on the
projcct for awhile. He commended I\fs. Nuccio on her efforts and stated they are happy with the results.
Cm_ Schaub dosed the public hearmg_
On motion by Cm,King, seconded by Cm, )jddle by a "-0 the Planning Commission unaI\imously
adopted
I ""--' C .-
~il:'~- - - - - - - - - -
¿3 __
-----
I~'blt!
-1
I
,
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING PA 04-046 DUBLIN GATEWAY MEDICAL CENTER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APN 986-0016-015
I...C!!L ~i~ ~bs.!..aÎ!!etljr!!..m it~ ~.4 a1id 'det the meetin'i!.
------
-----
8.4 PA 04-006 Enea Properties Residential Project on Starward Drive, General PIan
Amendment, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning. Site Development
Review, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Enea Properties requests approvaJ of a
General Plan Amendment from Retail/Office land Use to a Medímn-Density Residef1tial
Land Use, a Stag~ 1 and 2 Planned Development Rezoning, a Site Development Review..
and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to a.llow demolition of an existing 5,.268 square foot
office complex and to allow the subsequent construction of 10 singte fam ily residential
dwellings and associated improvements located at 7475 Starward Driv~.
Chair Shaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
MS. Harhinl Senior Planner presented the staff report. She explained that the current application
proposes to demolish the existing S,26s..square-foot office complex to accommodate residential
development of the site. The project Applican4 Enea Properties, requests the following: a General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from Retail/Office to Medium Density
Residential (6.110 14.0 units per acre); a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development District Rezonirg; a
Vesting Tentative Tract I\fap (7597); andl Site Development Review to Allow construction of 10 detached
single-family homes.
The Applicant propo'es two-stol)' homes on individual rectangular lots ranging from 2,143 square feet
to 2,652 square feet, with garages to the rear of the lots accessed by a shared private stTeel to be owned
and maintained by the Homeowners Association for the project The Applicant/Developer's goal is to
reproduce a traditional f1row house~' style oJ development that is typical of older suburban
ncighborhoods and neo-traditional developmenl, while providing a detached housing product.
Anticipated sales prices of tI...e residences are expected to be in the range of $550.(0) to $600...000.
A Traffic Study was prepared for the project by T KM (2004), which conduded that fully-<>ccupied, the
10 residences would generate 96 daily trips, with 8 trips in the a.m. peak hour period and 10 trips in the
p.m. peak hour period. In comparison to the residential project. maximum development under the
existing Retail/Office land use designation would be expected to create 220 daily trips, with 31 trips in
the a.m. peak hour and 30 in the p.m. peak hour. The proposed General Plan Amendment would reduce
the potential vehicle trips at the site by limiting the development intensity from that of a retail or
commercial office developmenl to that of a small commuruty of single-family homes,
This application has been reviewed by the applica.ble City Departments and agencies, and their
comments ha.ve been incorporated into the Planned Developn.\eflt Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, and
the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Jvlap 7597 and the Site Development Review for
the project. The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin Gen~ral Plan, am represents an
appropriate project" for the site, as it is con\patib1e with the surrounding residential development and I
adjacent roadways, The Planning Commission is charged with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract I;
I ~£~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?} _ _ __ ~ .= = = _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ !L""'fff.'YlÞ.!oo¿/,'-'
~""""'"
lcflGb l'&l
_ -- Formltted, Font: Bold, Italic )
-- --{ Formatted: Font: ~I~!.,,~?lic_~
Deleted: ~
bekm!d: 1J
Form,.tted: FQnt~ 10 pt
....-
..
Maps and Site Development Reviews, while the City Council approves re-zonings (planned
Developments and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans) and General Plan An\endm~nlc;. However,
Staff ¡s rerommending that the Planning Commis,ion transfer approval of the Site Pevelopment Reviow
to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, as the other related project approvals wjJI
be considered by the City Coundl She stated I:hat she was available for questions.
C1lair Schaub asked to hear from the Applicant.
Cm. Biddle asked Staff for the dimension of the channel easement.
Ms. Harbin stated it is approximatelv 2OJeM~2S "'M wid..
- - - - - - - - -
ChaÎr Sc.haub asked if the Fire Departn'lcnt is. okay with the emergency access.
Ms. Harbin said yes as they have agreed witJ1 the proposed plans.
Ananthan Kanagasundaram" Public Works AssistantCivìl Engineer, explained that the F1re Marshal
decided that the Fíre aU::ess to the hottles would be from Starward Drive in th~Qyent of an ~mcrcenc.y.
Cm. f'asulk~ asked the fl;1:aSOn for putting th.e !:!ntrancc drive in the middle area of the property.
Ms. Harbin stated it was determined that il was the besl place for the entrance and a better layout of the
property with 5 homes accessed.from either side of the roadwav. It was also the best location for the
entrance so it wouldn't be adjacent to the flood control channel.
Colen Crant, Architect, 301 Hartz Ave.. Danville presented some color boards on the projecL He stated
they have paid a lot of attention to the existing neighborhoods and described the archiWcOJre, layout
and streetscape featlltes for the project. In response to the question of why the a'cess is in the middle-
the aCŒSS lomtion is in the middle because it evens out the traffic flow. He addressed the concenl raised
by a neighbor about the location of the windows for the proposed project and privacy and stated that
only a Dornon of I,he 2,,\1 stoQ" w.indow of 1 house wou!d b~ v~sï~le from the .ex.~~~£' nei,!:!hborhood.
Cm. Schaub asked if anyone else wished to speak.
William Atwood, 7872 Oxbow Lane stated he was opposed to the project because the ~~ s.~rX. ~!I'I4.~w
of th~ house on-1Q!:J will inkrfcre with his privacy. In his opinion 1h~ ~o ~n!er..El!!ts ~i!! s!:!:Il Èe _ _
affected by the traffic. He is also concerned with the proposed units being two stories and the issue of
privacy.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing to deliberate. He has toncerns abo'Ut the wall that is on the
property to the west and a~koo why there is not a wan along the channel. Staff stated that a wood fence
is preferred over a block wall. He asked the CommissioI\!f t!!er..s~~d £0l!...tin~eß1.~:.b~-,:?c~.w.all and run
that along the side of these units.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked. if that is the wall along the Schuff homes.o
Chair Schaub stated there is a block wall along Schwer but on this project the wall does not continue. He
believes the wall should çontinue onto this projecL
1~2~\ßI
~~ DI!IIM.:I: 10.
- Deleted: by
J
_ .- Formatted: 5upel'5~rlpt _. ... I
-- D.,_, ;'t'"'''''''l~IMIi\iII~''''''' .]
'oú:iti ijiii4'''~¡¡¡,jf·'liIiWI''I¡''''
-~
'-j Formatted: 5u~.~rlpt
- . Deleted: T
.~ --f De~: ~T
JDO,....;;--
I Deleted; 11
11"-1 FOfmiltted: Font; 10 øt
I/~
~"'!!1ry,p,;,oo& -
Cm, Biddle asked if a six-foot prjvaçy fençe would be better than a concrete waIL
~~-
~.........,
¿> -
...- ...
-----
-----------
-----
)
)
I Chair Schaob st.¡.}ted that tonuete would be nwre Subs't:1t1,tia1 and there js one on the other sideo! the
street alonl! the channel and Sa.n ~ªJnon Road (or the Schuler Homes develovment.__
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed that a wall or fence should be continued. She proposes that the fence be wood
or chain linked to allow some vegetation to grow in there.
Cm. ¡¡¡ddle stated that a wood fence would eliminate the problem of the hghts coming across_ A
concrete block is more of an industrial solution.
Chair Schaub stated he reviewed the drawings and felt the French Country design is going to appellr
stark.
Cm. Biddle a!ì~d jf there was a question about a fence on the east side of the property.
Chair s..,haub stated that there is a fence on the east side of the property that appears 10 be coming down.
There are resjdents l~urrent1y living there that are going to take the brunt of this disruption once building
starts. He s·uggested that the rente be looked at sooner than later_ The rl1Sidants deserve a fence that will
preserve their land while construction is ßoing on.
MS, Harbin stated there is a condition attac.hed to the Site Development Review that states the existing
fence between thi¡;; development and the adjacenl development is damaged or comes down duríng
construction would be replaced.
Cm_ Biddle stated he likes the concept of the infill projects. As Dublin matUIes and the need for more
moderate, affordable housing the City '\oVÌll be doing these type of projecÌB. He asked if there are houses
in East. Dublin with 3 foot setbacks on each side.
Ms. Harbin responded yes.
Cm_ Biddle stated he likes the design with the parking along the back that gives an alley affect.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated this is a good opportunity for first time homebuyers. She agreed that she likes
the design_
Cm. Biddle stated he likes this design much better than what is across the street.
Itf'>DðIßI
-- --r¡~!~~~J~:iOI~J
I ~::~~~~~:~~r~ s:te~ ~ iS~ ~o~ r~~~g ~ro~ec~ a~d ~ee~~ :i~ ~~ :s~tentiaJ uses a ~:a~_v : ~e _ _' .~ Deleted: what ~ iliere
DtlliMed: '1
/ I Deleted: U
I;
fortnlttecl: foot: 10 pt
11/
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~".lÞ;fJO& .
Chair Schaub would like to see Staff work well with the existing residents.
I On motion by Cm_ Biddle, seconded by Cm_ FasuIkey, by a vole of 4-0-0-1 with Cm. King abstaining, the
Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPf A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING I'ROGRAM
FOR THE ENEA I'ROPERTIES ST ARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (P A 04-(06)
I ø-;.,c-_..
ii¡¡oiiril..¡¡;,g- -
~~-
p.
----------.--.......
-----
---J
n..
ÄE~9~U'!IQN1'Iº.Q?-_08_ _ _ _ _ _
-----
, ü::::~ 'bJ!L
r';;;iÕted, ~ í
A RESOLUTION OF IHE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
REr All/OFFICE TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (6.1 TO 14.0 UNITS PER ACRE)
ENEA PROPERTIES STARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECf
(P A 04-006)
I
1.- __ _ _ _ _
,,-------
- - - --
..- - -
--lbel_'~
J
----------=~
Formljltted: Normal
---]
I
- - - --
- - - ___ .__ - - _. _. __ _n __ __ ._
--- - - - -
.¡..... _" .- FDrmiltted: Font; Tims5 Nll!lw
Roman, 12 øt
,
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 09
----.........
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
TO APPROVE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICI' REZONING AND
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 04-006,
ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD ROW PROJECf
RESOLUTION NO. 05-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACf MAP (No. 7597)
ENEA PROPERTIES ST ARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECf
(P A 04-006)
, ------"
RESOLUTION NO. 05-11
A RESOLUTION OF IHE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES STARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PRO}ECI'
(PA04-006)
1__ - - - - - - - - - n --
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
~~
-..--
----
]
/
DllllletecI:1j
"
"
--
.- -- -.
-----------
Ddeted: rolivC' hy and .~ti.:.:k with
I Deleted: It
/ / Døted: Lo get
I; ! Deleted: evt!lj'one's
1 Chair Schaub sti!Jted that he tried to çorne up with a meeting' formatp!!:.d ..ß"a~e a coW of a draft ~ th~ __ ....1 I; Deleted: II.boutthe þroœ91!1of
Commissioners for their review. I; /
Ddeted: ronT1i~g th~ m~~tin~
t I;
I Cm. Fasulkey stated that he Jikes to hea r _f):ill!LevervonÆ.A!1.ÇI-l.",,~iv~ their p~in! o!.yi~w '-- _ _ _ _ _ _J I; D_, 11
I Deleted: 11
I There was djsçussion amongst the CommissionS,SJDj"tow the PlannÎnu Commission meetinl7!'t should ntn I t' I;., Formatted: Font~ 10 pt
I ;¡¡;;:A""""'" - - - - -- -- ------ -- n_ f/,~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !l:~,u,J!IO-!./(/
OIHER BUSINESS (Com n' ission/5taff Informational Only Reports)
--
-..--..-.-..
I J.!s. ~a!!1 ~.~k~~1 !~e Commissioners about their availability o~. F.~b~a.p' 8th at ~:30...p.m. f?r a study
session.
Cm. Fasulkey stated he may not be available due to þ'a~elin~for his iob. The remaininK. Comnùssioners
6tf'Jted they were available.
Ms. Ram disrussed" fl1~r.~ 1J.!.9le~ts and ª.H~}.Je<t.~.~ <::onference wíth the Co~~ssiun~~.
-... -.. ...
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned a[9:00 p_m_
i.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
---------
---------..
Respectfully submitted¡
Plartning Commission Chairperson
AlTEST:
Planning Manager
I ~5 ~ll~L
__ - Oeletecl: 11
...... \..'.... ~
\.. ... Deleted: to t:um~
FQnnBUEd:5u~r~
-. -i DBltrb!Id: beOl\
J
---
.......-.........- -.
__ - Deteted: r
~
Ms. Rilm st~\1:>(I $hr w~nt$ W put
rog{'thrT ~ fidd trip un;j Satunby
morning to )O(l'\.,; ilt (I{'!;ign ¡:on~pt$, ~
~
M~. Ram di~:u~~~d the Leò:L~u~ of
Califofl"1laCltlesl'lannerslnstlill.Le.'
'-
\
..._, 1
'1
L_____
......----....-.-
-.......
..........
)
..._,~
I I Dlleted: 11
11.-" FormBtted: Font: 1D pt
= = = = = = = = = = = _ l.~J1.È...OO!.JII/
I~~..
iieJ'''''¡''¡¡;'¡ - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
~8~
J
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005
I 'tl" t1() ! ~ /
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04-006 Enea Propel"ties Starward Row
Residential Project - Gerteral PláIl Amendment, Planned
Development Rezoning Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan,
Vesting Terttative Tract M¡¡p and Site Dcvelopment Review
Prepared by Pierce Macdonald, Associate. Planner & Janet Harbin,
Senior Planner {à¡f-
1. Resolution recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A which includes
Initial Study) and accompal1ying Mitigation Monitoring
progrä.rrt (a.ttached as. E~bit B).
2. Resolution tecommendipg City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the General Plan Amertdment to amend the General
Plan Land Use Map (Figure I-Ia), with map attached as
Exhibit A.
3. Resolution recoínmencling City Council adopt the Ordinance
(attached as Exhibit A) approving the Planned Development
Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan_
and Project Plans (attached as Exhibit A-I).
4. Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597
(attached as Exhibit A), subject to conditions.
5. Resolution recommending City Council approve the Site
Development Review for the project, subject to conditions.
6. ApplicantlDeveloper's Written Statement
7. Streets cape ElevationlView
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOM:MENDATION:
1. Hear Staff presentation;
2. Open Public Hearing;
3. Take testimony fÌom the Applicant/Developer and the Public;
4. Close thë Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City
Council adopt a Mitigated Nega,tive Declaration (attached as
Exhibit A which includes Initial Study) and Mitigation
Monitoring Program (attached as Exhibit B);
6. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending the City
Council approve a Gerteral Plan Amendment (with General
Plan Land Use map attached as Exhibit A);
-----~---------------~~~---~---------------------~-~~--~~--------------~-~--~---------------------------~--~~--~-~-------------
------~-
COPIES TO: Applicant/Developer
Property Owners
P A file
7.
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City I ~Î.......M
Council adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A) approving a Planned '1,}"' ,
Development (PD) Rezoning with related Stage I and Stage 2
Development Plan and Project Plans (attached as Exhibit A-I);
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 4) approving Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 7597 (Exhibit A), subject to conditions;
and
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 5) recommending City
Council approval of Site Development Review, subj ect to
conditions.
8.
9.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current application proposes to demolish the existing 5,268-square-foot office building complex to
accommodate residential development of the. site. The project Applicant, Enea Properties, requests the
following: a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site fÌ'om Retail/Office to
Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 unltsper acre); a Stage I and Stage 2 Planned Development
District Rezoning; a. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (7597); and, Site Development Review to allow
construction of 1 0 detached single-family homes (Project Plans are contained in Attachment 3, Exhibit A-
I).
The ApplicantlDeveloper proposes two-story homes on individual rectangular lots ranging fÌ'om 2,143
square feet to 2,652 square feet, with garages to the rear of the lots accessed by a shared private street to
be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association for the project. The ApplicantlDeveloper's
goal is to reproduce a traditional "row house" style of development that is typical of older suburban
neighborhoods and neo-traditional development, while providing a detached housing product (Applicant's
Written Statement is included as Attaclunent 6). Anticipated sales prices of the residences are expected to
be in the range of $550,000 to $600,000.
In 1963, the existing medical office building complex was built at 7475 Starward Drive on a portion of a
.77-acre parcel (APN 941-0I73-002-02) now owned by Enea Properties Company LLC. The size of the
existing office complex is 5,268 square feet. A small parking Jot occupies the area adjaeent to the
building. A drainage canal owned and mairttained by Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) lies adjacent to the north property line of the site, and it was
constructed during that time period also. The site has flat topography, indicating previous grading, and
has been only partially developed. In 1985, the current Retail/Office land use designation was established
for the parcel on Starward Drive with adoption of the first General Plan after the incorporation of the City
to accommodate th.e existing office use on the property.
On September 1, 1998, the Dublin City Council approved a General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment for a project on Starward Drive submitted by the DeSilva Group (P A 98-013), which lies
west of the proposed project across Starward Drive. The General Plan Amendment changed the land use
designation fÌ'om Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) and amended
the Downtown Specific Plan to the remove thc property from the planning area. On September 15, 1998,
the City Council approved the Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review allowing
the construction of 31 small lots, single-family detached homes on the site. These homes were
subsequently constmcted by Schuler Homes and are now occupied.
With the approval of the DeSilva Gates/Schuler project, there were residential uses established on three
sides of the Enea Properties parcel on Starward Drive. The DeSilva Gates/Schuler project established the
Medium Density (6.1-14.0 units per acre) land use designation to the west. To the east of the Enea
Properties parcel, an older 12-unit rental complex with a Medium-High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per
2
,
acre) land use designation.is established, and a neighborhood of homes with a Single Family Residential
(0.9 t06.0\lJ1its per acre) land use desigrtation is established to .the north. A shoppingeenter proposed for
renovation witlùn the Downtown Specific Plan is located to the south with a Retail/Office land use
designation. l"l~ 'bl'i'\
In October of 2003, the City CO\lJ1cil directed Staff to review the feasibility of establishing a small park
on the site. However, on March 16, 2004, the City of Dublin P·arks and Recreation Master Plan 2004
Update was approved by City Courtcil without identifying a potential park use on the parcêl, and
maintaining the Retail/Office land use designation on the property.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The project site is currently designated Retail/Office on the City's General Plan Land Use map, which
does not allow residential uses. The Applicant/Developer is r"questing approval of a land use designation
chapge to Medium Density Residentiál (a density of 6.1 to 14 dwelling\lJ1its per acre) to allow single-
farni1y residential uses for a maximum site development of 10 units. with the accompanying Planned
Development District rezoning. The proposedclevelopment is less intense than the· commercial
development potentialurtder the existing Rêtail/Office land 'Use designàtionand theCUlTent Commeroial
Office (C-O) Zoning District as it would generate less traffic, noise and the need for City and other
agency services. The maximuIIl development potential under the existing Retail/Office land use
designation is compared to the requested land use change in Table 2, below.
TABLE 2. EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
GENERAL Existing Retail/Office Proposed Development with Potential Development Medium
PLANLAND Potential Medium Density Residential Density Ra&idential
USE (.25 to .60 FAR) (6,1 to 14 d.u./acre) (6.1 to 14 d.u.lacre)
,
.. Building Size or 8,423 to 20,216 sq.fI. 10 Units 4 to 10 units
DwelllnC/ UnIts I
19 to 101 employees 27 residents 10 to 27 residents
PopulatIon Yiald (200 to 450 sq.fI./employee) (2.65 residents per unit) (2.65 residents per unit)
TOTAL Up to 20,216 sq.ft. 10 Dwelling Units 10 Dwelling Units
POTENTIAL Retail/Office Space
DEVELOPMENT
The existing General Plan land use designation of Retail/Office would allow a maximum building size of
20,216 square feet and 101 employees at a FAR of .60. In comparison, the proposed General Plan
Amendment component of the Enea project would allow a maximum of 10 units, which would be
expected to create housing for 27 residents based on Census Bureau statistics for average household size
in Dublin (2.65 persons per dwelling unit).
General Plan Consistency: As the proposed project requires a change in land use designation from
Retail/Office use to Medium-Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre), the evaluation of General Plan
goals and policies for consistency is necessary for the introduction of residential uses on this site. The
following issues were evaluated for this project, including land use compatibility, traffic and circulation,
and noise to determine if the pröject is consistent with the goals and policies relative to the General Plan
land use designation requested. Based ort the discussion and analysis that follows, the proposed General
Plan Amendment has been determined to be consistent with all General Plan goals, policies and
proVJSl0ns.
3
Land U seComvatibility: The current Retail/Office land use designation is described in the General Plan ;
as "Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and
sale of auto parts." The proposed change from Retail/Office to Medium_Density Residential land use. ~~ Gb /$)
designation requires an evaluation of compatibility of land uses relative to the introductioI1 of residential
uses at the requested density of 6.1 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The subject site currently has
established residential uses on three sides of the parcel. According to the General Plan Land Use Map,
Medium Density Residential land use is established on the property to the west (Sehuler Homes
development), Medium"HighDensity Residential land use (14.1 to 25 units per acre) lies to the east (12
single-level multi-family units), and Single-Family Residentialla11d use (0 to 6 units per acre) lies north
of the flood control channel adjacent to the project site (a standard single-family subdivision). A
shopping center, Shamrock Center, containing Big Lots and other retail stores, with a Retail/Office land
use designation is located to the south.
The requested land use designation for the project site is consistent with the Medium Density Residential
General Plan land use designation of the Schuler Homes project directly to the west, developed with 31
single-family detached residences. To the east, the development of 12 single-story multi-family rental
units having a Medium-High Density Residential land use. designation, contain rear yard areas adjaeent to
the shared property line and the private street of the proposed development. The proposed hmd use for
the Enea Properties site would serve as a land use transition between the shopping center to the south and
the residential uses to the north, and be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood
than the existing Retail/Officé land use on the site.
The proposed project is cOI15istent with the intent of the General Plan Residential Land Use Section 2.12,
Neighborhood Diversity, and its guiding policies.. Guiding Policy A of that section states, "Avoid
economic segregation by City sector." Implementing Policy B states that medium ind medium-high
residential densities shall be alloeated to development si.tes in all sectors of the Primary Planning Area.
The proposed introduction of housing at the Enea Project site will be consistent with these policies in that
it provides for the construction of a residential subdivision of small lot detached single- family homes, not
commonly available in the Primary Planning Area close to the downtown core. Additionally, the cost of
the units will be more affordable than many of the subdivisions under construction in the eastern portion
of the City or arcas distant from the downtown core.
Traffic and Circulation: A Traffic Study was prepared for the project by TJKM (2004), which concluded
that fully-occupied, the 10 residences would generate 96 daily trips, with 8 trips in the a.m. peak hour
period and 10 trips in the p.m. peak hour period. In comparison to the residential proj ect, maximum
development under the existing RetaillOffice land use designation would be expected to create 220 daily
trips, with 31 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 30 in the p.m. peak hour. The proposed General Plan
Amendment would reduce the potential vehicle trips at the site by limiting the development intensity from
that of a retail or commercial office development to that of a small community of single-family homes.
Noise: A Noise Study was prepared for the project by Thorburn Associates in late 2004, which analyzed
the existing conditions and the potential noise impacts of the project. As previously mentioned, the
project site is directly bordered on the north and east by residential zoning districts, and by Starward
Drive to the west and south. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is located approximately 400 feet to the west
of the site and Amador Valley Boulevard is located approximately 600 feet to the south. Highway 680 is
located approximately Y2 mile to the east ofthe site. The noise evaluation prepared for the proj ect utilized
both a 24-hour instrument measurement and several short-t= spot measurements.
Thorburn Associates concluded that ambient noise throughout the site was dominated by traffic noise
from adjoining streets. The calculated CNEL for the 24-hour measurement location was 58 dBA. Using
the spot measurements, CNEL levels were between 59 dBA and 60 dBA. These levels are consistent with
4
the General Plan's Noise Exposure Contours plan, and consistent with General Plan acceptable exterior
community noise exposure lev"ls of60 dBA or less forresidential development luterioI' noiselevels 5;D~ltl
would be reduced to 45 CNEL in any habitable room through no¡:mal building construction incompliance
to the General Plan and Uniform Building Code requirements. Thorburn Associates also concluded that
noise associated with the project, such as the sounds of children playing and the sounds of residents'
vehicles, is consistent with existing noise sources and levels in the area.
A Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the requested General plan is contained in
Attachment 2 for the Planning Commission'S consideration, with the General Plan Land Use map
attached as Exhibit A.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REZONING
The Dublin Zoning Qrdinance establishes the intent and requirements of a Planned Developm,ent Zoning
District, Chapter 8.32. The intent of the Planned Development Z()ning District is to create a m,ore
desirable use of land, a .more coherent and coordinated development, and a better quality physical
enviroIU1)entthaJ). would otherwis" be possible under II standard zoning district Chapter 8.32 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that a Stage I and 2 Development Plan be adopted to establish cOncise
regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance. of the property within the requested
Planned Development Zoning District. The ApplicäntlDeveløþer is applying før a Stage I and 2
Development Plan for the subject site in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan: The Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, included as Exhibit A-I
to Attachment 3, would establish the land use regulations änd implement the density for the .77 -acre site.
The proposed development mix consists of detaChed residential liIlits in a row house architectural style.
Traditional row houses are designed to iriteract closely with the street through porches or stoops that are
raised slightly above street level. Although some row house development, such as traditional townhouse
development attaches dwellings on one or two sides, the Enea Properties project offers a detached, single-
family home product. The proposed Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan site layout is depicted on
Sheets PD-l and SP-l of the Project Plans (Exhibit A-I of Attachment 3).
Statement of Proposed Uses: The proposed Development Plan includes a list of permitted and
conditional uses that are specific to this project. Permitted uses for the Enea Properties Starward Row
project are consistent with the intent and provisions of the Single-Family Residential (R-I) Zoning
District Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.20.020).
Site Area and Proposed Densities: The Development Plan provides for a maximum of ten (10) single-
family residential dwellings and other accessory uses typical ofresidential neighborhoods. The
development of this project is proposed in one phase with construction ofthe ten residences with
associated landscaping and fencing occurring over a one-year time period. The project will be built at a
density of 14 dwelling units per acre in accordance with the proposed accompanying General Plan
Amendment. A shared private street will provide access from Starward Drive to the driveway aprons and
garages behind the homes.. The front elevations of all of the homes will face Starward Drive, providing
pedestrian access from the sid"walk.
Development Standards and Setbacks: Pursuant to the Planned Development District provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant/Developer is requesting flexibility in standard R-I District development
regulations, including front and side yard setbacks, modifications to minimum lot size, and, modifications
to the standard maximum lot coverage of 40 percent (40%) for single-family residential development.
The following table briefly describes the project characteristics.
TABLE 1. ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
5
Home Size FootprInt Lot Size Lot Front Side Parking Bldg.
Lot # (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Coverage Setbacks SetbackS, Spaces Height
(feet) (on-site) (feet)
,
1 1,595 sJ. 1,316 2,652 sJ. 49.6% 10 3' and 5' 2 26'
2 1,595 sJ. 1,316 ' 2,464 sJ. 53.4% 10 3' 2 2B'
3 1,595 sJ. 1,316, 2,464 s.f. 53.4% 10 3,' 2 26'
4 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,466 s.f. 53.,3% 10 3' 2 26'
5 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,596 sJ. 50.6% 10 3' and 5,' 2 29'
6 1,595 sJ. 1,316 2,609 s.f. 50.4% 10 3' and 5' 2 26'
7 1,595 sJ, 1,316 2,468 sJ. 53.3% 10 3' 2 29'
B 1,595 s.f. 1,316 2,418 s.f. 54.4% 10 3' 2 28'
g 1,581 sJ. 1.206 2,143sJ. 56.2% 10 3' 2 26'
10 1,342 s.f. 1,028 2,452 s.f. 41.9% 10 3' and 10' 2 26'
Other 6,375 s.f.
Areas'
Average 1,568s.f. 1,07Bs.f. 2,473 s.t. 51,6% 10 2 27 ft.
15tøtJ~'
'" Other areas indude landscaping and project featurr:-s
Qutside individuallQts (nòt included in average).
Setbacks: The ApplicanVDeveloper is requesting flexibility in standard R-l Zoning District fumt and
side yard setback regulations to allow a 10- foot minimum ftont yard setback on Starward Drive and a
minimum 3-foot side yard setback for the residences. Comparable standards for a R-I Zoning District
under the zoning district regulations in Section 8.36.020 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 4,000 to 5,000
square foot lot require a minimum 20-foot front yard setback and a minimum 5-foot side yard setback
(Section 8.36.020(A).
The City has approved planned development projects with setbacks which vary from the R -I Z6ning
District setback standards in the past. Projects SU(;,f¡ as the Greenbriar project on Tassajara Road (P A 02-
048), the DeSilva Gates/Schuler Homes on Starward Drive (PA 98-013), and the Bancor Tra1ee project on
Sierra Lane (PA 02-062) were approved with front yard setbacks that range from four (4) feet to thirteen
(13) feet. Side yard setbacks for these projects range from no separation (Tralee) to 3 feet (Shuler
Homes) and 3.5 feet (Greenbriar). The purpose of the reduction in setbacks is to allow the
Applicant/Developer to provide a detached housing product while managing the unusual site constraints
of the long, rectangular parcel. Small lot singJe.·family development like this Planned Development
project create more opportunities for first time home-buyers to purchase single-family detached homes in
the community. '
Side Yards: Side yard setbacks of 3 feet are proposed for the majority of the lots in the subdivision.
Three of the lots, Lots 1, 5, and 6, show 5-foot setbacks on one side of the lot (refer to Site Plan in Project
Plans, Exhibit A-I of Attachment 3). Lot 10, a comer lot, has a 10-foot side yard adjacent to the sidewalk
on Starward Drive, with a reduced rear yard area (discussed below). To maximize the use ofthe proposed
3-foot side yards, reciprocal easements will be established as part of the CC&Rs of the project (included
as Condition 46 of the Resolution for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Attachment 4). The reciprocal
easement will allow each of the properties to include the side yard setback of the adjacent property within
its private fenced area, thereby allowing the property owners use of a 6-foot area along one side of each
home. Reciprocal easements were also approved for the Schuler Homes project across Starward Drive
from this proj ect site to create wider side yards. A fencing detail for the side yard areas is included in the
Project Plans on Sheet D·I of Attachment 3 (Exhibit A-I).
6
'"
Front Yards: The proposed 10-foot front yard setback ofthe Enea Properties Starward Row project is ... ßI
parallel to and facing Starward Drive. The intent is to create a more pedestrian streetscape edgli along I!' z.'b'
Starward Drive with a "walk-up" row house-style that places stairs and porches at 5 feet from the property
line. The homes will generally face the DeSilva Gates/Schuler Homes lots across the street On Starward
Drive aIld Galaxy Way, and new landscaping and street trees are proposed to be installed by the
ApplicantlDeveloper to further soften and enhance the streetscape view along Starward Drive.
Rear Yards: Rear yard setbacks proposed for the residential lots vary based on the individual lot as the
garages are located behind the homes. The ApplicantlDeveloper is requesting that deviations from the
standard R -1 Zoning District rear yard setback regulations of a triinimum 20· foot setback be allowed for
the project as the style and design of the homes is different from a standard single"familyresidential
subdivision. As some gara.gesare locåtedin a portion of the rear yard setback, the size of the useable
outdoor living area is a more appropriate measaTe of the rear yard area, The reaT yard areas, and the
useable outdoor living space provided, are further explained below in the s.ectioll dfthis Staff Report
entitled "Outdoor Living Area."
Lot Size and Lot Coverage; Other requested Planned D.evelopinentDistrict provisions would allow a
minimum lot size of2,143 square feet on Lot 10, where R"l standards require 4;000 square feet; a
minimum lot width of 26 feet, where R-l standards require 50 feet; a.II1:ininium lot depth of 80 feet, where
R-I standards require 100 feet; and, maximum lot coverages of 54% and 56.2%, where R-l standards
allow a maximum of 40 %. This Planned Development Distric~ project includes a request to allow Lots 8
and 9 to exceed the lot coverage of 54% due to the unusual shape of the lots created by the curve of
Starward Drive. Lots 8 and 9 would have lot coverages of 54.4% and 56.2%, respectively.
Smal1lot development and assodated increased lot coverages are often aJlowed in new Planned
Development District projects in Dublin and have been constrocted in other cities successfully, such as
the new development in Hercules near the Bay in a redeveloped area. Additionally, the Schuler Homes
development west ofthe project site contains average lot sizes of2,250 square feet. The Enea Properties
project, as shown in Table I above, contains an average lot size of 2,473 square feet. The average lot
coverage in the proposed development is 51.6% (refer to Table I above). Although lot coverages have
. been increased in the proposed Planned Development District Rezoning, careful consideration has been
....
given to the outdoor living area of the project, described in the foJlowing section.
Outdoor Living Area: The Development Plan proposes to create useable outdoor living areas, such as
backyards and patio areas, between the homes and the private street on the east side of the proposed
development. Rear yard setbacks vary and average approximately 30 feet deep and are partially covered
by garage area. The R-I Zoning District regulations require 20-foot rear yard setbacks without building
area. The open space area between the homes and the garage varies from II Y, feet to 18 feet in depth, as
discussed below, providing increased opportunities for private useable outdoor spaces. Although these
areas are smaller in square footage than rear yards in standard residential districts, they are designed to
provide a private outdoor space for each owner's children to play or create a patio area for outdoor dining
and relaxation.
The homes on Lots I through 7 contain backyards of 18 feet by 26 feet, or 468 square feet in area. 1110
homes on Lots 8 and 9 contain outdoor areas ranging from 14 Y, feet to II 1/2 feet by 26 feet, or
approximately 300 square feet in area. Lot 10 provides the smallest rear yard area at 12 feet by 12 feet or
144 square feet, but has a greater landscaped buffer between the house and the sidewalk (to be instaJled
by the Applicant/Developer) along the south and west property line, generally following the curve of
StarlVard Drive. As the outdoor living areas are designed to fit each individual lot, any changes to the size
of the rear yard outdoor living areas on the lots under the Planned Development Zoning District
regulations and Development Plan in Attachment 3 would be subject to a C011ditional Use Permit
application review and approval by the Community Development Director.
7
.
Incl~s!onary Zoning Regulations: This project is .exempt from the lnclusionary Zoning Ordinance l!j 3> "'I t I
proVISIOns as the project contams fewerthan 20 umts. No Below Market Rate (BMR) uruts are required U
to be identified on the site plan and made a component of the project pursuant to the Inclusk'llary Zoning
Chapter of the Zoning OrdiMnc(J (Chapter 8.68).
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTMAP 7597
. The existing site contains one .77 acre parceL The ApplicantlDeveloperhas submitted Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 7597 (Exhìbit A to Attac)J.ment 4) to subdivide the existing parcel into II lots. Lots 1 through
10 would be deveioped with detaèhed residences as. shown on the map. Lot 11 would consist of the
shared private street behìnd the homes for garage a.ccess as a separate parcel to be maintained by a
Homeowners Association in accordance with the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution for the
Planning Commission's consideration in Attachment 4. The Planning Commission is the authority for
review and approval of all tentative tract maps; however, as subdivision of the property into II individual
lots is dependent on approval of the General PIan Amendment and Planned Development District
rezoning, the tentative tract map would only be valid if the City Council proceeds with approval of those
requests.
Improvements provided by the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, along with the Conditions of Approval in
the Resolution in Attachment 4, address the related street improvements, sidewalk improvements,
circulation and access, circulation monitoring devices, drainage, utilities, landscaping, and the
contribution towards thc under-grounding of utilities. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications
are shown in detail on the Vesting "tentative Tract Map (Exhibit A of Attachment 4) and on the
Landscape Plan, Sheet L-I of the Project Plans (Exhibit A-I of Attachment 3). AU improvements wíll be
installed by the Applicant/Developer and/or in-lieu fee payments will be required to cover the cost of the
required improvements.
Maintenanee of landscaping, private streets, and common open space wiJI be the responsibility of a Home
Owners Association established as part of the project (Conditions 46 and 47 of Resolution in Attachment
4). Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required to be adopted for the development to
ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of the
landscaping, irrigation, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other improvements in private common
areas and within the adjacent street frontage right-of-way along Starward Drive. The
ApplicantlDeveloper will be required to submit a copy of the CC&Rs document to the City for review and
approval relative to this condition (Condition 46 of Resolution in Attachment 4).
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The ApplicantlDeveloper has submitted an application requesting approval of Site Development Review
for the project. The application submittal consists of the Project Plans contained in Exhibit A· I of
Attachment 3, illustrating the location and design of the features of the Enea Starward Row project,
including the siting of buildings, internal access, landscape plan, and the archìtecturaJ design (elevations)
of the homes, which aTe discussed in detail below.
Architectural Design/Concept: The architectural design ofthe residences in the project consists of
elements offour traditional architectural styles: Craftsman, ltalianate, Monterey, and French Country.
The architectural elevations, prepared by the Craig and GTant Architects, are included in Sheets A-2 and
A-3 of Exhibit A-I to Attachment 3. The colored elevation and Streetscape View illustration in
Attachment 7 depicts the homes along the project frontage on Stal"ward Drive, illustrating the combination
8
of colors to be used on the homes, A materials and eølor board will be available for review at the
Planning Commission hearing. S .., IItj i I
As mentioned inthe ApplicantlDeveloper's Written Statement in Attachment 6, the design Concept of the
project is to create a unique urban neighborhood containing single-family homes, with attributes similar to
those found in the Victorian row house"style in San Francisco or Boston. The architectural design of the
project is similar in style and scale, but with greater variation in design and detailing on the units, to the
DeSilva Gates/Schuler Home residences to the \\lest of the site across Starward Drive. The DeSilva
Gates/Schuler Home residences generally have stuceo exteriors with features commonly found in modem
ltalianate and Monterey sty1eresidential development (refer to photographs of develOpn1ent on Sheet D-2
ofExhibit A"I to AttàChment 3). TheJ::nea Properties' homes will have building surfaces consisting of
brick, stone; wood siding and painted stocco with tile or shingle roofs. The building elevations are well
articulated with covered porches fronting on the street and varied rooflines that reduce the massing of the
two-story buildings, and. incorporate the architectural elements and features of the selected styles.
Each detached row house-style home i"s sited to face the public thoroughfare along Starward Drive, with
access to each garage from a common private street/driveway. All of the units include a small front
portico or porch inthefirst floor oflivingarea. The detailing, fonns and elements such as the window,
door and porch trea.tments areful1y integrated and öontinue to be articUlated on all elevations of the
residential units in the project. For examplé, thé side elevations of the homes are treated with the same
level of detail in trim and architectural features as the front elevation of the individual unit, with attention
given to the privacy of residents as no windows face other windows on the sides of the houses. Each unit
includes two parking spaces within a detached garage that is constructed to reflect the architectural style
of the home on the lot. The homes on Lots 9 and 10 extend the architectoral design to a second floor
above the garage to provide an additional living area.
Parking/Streetscape: The project establishes on-site parking requirements consistent with parking
requirements for single-family homes found in Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-Street Parking
and Loading, Parking for the residential development on the site is provided at a 2.0 covered parking
ratio per residential unit contained within a two-car garage located to the rear of each lot. The project Site
Plan is provided on Sheet SP-I ofthe Projcct Plans (Exhibit A-I to Attachment 3). Guest parking for 15
spaces is provided along the east side of Starward Drive, a public street. However, no guest parking
spaces are inCluded within the perimeters of the proposed development. To provide additional safcty, thc
garage of the home on Lot 10 is equipped with two automatic garage doors to allow drivers to exit the
garage on to the private street behind the unit without backing into the traffic lane on the curve of
Starward Drive.
As the living areas of the proposed homes, not the garages and driveways, are oriented towards Starward
Drive, a safe pedestrian atmosphere is created along the street and facing the residential development to
the west. Residences along the street are regularly spaced and provide architectural features such as
porches and stairs, as discussed in the section of this report on architecture (see Sheet A-4 of the Project
Plans in Exhibit A-I of Attachment 3). Access to the homes is from the sidewalk along Starward Drive
with the first floors of the units setback from the walkway and raised 18" above ground to separate the
stairs and porches :lÌom the street level, thereby increasing privacy and security. Project amenities include
enhanced streetscape features such as new sidewalk paving, light poles, street trees, and a landscaped
strip. Enhanced sidewalks are intended to support the pedestrian "walkability" of the street created by the
porches and other architectural features of the homes.
Landscape Plan and ExLçting Fence: The Landscape Plan is shown on Sheet L-I of the Project Plans in
Exhibit A-I to Attachment 3). Project development would remove one olive tree and various shrubs, such
as oleanders, at the project site. None of the trees planned for removal are "Heritage Trees" as defined in
the City's Tree Ordinance. Theproject would not result in the degradation of scenic resources a.t the
9
project site or in the immediate vicinity. The Landscape Plan shows the locations of eight (8) .new street .
trees along Starward Drive, with the species of trees to be planted to be determined by the City Public . I
Works Department The front yards of each individual lot would be landscaped withapproptiate trees, It?S ~ ~
shrubs, perennials, and groundcover. Condition of Approval #30 ofthe Vesting TeI1tative TractMap
(refer to Resolution in Attachment 4) requires that an existing multi-branch palm tree on Lot 1 will be
retained.
Landscaping plans include the development of a 265-foot long, 5.-foot wide bioswa]e that would lie
parallel to the east ptoperty line ofthe project site. The purpose of the bjqswale is to treat storm water
run-off from the site and to slow stom1 water before it enters the City storm cirain. This feature has been
added to improve water quality pursuant to City regulations and BAAQMD water quality standards.
Landscaping along the private driveway, including the bioswale would be maintained by the Home
Owners Association which will be required to enter into an Agreement for Long-Term Landscape
Maintenance with the City of Dublin. The final design of the landscaping for the project, based on the
preliminary plan, must be submitted in the form of a final landscape plan for approval by th", Community
Development Director prior to issuance of building permits.
An existing wooden fence is lo.cated along the eommon property line between the Enea Properties site and
the proposed private street adjacentto the rental units to the east The garages of the homes would be
sited between the private driveway and the homes to provide additional privacy and sound buffering. The
Applicant/Developer is proposing to retain the six- foot tall wooden fence along the shared property line
and between the units. A eondition has been included ill th.e Conditions of Approval in the Resolution in
Attachment 5 which requires the ApplicanVDeveloper to replace the fence if it is found to be in poor
condition or is damaged during constructioD (Site Development Review Condition 43 of Attachment 5).
Timinfl of A""rovals
Although the Planning Commission is generally the approval body for the Site Development Review
(SDR), Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not take "action on this item, but recommend
approvaJ to the City Council as part of the Project, as it would not be valid unless the General Plan
Amendment and the Planned Dcvelopment District Rezoning were first approved by the City Council.
Section 8.96.20.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to transfer original hearing
jurisdietion to the City Council at its discretion because of policy implications, unique or unusual
circumstances, or the magnitude ofthe project. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map, however, is
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an initial study
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the project, including the General Plan AmeDdmeDt,
Planned DevelopmeDt Rezoning and Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review,
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597, to assess whether the project would result in any potential
signiftcant environmental impacts. The Initial Study in Exhibit A of the Resolution in Attachment I
identified potential environmental impacts unless mitigations were incorporated in the project related to
air quality impacts during construction; strong seismic ground shaking; presence of asbestos in existing
retail/office buildings: on~site erosion during construction activities and expansive soils; and, ten1porary
noise impacts during construction activities.
Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste, and
geotechnical impacts have been prepared for the project, as discussed above in this report, and mitigation
measures were recommended which would reduce the identified potential impacts to less~than-significant
levels. Based on this, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan
10
·
were prepared for this project. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study was filed with
the Alameda County Clerk and circulated to applicablo;, ,agencies for review and comments during a 20- .
day review period, beginning January 5, 2005 and ending January 25,2005. 1'5ú t;} ~ I
Subsequent incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design, and further evaluation, has determined that the Project, as
designed and proposed, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental
impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level. As a Mitigated Negátive Declaration was
prepared for the Project, State law requires a MitigatÎon Monitoring Program to be establishro and
adopted with the en.vironmental doèument. Tbe Resolution (Attaclllnent I) recommending City Council
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A of the Resolutiol).) and the acèompanying
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit B öfthe Resolution) is included with this Staff Report.
CONCLUSION
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments
have been incorporated into the Planned Development Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, and the
Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 and the Site Development Review for the
project. Tbe proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, and represents an appropriate
project for the site as it is compatible with the surrounding residential development andadjaceut
roadways. The Planning Commission is chiJ1'ged with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and
Site Development Reviews, while the City Council approves rezonings (Planned Developments and Stage
I and Stage 2 Development Plans) and General Plan Amendments. However, Staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission transfer approval of the Site Development Review to the City Council in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinan¡:e, as the other related project approvals will be considered by the
City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Plmming Commission:
I) Hear Staffpresentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Take testimony ITom the ApplicantlDeveloper and the Public;
4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate;
5) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (attached as Exhibit A whi.ch includes Initial Study) and Mitigation Monitoring Program
(attached as ExhibitB);
6) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 2) re¡:ommending the City Council approve a General Plan
Amendment (with General Plan Land Use map attached as Exhibit A);
7) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A)
approving a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning with related Stage I and Stage 2 Development
Plan and Project Plans (attached as Exhibit A-I);
8) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 4) approving Vesting Tentative Traet Map 7597 (attached as
Exhibit A), subject to conditions; and,
9) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 5) recommending City Council approve the Site Development
Review for the Project, subject to conditions.
O,IPAIIa004\04-006 EnoaIPCSR ¡·25·05.doc
11
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT/OWNER:
CONSULTANTS:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
PROPOSED ZONING;
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
1~1utJ \ 4'
Enea Properties COIl1Pany, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260
Danville, CA 94526
Contact: Robert Enea
Craig + Grant Architects
7475 Starward Drive
941-0173"002-02
c-o (Commercial Office)
Retail Office
PD (planned Development District)
Medium-Density Residential
The potential environmental impacts of this project were
addfessed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial
Study and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program fOf
P A04-006 (see discussion in agenda statement).
12
,
RESOLUTION NO. 05-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
15~~1 <8'
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE ENEA PROPERTIES ST ARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (P A 04-006)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested approval
of an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "Retail/Office"
to "Medium-Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre)", Planned Development District Rezoning
with a Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and, Vesting Tentativc Tract
Map 7597 to subdivide a .77- acre parcel (APN 941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) single family dwellings,
and associated improvements, on land generally located north and east ofStaTWard Drive, and north of the
Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for each of the requested actions is available and on file in
the Dublin Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project to assess any potential
significant environmental impacts which may result fÌ'om the project. Various studies addressing
potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste, and gcotechnical impacts were
prepared for the project, and are briefly summarized in the Mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit A,
and mitigation measures were recommended which would reduce the identified potential impacts to less-
than-significant levels. Bascd on this, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation
Monitoring Plan were prepared for this project. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial
Study was filed with the Alameda County Clerk and circulated to applicable agencies for review and
comments during a 20-day review period, beginning January 5, 2005 and ending January 25,2005.
Subsequent incorporation of aJ1 mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design, and further evaluation, has determined that the Project, as
designed and proposed, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental
impacts have been reduced to a Icss-than-significant level. As a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for the Project, State law requires a Mitigation Monitoring Program to be established and
adopted with the environmental document. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached to this
Resolution for adoption with this Project as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 25, 2005 was submitted to the Planning Commission
rccommending Planning Commission approval of a Resolution recommending City Couneil adopt the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit B) for the proposed projcct; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 25,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was givcn in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25, 2005, and used their independent judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby rccommend the City Council make the following findings and determinations, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, regarding said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program: I s.~ Pb I , I
I. The Enea Starward Row Residential project application will not have a significant effect on the
environment with the incorporation ofthc identified mitigation measures into the project, and
based on a review of the Initial Study, all comments received, and public testimony.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program in
Exhibit B have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and an State and local environmental laws and guideline
regulations.
3. On the basis of the whole record before it, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment as
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project and are reflected in the conditions
of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 and the Site Development Review for P A 04-
006 to reduce the potential significant effects to a Icss-than-significant level. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration reflects the City of Dublin's independent judgment and analysis based on
the studies, reports and public record before it.
4. The project is not within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land usc plan or within two
nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport.
5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are complete and
adequate for the project as proposed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program, attached as Exhibits A and B, for the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project, P A
04-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2005.
AYES:
Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, Fasulkey, and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Cm. King
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST;
Planning Manager
g:IPAHI2004\04-o06\PÇRESO IS-MM.doc
'"
RESOLUTION NO. 05-08
11#0 'H '61
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
RETAIL/OFFICE TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (6.1 TO 14.0 UNITS PER ACRE)
ENEA PROPERTIES ST ARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(P A 04-006)
WHEREAS, the Enca Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested approval of a
General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail/Offi.ce to MediumDensity
Residential (6.1 -14.0 units per acre), a Planned Development District Rezoning and Stage I and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 to subdivide a .77-
acre parcel (APN 941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) single-family dwellings and related improvements on land
generally located north and east of Starward Drive, and north of the Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for each of the requested actions is available and on file in the
Dublin Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to thc California EnvironmentaJ Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project, including the General Plan
Amendment request, to assess any potential significant environmental impacts which may result from the
project. Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste,
and geotcchnical impacts were prepared for the project, and mitigation measures were recommended to
reduce the identitled potential impacts to lcss-than-significant levels. Based on this, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan were prepared, and it concludes that with
subsequent incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for construction in the Project design that the Project, as designed and proposed, would not result
in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental impacts have been reduced to a less-than-
significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are proposed for
adoption with this Project and are include in the attachments to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 25,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council
adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment in conjunction with the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25,2005, and used their independent judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend the City Council make the following findings and determinations with regard to the proposed
General Plan Amendment:
I. The proposed Amendment is in the public interest and is consistent witb the goals, policies and
implementing programs of the Dublin General Plan and all of the Elements comprising the
·
1(P1!b I~ I.
General Plan, as the projcct will provide housing to meet the goals of the General Plan Housing
Element and as it will be consistent with GenCTal Plan Residential Land Use Section 2.12,
Neighborhood Diversity. Guiding Policy A of Section 2.12 states, "Avoid economic segregation
by City sector." Implementing Policy B of Section 2.12 states that medium and medium-high
residential densities shall be allocatcd to development sites in all sectors of the Primary Planning
Area. The proposed introduction of housing at thc Enea Project site will be consistent with these
policies in that it provides for the construction of a small lot detached home, which is not
commonly available in the Primary Planning Area. The existing and planned transportation
system and utilities are sufficient to provide services to the proposed Medium-Density Residential
(6.1 -14.0 du/ac) land use designation at the Enea Project site, as the proposed residential
development would be less intensive than thc existing Retail/Office land use designation.
2. The proposed Amendment is appropriate for the subject property in terms ofland use
compatibility; will not overburden public services; and will provide a comprehensive plan for
development of the site as the proposed Medium-Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre)
land use would serve as a residential transition between the shopping center to the south and the
single-family homes to the north. The proposed residential land use would generally be more
compatible and in scale with the surrounding residential neighborhood than the cxisting
Retail/Office land use designation on the site. In addition, the proposed change would provide a
more compatible land use density relative to the Medium Density Residential development to the
west and the Medium-High Density Residential land use designation on property to the east of the
site.
4. The Amendment will not have a substantial adverse effect on public health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements,
as conditioned, because implementation measures have been incorporated into the project, based
on various environmental studies related to traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and
waste, and geotechnical impacts, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level ofless-than-
significance for development at the maximum density of the General Plan land use designation
range (14 dwelling units per acrc).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt the Amendment to the Dublin General Plan to change the land
use designation of the StaTWard Drive site from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0
units per acre) for thc Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project, P A 04-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2005 by the following votes:
AYES:
Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, Fasulkey, and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Cm. King
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
'.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-09
1/el'Z-Ø't) It I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
TO APPROVE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONING AND
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 04-006,
ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD ROW PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of a Planned Development District Rezoning and Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, in
conjunction with Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597, to subdivide a .77-
acre parcel (APN 941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) single-family dwellings and related improvemcnts on
land generally located north and east of StaTWard Drive, and north of the Shamrock Shopping Center;
and
WHEREAS, a completed application the Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning and Stage I
and 2 Development Plan and for each of the requested actions is available and on file in the Dublin
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project, including the Plann.ed
Development District Rezoning and Stage I and 2 Development Plan request, to assess any potential
significant environmental impacts which may result from the project. Various studies addressing
potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials and waste, and geotechnical impacts wcre
prepared for the project, and mitigation measures were recommended to reduce the identified potentia]
impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on this, a Mitigatcd Negative Declaration and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan werc prepared, and subsequent incorporation of all mitigation
measures recommendcd by thc various studies and the City's standards for construction in the Project
design, and further evaluation, has detennined that the Project, as designed and proposed, would not rcsult
in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental impacts have been reduced to a less-than-
significant level. The Mitigated Negativc Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are proposed
for adoption with this Project and are include in the attachments to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 25,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending Planning
Commission approval of a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of an Ordinance (in attached
Exhibit A) to establish the Planned Developmcnt District (PD) Rezoning and Stage I and Stage 2
Development Plan (in attached Exhibit A-I) for the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project,
P A 04-006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25,2005; and used their independentjudgmcnt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT thc Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the City Council make the following findings and determinations
regarding said proposed Planned Development District Rezoning and Development Plan:
1. The Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning is consistent with the general /(.,:¡3Jb if I
provisions, intent and purpose of the Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 8.32. The Planned Development Rezoning will be appropriate for tbe
. subject property in terms of setting forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses and Development
Standards as established in the Development Plan in attached Exhibit A-I, which will be
compatible with existing. commercial, industrial and residential uses in the immediate
vicinity, and wil1 enhance development of the general area; and
2. The Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning is consistent with the general
provisions, intent, and purpose of the Planned Development District of the Zoning
Ordinance, in that it contains all information required by Section 8.32 ofthe Zoning
Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H, of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
3. The Planned Development Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or
safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or
public improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met and, as conditioned,
mitigations described in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the project, in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 7597 and the associated Site Development Review for the Project,
that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a level ofless-than-significant; and
4. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not overburden pubJic services or
facilities as al1 agencies have commented that public services are available and sufficient to
meet the nceds of the development, and as the Applicant/Developer shall be required to
pay fees required hy service providers and other fees, including but not limited to, the
Public Facilities fee, to share the cost of providing City serviees to new development; and
5 The Planned Development District Rezoning wi11 be consistent with the policies of the
Dublin General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential because the
project will allow development at 14 dwelling units per acre within the density range
allowed by this General Plan land use designation, 6.1 - 14.0 dwelling units per aere, and
the maximum development under the density range has heen evaluated for potential
environmental impacts as stated in Finding 3, above; and
6. The Planned Development District Rezoning will create an attractive, efficicnt and safe
environment though development standards contained in the Stage I and 2 Development
Plan and Project Plans in attached Exhibit A-I, relative to setbacks, building height,
minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage; and fences; and
7. The Planned Development District Rezoning will benefit the publie necessity, convenience
and general welfare as it will develop a compatible residential subdivision in an established
residential community, near commercial services, shopping centers, City services such as
thc Senior Center, and public transportation such as WHEELS bus service; and
8. The Planned Development District Rezoning and the accompanying Site Development
Review will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area as it will
be developed pursuant to a comprehensive Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, containing
standards for setbacks, building height, minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, and
fences; and
2
·
9.
I/¿¡'f~ I,td
The Planned Development District Rezoning will provide an environment that encourages
the efficient use of common areas, as well as resources because the design of the shared
private street access to the garages of the homes will reduce the amount of driveway
paving on the site, increasing the land available for outdoor living areas.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
rccommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A) approving a Planned Development (PD)
District Rezoning and Stage I and 2 Development Plan (Exhibit A- ) for P A 04-006, the Enea Properties
Starward Row Residential Project, of Attachment 3 of the Staff report and attached hereto, dated January
25, 2005, which constitutes the regulations and standards for th.e use, improvement, and maintenance of
the property.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2005.
AYES:
Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, Fasulkey, and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Cm. King
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
g:\04-006\Planning Commission\pcres-pd.doc
3
EXIDBIT A-I
I liB Db \it
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND
STAGE I AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES STARWARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
P A 04-006
This is a Development Plan for P A 04-006 pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance for the property located at 7475 Starward Drive (APN 941-0173-002-02) located on the
eastern edge of Starward Drive and generally located in the Central Dublin area, north of Amador
Valley Boulevard. This Development Plan meets all ofthe requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2
review ofthe project.
This Development Plan is also represented by the accompanying General Plan Amendment, the Stage I
and 2 Site Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 7597), Preliminary Landscapc Plan, Preliminary
Grading and Utility Plan, and Floor Plans and Elevations, consisting of sheets dated January 10,2005,
labeled as Exhibit A-I to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan (City Council Ordinance No.
_- 05), and on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. The Planned
Development Zoning District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while
ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32
of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
The Development Plan consists of:
I. A Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for I parcel, known as the Enea Properties Starward Row
Residential Project, consisting of approximately. 77 acres.
The Stage I and 2 Development Plan meets the requirements of Section 8.32.040.B of the Zoning
Ordinance and consists of the following:
I. Stage I and 2 Site Plan
2. Statement of Proposed Uses
3. Site Arca and Proposed Densities
4. Development Regulations
5. Dublin Zoning Ordinanee - Applicable Requirements
6. Lot Coverage
7. Architectura Standards
8. Conceptual Landscaping Plan
9. lnclusionary Housing Provisions
STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. Zoning. This PD Planned Development Zoning District is to provide for and regulate the
development of the Enea Properties Starward Row Residential Project as shown on the attached
Project Plans. The General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential, consistent
with the Dublin General Plan, as amended, for one .77-acre parcel at 7475 Starward Drive (APN
941-0173-002-02).
2. Statement of Proposed/Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted for this site:
EXHIBIT A-I
~iA'b It\
A. PD Medium Dcnsity Rcsidential
Intent:
The Medium-Density land use designations are established to: a) provide for and
protect a community of detached, single-family homcs and residential uses typical of
a quiet, family-living environment; b) provide appropriately located space for
outdoor living, such as fenced play areas; c) provide opportunities for a greater
pedestrian-oriented, landscaped streetscape along Starward Drive; d) provide
adequate spacc to mcct the parking needs of residents and guests; and e) provide an
attractive and appropriate transition between the residential neighborhoods to the
north, east, and west and the commercial shopping center to the south.
Intensity of Use: 6.1 - 14.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Œ'es:
Per the R -I Zoning District.
Conditional Use.ç:
Per the R-I Zoning District.
Accessory Uses:
All Accessory Uses shall bc in accordance with Section 8.40 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
Prohibited Uses:
Per the R-I Zoning District
3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. Thc Stage I and 2 Site Plan consists of Sheet SP-1 of the Project Plans
as attached, dated January 10, 2005.
4. Site Area and Proposed Densities. The Project Site consists of one parcel totaling. 77 acres to be
developed with ten (10) detached residences on individual lots following subdivision, for an
average density of 14 dwelling units per acre.
5. Development Regulations. Residential development regulations have been established to ensure
that the proposed buildings and site plan achieve the desired design character and development
quality. The regulations set forth the minimum requirements necessary for planning of the
property. Refer to City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance for any regulations not specified below.
A. Setbacks
Front Yard:
From public right-of·way (Starward Drivc): 10 feet average with a range of2...H
fcet to 15 feet on curved lots. Porches may project up to a maximum of 5 feet to
EXffiBIT A-l
I(&,Î~ltl
the front property line. Steps of porches or porticos may encroach I to 2 feet into
the 5- foot setback.
Side Yard:
From private roadway: 5 feet
To property line: 3 feet to 5 feet to parcel boundary as shown on Project Plans
Between units: 6 feet
From garages to sidc property linc: I' 8" and 2' 8"
Between garages: 4'4" and 5'8"
Rear yards:
As shown on Site Plan. Average distance of 37 feet from dwelling to rear property
line. A vefage distance between garage and unit: 18 feet with 11.5 feet minimum
as shown on Project Plans. Distance from garage to fear property line: a minimum
of3 feet. Rear yard setback shall be reduced for Lot 10 to five (5) feet due to
unusual site constraints caused by the curve of Starward Drive, as shown on
Project Plans.
Architectural Projections:
Any architcctural projections into setback areas, other than porches or porticos
mentioned in ftont yard setback regulations above, and those approved on with the
Project Plans, must be approved prior to construction through the Site Development
Review process.
B. Height of Building
No building or structure shall have a height in excess of 29 feet.
No building shall excced two-stories in height.
Living space over garage shall not exceed 23.5 feet in height.
C. Lot size and dimensions:
Minimum lot size shall be 2,143 square fcet.
Minimum lot width shall be 26 feet
Minimum lot depth shall be approximately 80 feet.
D. Accessory Structures: All accessory structures shall bc rcgulatcd in accordance with
Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance.
E. Parking: Parking shall be provided pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, Off-Street
Parking and Loading, for single-family residential development.
F. Reciprocal Easements and Privacy: The development of this property is predicated on
the reciprocal use of side and rear yards through the granting of exclusive use easements.
The purpose ofthis easement is to utilizc the passive side of the home to increase thc
active exterior open space of the home on the adjacent lot thereby creating increased
personal private yard areas. Penetrations to the passive side of the home (windows, etc.)
shall be limited, opaque material, above normal eye level and away from direct line of site
to insure maximum privacy. These requirements shall be governed by Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) to assure compliance and enforceability.
EXIDBIT A-I
6. Phasing Plan. Thc Projcct Site will be constructed in one phase.
t~ß~\~1
7. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements. Except as specifically modified by the
provisions of this Planned Development District RezoninglDevelopment Plan, the use,
development, improvement, and maintenance of property within this PD Zoning District shall be
subject to the provisions of the R-I, Single-Family Residential Zoning District of the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinancc with regard to permitted/conditional uses, land use restrictions,
minimum/maximum development criteria, and shall be subject to all other general Zoning
Ordinance provisions and standards.
8. Maximum Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage for Lots 1-7 and Lot 10 shall not exceed 54%.
Maximum lot coverage for Lot 8 shalJ not exceed 54.4% and maximum lot coverage for Lot 9
shall not exceed 56.2%.
9. Architectural Standards. Refer to Project PJans, Sheets A-I to A-4, attachcd. Any
modifications to the project design shall be substantially consistent with thesc plans and of equal
or superior materials and design quality. and in conformance with the Site Development Review
for the Proiect.
10. Landscaping Plan. Refer to Project Plans, Sheet L-I, Conceptual Landscape Plan. All project
monumentation and entry signs shall conform to Sheet L-I. A Final Landscaping Plan wi11 be
required to be submitted and approved prior to building pennit issuance.
11. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. This projcct is cxempt from the lnclusionary Zoning Ordinance
provisions as thc size of the project is fewer than 20 units. No Below Market Rate (BMR) units
arc required to be identified on the site plan and made a component ofthe project unless revisions
to unit count increase the number of dwellings to 20 units or greater, pursuant to the lnclusionary
Zoning Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68).
EXHIBIT A-I
RESOLUTION NO. 05.11
It.ø&t'b \'<1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL O}' A
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES STARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(P A 04-006)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail/Office to
Mcdium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre), a Planned Development District Rczoning and
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Revicw to subdivide a .77- acre parcel (APN
941-0173-002-02) for ten (10) single-family dwellings and related improvements on land generally
located north and east ofStarward Drive, and north of the Shamrock Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for eaeh of the requested actions, including the Site
Development Review, is available and on file in the Dublin Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an
initial study consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 for the Project, including the request for
Site Development Review, to assess any potential significant environmental impacts whieh may result
from the project. Various studies addressing potential traffic and air quality, noise, hazardous materials
and waste, and geotechnical impacts were prepared for the project, and mitigation measures were
recommended to reduce the identified potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on this, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan were prepared, and
subsequent incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended by the various studies and the City's
standards for eonstruction in the Project design, and further evaluation, has determined that the Project, as
designed and proposed, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. All potential environmental
impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program are proposed for adoption with this Project and are include in the
attachments to the Staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 25,
2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a StatrReport was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City
Council approval of Site Development Review tor the Project, subject to Conditions of Approva
contained in this Resolution, and recommending the Planning Commission transfer approval authority of
the project to the City Council pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and in conjunction with the
before mentioned appJications for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth on January 25, 2005 and used their independent judgment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the City Council make the following fmdings and determinations
regarding said proposed Site Development Review:
1. Approval of this application (P A 04-006) as conditioned is consistent with the purposes
and intent of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as
I
it will promote orderly, attractive and harmonious sitc development compatible W}t~~i~ IiI
constraints and compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods, because the
projcct's building elevations, landscaping, colors and materials reflect those of
development in the project vicinity.
2. The approval of this application, as conditioned, will comply with the policies ofthc
General Plan, as proposed for amendment, and the Planned Development Rezoning and the
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project which allows for residential
devclopment at a density of 14 dwelling units per acre for a total of j 0 single-family homes
at this location.
3. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health,
safety, and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances of
the City of Dublin and implements the General Plan, as proposed for amendment.
4. The proposed site development, including sitc layout, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety, and similar elements, as conditioned, has
been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development.
5. The Project has been designed with consideration given to the character, scale, and quality
of the architcctural dcsign and detailing with regard to the site and the surrounding
residential development. The Project will provide a unique residential development of 10
dwelling units which is compatible with the urban nature of the neighborhood, and along
with the Conditions of Approval in this Resolution, will provide a high quality residential
subdivision.
5. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of
plant materials, and similar elements (shown on Sheet L·j of Exhibit C to Attachment 3),
have been made to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment to the public as ITont
yard landscaping, street trees, and a landscaped sidewalk strip will support the pedestrian-
oriented character of the development's porches and porticos to create an attractive place
for residents and pedestrians to walk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend City Council approval of the Site DeveJopment Review for the Enea Properties Starward Row
Residential Project, P A 04-006, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, and subject to City
Council approval ofthe proposed General pJan Amendment and Planned Development District Rezoning!
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan, and approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 by the
Planning Commission.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuancc of
building oennits or establishment of use. and shall be subject to Department of Communi tv Development
review and approval. The following codcs represent those deoartments/agencies responsible for
monitoring comoliance of the conditions ofaoproval. [PL.l Planning. fB] Building. fPO] Police. rPWl
Public Works fADM] Administration/Citv Attomev. fFINl Finance. fFl Dublin Fire Department. fDSRl
Dublin San Ramon Services District. fCOl Alameda Countv Department of Environmental Health. fITl
lnfonnation Technologv Department.
2
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
III Lb ISI
Development pursuant to the Site Development Review approval for P A 04~006 shall generally conform
to the following plans and documents availablc and on filc in conjunction with the Planned Development
Stage I and 2 Development Plan in the Department of Community Development, as conditioned:
Architectural and Project Plans prepared by Craig + Grant Architects, Inc. for "Starward Row" dated
January 10,2005; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7597 and Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
prepared by DeBolt Engineering, dated January 10, 2005; and a Conceptual Landscape Plan, Shcet L-I of
Project Plans, prepared by Borrecco/Kilian and Associates, dated November 12,2004, by the City of
Dublin. The Site Development Review shall also generally conform to the Colors and Materials Board
received on October I, 2004, and the Streetscape ElevationlView submitted by the Applicant/Developer,
which are on file in the City of Dublin Community Dcvelopment Department.
1. Standard Conditions. The project shall comply with the PL,B Through Standard
Cit of Dublin Site Develo ment Review Standards. Com letion
2. Fees. App1icant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Various Various times, Standard
effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but no later
but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin than Issuance
San Ramon Services District Fees, Pub1ic Facilities Fees, of building
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public permits
Works Traffic Impact fees, Dublin Fire Services fees;
Noise Mitigation fees; Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water
Connection fees; and any other fees in effect at the time
of building permit issuance. Unissued building permits
subsequent to new or revised T[F's shan be subject to
recalculation and assessment of the fair share ofthe new
or revised fees.
3. Colors and Materials Board. The colors and materials PW Issuance of Standard
uti1ized in the project shall conform with the Colors and Building
Materials Board submitted by the Applicant/Developer Permits
dated received October I, 2004, and the Streetscape
ElevationlView submitted by the ApplicantlDeveloper.
Any changes to colors or materials shall be subject to
approval of the Director of Community Development to
reflect an chan es made durin ro'- ect review.
4. Hou.e Number. List. Applicant/Developer shall submit PL,F Issuance of Standard
a house numbers list corresponding lots shown on the Building
Tentative Map. Said list is subject to approval of the Permits
Director of Community Development. Approved numbers
or addresses shall be placed on the homes. The address
shall be positioned to be plainly visible and legihle from
the street fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their back rounds.
5. Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall PL Approval of Standard
be valid for one year from approval by the Planning Improvement
Commission. If construction has not commenced by that Plans
time, this approval shall be null and void. The approval
period for Site Development Review may be extended six
(6) additional months by the Director of Community
Dcvc10 ment u on determination that the Conditions of
3
6.
Approval remain adequate to assure that the findings of
approval will continue to be met. (Applicant/Developer
must submit a written request for the extension prior to
the ex iration date of the Site Develo ment Review.
Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in PL
accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 ofthe Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation ofthe terms or conditions of
this a roval shall be sub' ect to citation.
Plot Plans. Plotting Plans for each phase of the project PL
and dwelling unit type shall he submitted by the
Applicant/Developer to the Department of Community
Development for approval by the Director of Community
Development prior to submitting for building pennits in
each res ective hase.
Automatic Garage Door Opcners. Automatic garage B, PL
door openers shall be provided t'Or all dwelling units and
shall be of a roll-up type. Garage doors sha11 not intrude
into the public right-of-way. Garage for Lot 10 sha11 have
two automatic ara e door 0 eners.
Modification or Amendment to Approved Site PL
Dcvclopment Review. Modification or Amendment to
an approved Site Development Review shall be pursuant
to Section 8.104.090 ofthe Zoning Ordinance, The
process for amending a Site Development Review shall be
the same as the process for approving a Site Development
Review exccpt that the decisiomnakcr for minor changes
in the Site Development Review for individual lots shall
be the Communit Deve10 ment Director.
On-going
Issuance of
Building
Pennits
Occupancy of
Unit
On-going
It/
Municipal
Code
Standard
Standard
Z.O.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Building and Fire Codes. The project shall comply with B, F
Uniform Building Code and Fire Codc as adopted by the
City of Dublin including opening and wall rating based on
distance from ro ert line.
Smoke detectors. The Applicant/Developer shall provide B, F
smoke detectors in accordance with the California
Buildin Code section 310.9.
Survey. Due to the proximity of the dwellings, PL
foundation fonns shall be surveyed to verify location prior
to foundation inspection.
11.
12.
13.
Building Permits. To apply t'Or building penn its, the B, PL, PW
Applicant shall submit eight (8) sets of full construction
plans for plan check. Each set of plaus shall have
attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. Thc notations shall clearly indicate how all
Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Construction plans will not bc acccptcd without the
annotated conditions attached to cach set of plans. The
Applicant/Developer will be responsible for compliance
with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the
approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of build in or radin ennits.
Construction Plans. Construction lans shall be full B, PL, PW
14.
4
Issuance of
building
permit
Issuance of
building
ermit
PrÎorto
issuance of
Building
PermÎt and
on- om
Prior to
issuance of
building
pennits
UBC and
FC
UBC
PL
,PL,PW
Prior to iSl"iuance .? PL, PW
\t61
15.
dimensioned (including building clevations) accurateiy
drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on
site), and prepared and signed by a Califomia licensed
Architect or Engine~'T. The site plan, landscape pian and
details shall be consistent with each other.
Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B, PL
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with
materials compatible to the main building and shall not be
roof-mounted. Units shall be permanently installed on
concrete pads or other non-movable materials to be
approved by the Building Official and the Director of
Community Development. Air conditioning units shall be
located such that each dwelling unit has one side yard with
an unobstructed width of not less than 36 inches. Air
conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the
PD text.
Postal authorities. Thc developer shall confer with the PL
local postal authorities to determine the type of mail
receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their
satisfaction with the type of mail service to be provided.
Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction
of the Postal Service.
Engineer Observation. The Engineer ofrecord shall be B, PL
retained to provide observation services for all components
of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including
nailing, holdowns, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. Engineer shall certify
elevations above grade of floors and roof framing. A
written report shall he submitted to the City Inspector prior
to schedu1in the final frame ins ection.
Fireplaces. W ood-buming fireplaces are prohibited. B
of building
penni'"
Prior to , PL
Occupancy of
Unit
16.
Prior to issuance Standard
of Building
Pennit
17.
Prior to Final Standard
Frame Inspection
and Ongoing
18.
Issuance of Standard
building permit
and on- roin
Issuance of UBC
building permit
and on-going.
19.
Construction within 3 feet of the property line shall be B
I-hour rated construction in both R-3 and V-I occupancies
ofTVN construction. An projections from the exterior of
the buildings with 3 feet setback of the property line shall
be of I-hour construction. Overhangs i projections may
only project up to 12 incbes into areas where openings are
prohibited. Openings in R-3 are prohibited within 3 feet of
the property line; therefore no projections are permitted
closer than 24 inches to the property line. (503.2 and Tahle
SA CB; sheet SP-I. Please see section 705 for
ro' ectionswithin the re uired setbacks for 0 enin s.
Electrical and Gas Meters. The ApplicantlDeveloper B, PL
shall submit the locations of aU electrical and gas meters to
the Community Development Director for review and
a rovalof ro osed locations.
Floor elevations. Pad and fInish tloor e1evation B, PW, PL
certification may be required to certify overall height and
height above flood plain. Under-floor areaS are not
permitted in an area within the 100-year oflower flood
1ain.
Green Buildio Goidelines. To the extent Tactical, the B
5
On- om Standard
20.
Issuance of B
Building
Permits
Prior to issuance Standard
of Building
Pennit
21.
22.
IiI
applicant shall incorporate Green Building Measures.
Green Building Plan shall be incorporated into
construction plans submitted to the Building Division for
review. A eopy of suggested Green Building techniques
and materials is available from the Buildin Division.
Street Name Sign Content. Street name signs shall
display the name of the street together with a City
standard shamrock logo. Posts shall be galvanized steel
i e.
24. GradinglSitework Permit. All site improvement work PW Issuance of PW
and public right-of-way work must be performed per a Grading Permit
Grading/Sitework Permit issued by the Public Works
Department. Said permit will be based on the final set of
improvement plans to be approved once all ofthe plan
check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the
handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit
Application Instructions and attached application (three 8-
1/2" x II" pages) for more information. The
ApplicantlDeveloper must fill in and return the applicant
information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost
of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance,
although the Applicant/Developer will be responsib1e for
an ado ted increases to the fee amount.
25. Improvement and Grading Plans. All improvement PW Issuance of PW
and grading plans submitted to the Public Works Grading Permit
Department for review/approval shall be prepared in
accordance with the approved Tentative Map, these
Conditions of Approval, and the City of Dublin Municipal
Code including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). When
submitting plans for review/approval, the
AppJicantIDeveloper shall also fill-out and submit a City
of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Checklist (three 8-
1/2" x 11" pages). Said checklist includes necessary
design criteria and other pertillent infonnation to assure
that plans are submitted in accordance with established
City standards. The plans shall also reference the current
City <1Dubiin Standard Plans (booklet), and shall illclude
applicable City ojDubiin Improvement Plan General
Notes (three 8-1/2" x 11" pages). For on-site
improvements, the ApplicantlDeveloper shall adhere to
the City's On-site Checklist (eight 8-1/2" x II" pages).
All of these reference documents are available ITom the
Public Works Department (call tclephone 925-833-6630
for more information .
26. Retaining Walls. Where finish grade of this property is PW Issuance of Standard!
ill excess of twenty-four (24) inches higher or lower than Building Permit PW
the abutting property or adjacent lots within the
subdivision, a concrete Or masonry block retaining wall or
other suitable solution acceptable 10 the Direetor of Public
Works/City Engineer shall be required and any fence or
wall height shall be measured from the top of grade on the
hi her side of the retainin wall or sJo e.
6
I~(
27_ Walls and Fences. All walls and fcnccs shall confonn to PL Occupancy of Z.O.
Section 8.72.080 of the Zoning Ordinancc unless Unit
otherwise required by this resolution.
Construction/installation of common/shared fences for all
side and rear yards shall be the responsibility of
ApplicantlDeveloper. Coru;truction shall comply with
fence detail submitted with the Project Plans, Sheets D-l
and D-2. The perimeter masonry wall on the south side of
the ro - ect shall be at a minimum hei ht of seven feet.
28. Fencing. A detailed fcncing/wall plan shall bc submitted PW,PL Approval of Standard
with the improvement plans for the Hrst phase of Improvement
development. The design, height, and location ofthe Plans
fences/waJJs sbaH be subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development. Wall sections shall not be
butted together but separated by pilasters_ The site shall
be secured during construction with temporary security
fencin .
29. Wall or Fence Heights. All wall or fence heights shall PW Approval of Standard
be a minimum 6 feet high (except in those locations Improvement
where Section 8.72.080 ofthe Zoning Ordinance requires Plans
lower fence heights). All walls and fences shall be
designed to ensure clear vision at all street interscctions to
the satisfaction ofthc Director of Public Works.
30. Uniform Building Security Code. All rcsidential P On-going URSC
buildings shall be constructcd in accordance with the
currently adopted Unifonn Building Security Code,
pursuant to Chapter 7.32.220 of the Dublin Municipal
Code.
31. Perimeter Fencing. The Applicant/Developer shall fence P,PW Prior to Standard
the perimeter ofthe project site and utilize security grading and
lighting, alann system, surveillance cameras, and patrols through
as necessary. The Applicant/Developer shall work with completion of
the Dublin Police Services Department On an on-going the project
basis to establish an effective theft prevention and
security program. All construction activities shall be
confined to within the fenced area. Construction
materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored
outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-
way unless approved in advance by the City
En ineer/Public Works Director.
32. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. PL,PW Issuance of Standard
ApplicantIDevcloper shall submit a Final Landscaping Building
and Irrigation Plan, confonning to the requirements of Pennits or
Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless according to
otherwise required by this Resolution). The plans shall be Phased
stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works Occupancy
and the Director of Community Development. That plan Plan,
should generally confonn to the Site Plan and Conceptual whichever is
Landscape Plan prepared by Borrecco/Kilian and Hrst
Associates, shown in the project plans as Sheet L-1. It
must reflect an revised ro' ect desi n shown on the
7
33.
Tentative Map with a later date. All trees shall be 24-inch
box size and all shrubs shall be 5-gallon size. All utilities
shall be effectively screened. The existing multi-branch
palm tree, chamaerops humilis, shall be preserved on site
within Lot 1.
Review. Shrub, vine, espalier, perennial, and ground
cover varieties shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Communit Develo ment.
Fire-resistant or drought tolerant plant varieties. Fire-
resistant or drought tolerant plant varieties shall be
re uired in the lant alette.
Backßow devises. Backflow devises shall be hidden
from view by means of fencing, enclosures, landscaping
and/or berms.
Lawn sprinkler control valve. Lawn sprinkler
controllers shall be located in the rear yards ofthe
residences.
Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and
Maintenance Agreement. ApplicantlDeveloper shall
sign and submit a signed copy of the City of Dublin
Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and
Maintenance Agreement prior to the occupancy of any
units.
Water Efficient Landscape Regulations.
ApplicantlDeveloper shall ensure that the Final
Landscaping and Irrigation Plan conforms to the City's
Water Efficient Landscape Regulations, including dual
i in to facilitate future rec cled water.
PL Issuance of Standard
Building
Permits
PL,F Issuance of Standard
Building
Permits
PL Issuance of Standard
Grading
Permits
B,PL Issuance of Standard
Building
Permits
PL Occupancy of Standard
Any Unit
PL,PW,
DSR
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
Standard
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance of
an Occupancy Permit, the physical condition ofthe
project site shall meet minimum health and safety
standards including, but not limited to the following:
a. The streets and walkways providing access to each
building shall be complete, as determined by the City
EngineerlPublic Works Director, to allow for safe,
unobstructed pedestrian and vehicle access to and from
the site.
b. All traffic control devices on streets providing access
to the site shall be in place and fully functional.
c. All street name signs and address numbers for streets
providing access to the buildings shall be in place and
visible.
d. Lighting for the streets and site shall be adequate for
safety and security. All streetlights on streets providing
access to the buildings shall be energized and functioning.
Exterior lighting shall be provided for building
entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security
lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police.
e. All construction equipment, materials, or on-going
work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing,
barricades caution ribbon, or other means a roved b
8
PW, B, PL
Occupancy of
First Building
PW
\~I
the City Engineer/Public Works Director.
f. All fire hydrants shall be operable and easily
accessible to City and ACFD personnel.
g. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e.
HlC parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be
installed and fully functional.
40.
Refuse Collection Areas. The refuse collection areas PL
within the project shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director and the refuse collection service
provider to ensure that adequate space is provided to
accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible solid
waste as well as source-separated recyclable materials
enerated b the residents ofthe ro· ect.
Decorative Entrance Lights. The ApplicantlDeveloper PL
shall submit the final design ofthe two decorative
entrance light posts for review and approval by the
Communit Deve1 ment Director.
Glare/Reflective Finishes. The use of reflective fmishes PL
on building exteriors is prohibited. In order to control the
effects of glare within this subdivision, reflective glass
shall not be used on all east-facin windows.
Details. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant! BL
Developer shall submit revised architcctural elevations to
the Director of Community Development for review and
approval for all architectural styles indicating additional
architectural embellishments (belly bands, sill bands,
shutters, etc.) for the passive building wall. Architectural
plans submitted for Building Pennit applications shall
indicate window recesses Of reveals of 2 to 3 inches on all
elevations to the satisfaction ofthe Community
Develo ment Director.
Fence on Eastern Property Line. lfthe fence which lies PL
along the eastern property line is found to be in poor
condition or is damaged during construction, the
ApplicantJDcveloper shall replace the fence with a new
fence that is equivalent in design and construction. Fence
plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director or his designee for review and approval prior to
construction.
Lot Coverage Increases. Increases in lot coverage on PL
approved lots shall be generally prohibited due to the
amount of coverage approved for each of the 10 lots with
this Project. However, minor adjus1ments to lot coverage
may be permitted by a Conditional Use Permit approved
for the lot b the Plannin Commission.
On-going PD
Approval of Standard
Improvement
Plans
41.
Approval of Standard
Improvement
Plans
42.
Issuance of Standard
Building
Permits
43.
Building Standard
Pennit
Issuance
44.
On-going PD
45.
46.
Geographic Information System. Once the City PW, IT
EngineerfPublic Works Director approves the
development project, a digital vectorized file on floppy or
CD ofthe Improvement Plans .shall be submitted to the
City and DSRSD. Digital raster copies are not acceptable.
The di ital vectorized fi1es shall be in AutoCAD 14 or
9
Acceptance of Standard
improvements
by City
Council.
¡<J/
higher drawing format or ESRI Shapefile format.
Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of 0.00.
An objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer
and named in English, although abbreviations are
acceptable. All submitted drawings shall use the Global
Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone Ill, and U.S. foot. Said
submittal shall be acceptable to the City's GIS
Coordinator.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2005 by the following votes:
AYES:
Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, Fasulkey, and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cm. King
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Plmming Manager
10
flt-óC¡-cJ-ð (..
t::He:;vj 'ð7~
11~¡~1
"0':'", II'JJJ (" /.'\P' ~ø
~'~:~;,¡~;,¡, :!'::n ~,',:';U'·' ",J
"~I" 'f::~ \," :1.,.
" ILE] ',I .:...¡
To: City of Dublin Planning Commission
Frum: Jenny Rustmann and William Atwood
cc:
Date: 01124/05
_ 7475 starward Drive SFR Development Project
We live at 7872 Oxbow Lane. Our southem property line is across the drainage from the proposed
Starward Dr development We have come 10 appreciate the privacy and solitude of our home and
backyard; tt was one of the elements that drew us 10 the house.
We have looked at the plans for the Starward property and have the following concems. First, there will
be a two-story homa in place of the current one-story office building. We feel the height and proximity of
the building will significanUy infringe on our privacy. We are limited in our ability to preserve our privacy:
the low power iines on our south em border restrict the height of trees we may grow. These trees are
currently just tall enough to SCf'I!en the exiting office building. We do not know the best way 10 resolve
this issue, but request It be addressed by the planning committee.
For comparison, the houses on the west side of Starward Drive have both a sound barrier wall and a
roadway to separate those homes from the properties north of the drainage. We ask for the same
courtesy. The position of L'bt #1 is adjacent to the drainage. The plans did not Indicate any type of
privacy wall along the northem border of the property. Without a wall, headlights from cars driving
behind the homes will shine direotiy into Our backyard and home. We will also be impacted by the
additional noise and yard and room lights. Without a street as a buffer between us and Lot #1, we will
easily be able to see the two-story house. We will be able to see inlo their second story windows, and
they will easily be able to view our back yerd over the tops of our trees.
In summary, we request a privacy wall On the northem border of the property. We also prefer the
access drive to be located along the drainage, instead of near the center of the property. These two
suggestions will help maintain our privacy, but do not completely resolve the issue. We hope the
planning commission can suggest additional solutions to protect our neighbors' and our own privacy.
Sincerely,
~~2~
WJL: tv f/!.v~J
Jenny Rustmann
William Atwood
~ Od" 51-5. 'i Ö&, {¡, 10
~J~.. 2:SS- 652,"//...
:.. '.~ ~'. ~ ~_IIo.'
JAN 2 5 2005
DUBUNPLANNING
. Page 1
p. 'if"" A :P'"~ 'II"'MT
A ~ ~ A\J·Èt',ldi~~r·i'
c¡
~
I
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
North Elevation of Residence on Lot 10
Enea Properties Starward Row Residential
P A 04-006
\~Itl
UNIT A - NORTH ELEVATION
CRAFTSMAN STYLE
~. !AI". 11.0"
~.~ ~.~-~~. ;~' .
ON LOT 1 <oNLY)
IJTM. tw.F OP a..AZN]
TO lIE ~II::U
.; ~
"
UNIT A - NORTH, ELEVATION
IT ALIANA TE STYLE
IIUoLeo !AI". 1'-0"
t1rrA(r'~MfNr '0
·
Proposed Wooden Fence
.long Property Lines
Aerial Map - Attachment 10
t
\~Iðbl<%'{
N
Zone 7 Drainage
Easement
(20 feet)
Proposed Lot I