HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-041.1 & .2 Vlgs at Alamo Creek PD, Rez, & TMap 5511 02-18-1986
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 18, 1986
Planning Commission
Planning Staff ~ ~~
PA 85-041.1 & .2 ~llageS at Alamo Creek -
Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and
Subdivision Map (Tentative Map 5511) requests
for a planned development with 1,165 proposed
residential dwelling units, a convenience
food store, a five-plus acre neighborhood
park site and common open space parcels
involving a 135~ acre property located along
Dougherty Road in the northeast corner of the
City of Dublin.
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT:
Village I:
Village II:
Village III:
Village IV:
ITEM NO.
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning proposal
for 1,165 dwelling units and a small
convenience store. Subdivision Map approval
for a 156 lot subdivision is concurrently
requested and proposes the following lotting
pattern: Lots 1 through 146 for the proposed
single family residential lots; Lots 147
through 152 - being one lot for each
respective multiple family residential
village (to accommodate a total of 1,019
multiple family residential units which are
proposed for subsequent subdivision into
condominium air-space units); Lot 153 - for
the proposed 17,500+ square foot commercial
lot; and Lots 154 through 156 for flood
control right-of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard
right-of-way and improvements, the entry road
right-of-way and improvements servicing
Villages VI and VII, and rough grading for
the entire project. An individual Final Map
is proposed to be filed for each Village as
construction phasing begins.
The proposed Villages can be summarized as
follows:
60 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 4.q+ Gross
Residential Acres (GRA). Three bedroom units at 1,055 gross
sq. ft., 15 two story buildings.
248 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 17.1+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft.,
19 two story buildings and 8 three story buildings.
216 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 15.0+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq~ ft.,
18 two story buildings and 6 three story buildings.
152 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 10.7~ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft.,
10 two story buildings and 6 three story buildings.
V-j ~
j~
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
\Jillage V:
192 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 13.6+ GRA.
One, two and 3 bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft., 15
two story buildings and 6 three story buildings.
Village VI:
146 single family lots on 26.8+ GRA. One and 2 story; three
and four bedroom units at 1,418 to 2,075 sq. ft.
Village VII: 151 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 11.8+ GRA.
Tentatively planned two and three bedroom units at 957 to
1,055 gross sq. ft., 29 two story buildings.
APPLICANTS
AND REPRESENTATIVES:
Ron Nahas/Mark Rafanelli
Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development
20638 Patio Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94546
PROPERTY OWNERS:
Larry C.Y. Lee, Campion Investment, LTD.
and Standard Nominees LTD.
1275 "A" Street
Hayward, CA 94541
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
941-500-2-1, 941-500-2-4, 941-500-7,
941-500-8 and 946-101-1-2
PARCEL SIZE AND LOCATION: The proposed Villages at Alamo Creek project
covers Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No. 4575 located in the north-
eastern part of the City of Dublin. The 135+ acre site fronts on the west
side of Dougherty Road, and extends along th; road for 4,200~ feet. A 4.5+
acre portion of the site is located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road. The remainder
of the site is located north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The site is
bordered on the west by the South Dougherty Hills, on the north by the City
of San Ramon and Contra Costa County. Across Dougherty Road to the east is
the U.S. Army Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The site is
approximately 1.25 miles north of Interstate Highway 580. (Site location
is shown on Background Attachment 4.) The Gross Residential Acreage
proposed for residential development is 99.9 GRA.
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: The elevation range for the site is from 355
feet in the southwest corner to 510 feet in the northwest. The eastern
part of the site is relatively flat. The site west of Alamo Creek slopes
gradually upward to the Dougherty Hills. Alamo Creek enters the site at
the northwest corner, flows in a meandering configuration from north to
south, and exits the site at the southwest corner of the property. The
creek has steep eroded banks, and mature riparian vegetation within the
creek channel. The rest of the site is covered by annual grassland, used
primarily for grazing. No paved roads or other improvements are on the
site. An unpaved road enters the site midway along Dougherty Road. The
4.5~ acre portion of the site located on the south side of Amador Valley
Boulevard is presently zoned C-N, Neighborhood Business. The remainder of
the site is zoned R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential Combining District.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, grazing lands in the City
of San Ramon. Zoning is P-1, Planned Unit Development District. General
Plan designation on the site is Low Density Single Family Residential; this
designation may change during the City of San Ramon's General Plan revision
program now underway.
East: Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The training area
is on 2,268 acres, with 1,633 acres in predominantly open space used for
field maneuvering and weapons ranges. The remainder is used for canton-
ment, administration, and storage buildings. The camp currently lies in
the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. Zoning is A, Agricultural
District. (See Background Attachment 5 - Schematic Land Use Layout of Camp
Parks' Facility.)
-2-
South: Pleasant on Housing Authority Multiple Family Residential Project.
The housing project consists of 150 units and is located south of Amador
Valley Boulevard. Zoning is PD, Planned Development District. This
project will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin in
the near future.
West: Open space areas adjoining the planned and approved ISO-unit Dublin
Hills Single Family Residential Project and the Alameda County Flood
Control District, Zone 7 reservoir site. Zoning is PD, Planned Development
District.
ZONING HISTORY: The subject property was rezoned from A-2, Agricultural
District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and
the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning
designation R-1-B-5 was subsequenty relettered to its current form R-1-B-E.
A 1973 County Ordinance applied a 70' special building setback line for
Dougherty Road (as measured from each side of the existing center line).
On April 15, 1985, Ron Nahas, with Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate
Development, received Planning Commission approval for a four-parcel minor
subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was
requested to facilitate an option agreement the applicant had with the
property owner.
A specific condition imposed on the Tentative Parcel Map was that the
proposed East Dougherty Hills park site be reviewed and approved by the
City as regards size, configuration, access and location prior to the
recordation of the Parcel Map. Changes in the park site resulting from the
City's review were to have been reflected on the recorded Parcel Map.
On July 15, 1985, the Planning Commission, acting on an appeal of a Staff
determination, required that a qualified park designer be hired to analyze
the East Dougherty Hills park site as regards the review parameters listed
above.
Mr. Philip Singer, of Singer and Hodges, Inc., Landscape Architecture,
subsequently prepared a draft report with recommendations regarding the
proposed park site.
At the August 5, 1985, joint meeting of the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Planning Commission, the Commissions concurred with the
park designer's recommendations which called for the following two general
changes:
1) Exclusion of the Alamo Creek right-of-way, and that portion of the
proposed park east of the creek from the proposed park site.
2) Enlargement to the minimum five acre size of the section of proposed
park site on the west of the creek.
At the City Council meeting of August 12, 1985, the Council decided to
accept the park layout proposed by the applicant (i.e., a split-park layout
consisting of a section 1.33~ acres in size on the east side of Alamo
Creek, a section of 4.24+ acres in size on the west side of Alamo Creek,
and a 2.68+ acre section-of the creek lying between the two sections of the
proposed p;rk). The Council's actions facilitated the recordation of the
Parcel Map for the four-parcel subdivision.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
A. STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, Section 66477 (i) regarding Planned
Development Park Dedication reads in part:
Planned developments shall be eligible to receive a credit, as
determined by the legislative body, against the amount of land
required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed for the
value of private open space within the development which is usable
for active recreational uses.
-3-
B. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Title 8, Chapter I, Alameda County Subdivision Ordinance as adopted and
amended by the City of Dublin, reads in part:
8-1-2 INTENT. It is the intent of this chapter to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare; to assure in the division of the
land consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan and with
the intent and provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate
lot design, street patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public
facilities with community and neighborhood plans; to insure the area
dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so
as not to be a future burden upon the community; to reserve natural
resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain suitable
standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and to prevent
hazard to life and property.
8-7.5 CREDIT FOR PRIVATE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. The
Advisory Agency at its discretion may reduce the land or fees
required under Section 8-7.4 by an amount equivalent to 25 percent of
the area of land in the subdivision which is to be used for private
park and recreational facilities, provided that:
(a) The subdivision, or that portion of it for which the credit
would apply, constitutes a neighborhood.
(b) Land or dedication fee requirements shall not be reduced by an
amount equivalent to more than two acres.
(c) The private park and recreation facilities:
(1) Have sites of at least one-half acre in area.
(2) Are owned by a homes association composed of all property
owners in the neighborhood and being an incorporated
nonprofit organization capable of dissolution only by a
100 percent affirmative vote of the membership, operated
under recorded land agreements through which each lot
owner in the neighborhood is automatically a member, and
each lot is subject to a charge for maintaining the
facilities.
(3) Are restricted for park and recreational or open space
purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land
and cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent
of the City Council.
(4) Are in accord with the principles and standards for local
parks contained in the Park and Recreation Element of the
City of Dublin General Plan.
8-7.6 AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. Where fees are
required by the City to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fees
shall be based on the current market value of all of the land in that
subdivision as determined by the most recent appraisal made at the
direction of the City at the time of approval of the final
subdivision map.
If the subdivider and/or the Local Agency objects to the
determination of current market value by the City, either may, at its
own expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real
estate appraiser which appraisal may be accepted by the City if found
reasonable.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 74-83. A 1983 amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance to establish the following formula for
calculating park and dedication requirements and reads in part as
follows:
The park and recreation area required for each dwelling unit
shall be as follows:
b) For zoning districts which require less than 5,000 square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit, .009 acres per unit.
-4-
c) For Planned Development, condominium, or townhouse-type
development, lot area per dwelling unit shall be computed
by dividing the total project area by the number of
proposed units.
C. GENERAL PLAN
The Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek (see
Background Attachment 2 - Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance, dated January 30, 1986, and previously
sent under separate cover to the Commission), provides an indepth
analysis of the General Plan Land Use designations and development
policies that apply to the subject property. The Analysis section of
the Staff Report discusses General Plan/Land Use issues that remain
unresolved.
D. ZONING ORDINANCE
8-30.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS: INTENT: Planned Development
Districts, hereinafter designed ast PD Districts, are established to
encourage the arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable
lands in such a manner that the resulting development will:
1) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan of the City of
Dublin.
2) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation of
significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape
features with minimum alteration of natural land forms.
3) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
4) Be compatible with and enhance the development of the general area.
5) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
8-32.12 CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED. The provisions of this
Article shall become applicable to any given development only upon
change in Zoning District to a Planned Development District, in
accordance with the provision of Article 8 (Procedures) of this
Chapter, with the following exceptions to the provisions of said
Article 8:
a) The determination that the proposal will benefit the public
necessity, convenience and general welfare be based, in part, on the
conformance of the proposal with provisions of this Article.
b) Any change in zoning district accomplished in accordance with this
Article is subject to review by the Planning Commission at the
expiration of two (2) years from the effective date of said change,
if during the two (2) year period construction, in accordance with
the approved plan is not commenced, or if the approved staging plan
has not been followed. At the conclusion of the review by the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may recommend to the
City Council that: the lands affected by the Planned Development
District be rezoned from the Planned Development District. Said
hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
c) A Planned Development District shall be established by the adoption
of an Ordinance by the City Council reclassifying the described
property to a Planned Development District and adopting by
reference, a Land Use and Development Plan, the provisions of which
shall constitute the regulations for the use, improvement and
maintenance of the property within the boundaries of the plan.
8-31.1.5 COMMON AREAS - PROVISIONS, OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE.
Maintenance of all lands included within the plan not utilized for
building sites, State and County Roads, and public uses, shall be
assured by recorded land agreements, covenants, proprietary control, or
-5-
other stated devices which attain this objective.
of assuring the maintenance of such lands shall be
the Land Use and Development Plan.
The proposed method
included as part of
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds the proposed project
will not have a significant impact on the environment (see Exhibit A -
Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance and Background Attachment 2 - Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance).
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the, February 18, 1986, hearing was
published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in
public buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Villages at Alamo Creek, by Rafane1li and Nahas Real Estate
Development, proposes 1,165 units and a convenience store on 135~ acres of
property on the east side of the Dougherty Hills. It is the largest
remaining undeveloped area in the City. As proposed, it could account for
an approximate 20 % increase in the total number of dwelling units in the
City of Dublin. Because of its overall size and number of dwelling units,
the Staff has identified primary considerations in the review of the
proposal. The primary considerations are outlined in 12 sub-groupings
which include citations of the proposed Conditions of Approval in the Draft
Resolutions for the Planned Development Rezoning or Tentative Map that
apply to the respective issues.
1) General Plan/Land Use
2) Park Dedication Requirements
3) Overall Site Layout
4) Dimensional Design Criteria-Square Footage Area
5) Emergency Access
6) Dougherty Road Design Criteria
7) Convenience Store Site Plan Layout
8) Loop Trail System
9) Access - Circulation - Parking for Village I (3-bedroom
multiple family dwelling units)
10) Dimensional Design Criteria - Multiple Family Residential
Villages
11) Environmental Review
12) Architecture, Landscaping Architecture, and Grading
The key issues that need resolution through the hearing process are:
1) General Plan/Land Use - Does the density in Village I need to
be increased to medium-high density (70 dwelling units; under-
structure parking; 3 or more living levels), or does the
overall proposal with a density of 11.6b dwelling units per
Gross Residential Acre for the combined areas north and south
of Amador Valley Boulevard meet the intent of the General Plan?
Do the proposed square feet dwelling units meet the intent of
the General Plan or are some larger lots needed?
2) Park Dedication Requirements
The Planning Commission should comment on the key issues and primary
considerations, and indicate to Staff any needed additions, clarifications
or revisions. At the next Planning Commission meeting, the Staff will
respond to the Planning Commissioners' concerns and will provide a
Supplement Staff Report.
-6-
A. GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE - As indicated in the Expanded Initial Study, a
wide range of General Plan policies apply to the proposed develop-
ment. The unresolved policy questions concerning the proposed land
use are as follows:
1. Commercial Site: The proposed commercial use (7-11 Convenience
Food Store) proposed for the southwest corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Dougherty Road is not integrated into the
residential area proposed for adjoining Village I as called for
by the General Plan. The nature of the proposed commercial
use, the small size of the area proposed for commercial
development, and grade differentials between the proposed
commercial and residential areas work against the integration
of the two uses.
2. Residential Density - Village I: The General Plan requires the
residential density of Village I to be medium-high density
(14.1 to 25.0 units/acre). The density proposed for this area
was initially calculated at 13.30 dwelling units per acre which
would have placed it into the medium density category (6.1 to
14.0 units/acre). Recalculation of this area's density
indicates that the Gross Residential Density (which counts 1/2
of the adjoining public right-of-ways up to a maximum width of
50 feet) is actually 12.2 units/acre. Given the Gross
Residential Acreage for Village I, 4.92+ acres, a total of 70
dwelling units would have to be develop;d to meet the 14.1
minimum residential density of the medium to high General Plan
land use designation. It should be noted that the net density
of the site excluding any adjoining roadway is 14.6 units/acre
(60 units over 4.10~ acres). The overall project density is
14.98 dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre.
3. Riparian Vegetation - Access to Alamo Creek: The proposed site
plan layout does not provide access to the Alamo Creek stream
corridor, which would provide strict compliance with the
implementing policy outlined in Section 7.1 of the General
Plan.
4. Residential Density - Village VI: A guiding policy found in
Section 2.1.2 - Neighborhood Diversity calls for avoiding
economic segregation by City sector, and specifically calls for
some of the units approved an the subject property to be single
family detached. The proposed lotting pattern of the single
family residential area, 45' x 95' pad dimensions for 146
units/26.76 establishes a Gross Residential Density of 5.46
units/acre. This comparatively high density for a single
family residential project (the General Plan density range for
single family residential is 0.9 to 6.0 units/acre) raises the
policy question of whether the proposed type of development
will provide clear conformance to the referenced General Plan
Guiding Policies, or whether a lotting pattern with larger
residential lots for some or all of the single family area
would be apropriate to provide the desired housing mix and to
avoid economic segregation by City sector. An example approach
would be to require the uppermost tier of lots (i.e. Lots #51 -
#122, a total of 71 of 145 proposed lots) to be modified from
45-foot minimum width lots. This approach would require a unit
reduction in Village VI of approximately 17 lots, and would
allow the development of two types of single family residential
housing project types.
5. Rental Units in Large Multi-Family Proiects: An implementing
policy found in Section 6.4 - Summary of Housing Program
Strategies indicates that a percentage of units in large
multi-family projects should be required to be rented for a
specified period of time to insure the availability of rental
housing. Condition #83 within the Draft Resolution for the
Planned Development Rezoning attempts to provide for this
requirement.
-7-
B. OVERALL SITE LAYOUT
1. Open Space: Staff has recommended that the common open space
area developed in the project observe a 35% minimum for the
respective multiple family residential villages, excluding the
inaccessible creek channel and the area proposed for park
dedication to the City. Detailed analysis of the site plan has
revealed that the standard of 35% minimum open space for the
multiple family residential areas can be observed both as a
whole and as taken on an individual-by-individual Village
basis. (Initial calculations for Village I showing less than
35% open space where incorrect, as the area actually approaches
a 50% open space standard.) The City's guiding design
standards regarding open space are contained in the City of
Dublin-Preliminary Residential Condominium Development
Guidelines. That documents calls for 50% of multiple family
residential sites to be useable common open space (with open
space areas being defined at least 15 feet in width, except for
decks, patios and balconies, which must be at least 7 feet in
width to be counted as open space).
Related to the issue of how much open space area is available
is the question of the quality, size and layout of the open
space provided. The size of the six proposed recreation/open
space areas proposed for the multiple family residential
portions of the project are described below.
Village Size
Village I 5,825~ sf (0.13 acres)
Village II 24,475~ sf (0.56 acres)
Village III 27,075~ sf (0.64 acres)
Village IV 34,100~ sf (0.78 acres)
Village V 44,000~ sf (1.01 acres)
Village VII 4,425~ sf (0.10 acres)
It is Staff's recommendation that minor adjustments to the site plan
layout be pursued through the Site Development Review process to
enlarge each respective recreation/open space area as reasonably
feasible without creating crowding among building groups surrounding
those areas.
In regards to the potential recreational needs of future residents in
Village VI, (the single family residential area) the applicant's
letter of January 20, 1986, outlines an approach that would
facilitate the formation of an optional membership swim club. The
advantages of the proposed format include the fact that the site
selection at the entrance of the project would serve to frame the
entry access to Villages VI and VII and would serve to provide a
better transition between the lots in Village VI and the proposed
neighborhood park site. Establishment of a pool at the area proposed
(Lots 145 and 146 of Village VI) would provide the future residents
of this Village with a recreational amenity which would not be
provided by the community park and could not reasonably be
established on the bulk of the proposed single family residential
lots because of their small size. The need for a swim club would be
lessened if the single family lots were larger and more of them could
accommodate typical residential sized pools.
The arrangement proposed by the applicant appears to have merit and
can be supported by Staff if the following adjustments are
incorporated into the proposal: 1) The schematic layout of the pool
facility should be detailed at the Site Development Review stage, 2)
rough estimates of improvement and maintenance costs should also be
provided at the Site Development Review stage, 3) the potential "swim
-8-
club" members should be reserved the flexibility to consider and
pursue an alternate recreational facility for the site in conjunction
with, or in place of, a swimming pool facility with the added right
to expend the monies fronted by the developer to build such an
alternate facility.
c. DIMENSIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA - SINGLE FAMILY AREA (VILLAGE VI) SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Several specific design changes are recommended by Staff that should
be considered through the Site Development Review process for Village
VI. One proposed adjustment involves the introduction of up to four
cul-de-sacs into the street network for this portion of the project.
While shown schematically in the applicant's revised lotting plan
dated received February 6, 1986, the possible drawbacks of the
revisions should be reviewed in detail through the Site Development
Review process (possible loss of lots, increase in the angle of slope
of the rear yard areas of lots surrounding cul-de-sacs,
fire/emergency access concerns, impacts to pedestrian/bicycle
circulation, etc).
Slope areas below Lots 133-141 and Lots 51-74 and above Lots 77-113
require special treatment to minimize potential undesirable visual
impacts that may result from the creation of these slope areas.
Proposed Conditions #73 in the Draft Resolution for the Planned
Development Rezoning establish general guidelines for the
planting/revegation programs for these slope areas that should be
addressed through the Site Development Review process for Village VI.
Upslope areas behinds Lots 77-113 should, to the extent feasible, be
incorporated into the adjoining open space area to minimize the
visual impacts that might potentially be associated with individual
property owner's subsequent development of the respective rear yard
slope areas. The C.C. & R.'s established for these lots should
firmly control the use and development of slope areas retained in the
all lots detailed.
Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the
single family residential lots are proposed by Staff to include the
following:
1. Front Yards - 20-foot mlnlmum; subject to review and approval
by the Planning Director, may be varied from 18
to 22 feet to provide variety while maintaining
the 20-foot average.
2. Side Yards - A. One-story Units =
- 5-foot minimum each side
- 12 foot minimum street side sideyard
B. Two-story Units =
- 6-foot minimum each side
- IS-foot minimum street side side yard
3. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and
useable
In addition to the above, the design of single family residential
units developed should provide for the maximum unit privacy through
use of building layouts which provide useable side and rear yard
areas with offsets of windows and similar inter-building design
considerations. A final consideration is to control the setback of
the street elevations of the second story of all proposed two story
units. Conceptual plans submitted by the applicant for Village VI
show 5'+ second story setbacks from the face of first floor garages.
This approach would soften the visual impacts of the proposed
development as viewed both from within the subdivision and as regards
views of the development from afar.
The above-detailed design considerations appear on the Draft
Resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning as Condition #84.
-9-
D. EMERGENCY ACCESS - The site plan layout indicates the proposed use of
the flood control access road extending from Amador Valley Boulevard
along the west side of the realigned creek channel as a
secondary/emergency access route to serve Villages VI and VII. To
serve in this function the roadway's design must provide adequate and
reliable access for Fire, Police and other types of emergency
vehicles. Condition #49 within the Draft Resolution for the Planned
Development Rezoning addresses this issue. Similarly, the flood
control access road adjacent to Village VI should be considered as a
secondary emergency access route. Use of this second leg of the
flood control access road would appear to provide more flexibility in
considering whether an alternate layout for Village VI using up to
four cul-de-sacs has merit (as discussed in Item C. above).
The alignment of the cul-de-sac at the northwestern corner of Village
VI lends itself for future use as a possible back-up emergency access
route. The right-of-way dedicated for the cul-de-sac should include
all lands up to the County line to give the City of Dublin the
flexibility of pursuing a future emergency access linkage with the
land to the north upon the submittal of a development plan for that
property with the City of San Ramon. (See proposed Condition #50 of
the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning.)
Related to these items, but not necessarily tied to providing
emergency access, Staff recommends the right-of-way along the north
side of the northernmost loop road along Village V also be required
to be expanded to be taken up to the County line. With the expanded
right-of-way, the City would secure the flexibility of considering
possible road connections to serve development to the north which may
be determined desirable to minimize the number of intersections along
Dougherty Road and/or alignment conflicts of intersections proposed
to be located along Dougherty Road. (See proposed Condition #51 of
Draft Resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning.)
E. DOUGHERTY ROAD DESIGN CRITERIA - The applicant's schematic design
cross section for the Dougherty Road frontage proposes a planting
strip adjoining the proposed sound-architectural wall that would be
as narrow in places as nine feet (assuming an eight-foot right-of-way
strip). The applicant's letter of February 4, 1986 (see Background
Attachment #10 - Regarding the Expanded Initial Study), indicates
that if the 12-foot dimension were applied as a minimum standard it
may cause site design layout problems in certain areas of the
project.
The framework of Staff's analysis on this issue starts with an
acknowledgement that the ultimate design width of Dougherty Road will
accommodate high vehicular speeds and volumes. It is therefore
considered undesirable to have an attached-standard sidewalk. The
length of the Dougherty Road frontage requires that the design of the
frontage strip provide variety and have built into its design width
adequate area to provide effective, functional landscaping areas.
With the above considerations in mind, Staff recommends that the
following design critera for this area be observed:
1) Total minimum width measured from face-of-curb to face-of-wall
should be a 19-foot minimum, and should be widened to 23 feet
wherever feasible.
2) Four-foot minimum landscape strips should be utilized measured
from face-of-curb to the front edge of the sidewalk and between
the rear edge of sidewalk and the face of the sound-
architecutural wall.
3) The sidewalk should be a mlnlmum of six feet in width and
should meander both horizontally and vertically through the
center II-foot strip (minimum width) that remains between the
two minimum landscape strips established above.
-10-
4) Wall design should provide detailed architectural design on
both sides of the wall and should utilize "pop-outs" of a
minimum depth of three feet, being regularly spaced along the
wall's entire frontage.
The above-cited design criteria should be observed along the entire
Dougherty Road frontage to provide for project continuity (i.e., the
use of the wall should also be made along Village I's frontage).
The project's Amador Valley Boulevard frontage should receive
comparable treatment, adjusted slightly to acknowledge both the
preserve of the wide landscaped median within Amador Valley Boulevard
and the need for a ten-foot detached bicycle/pedistrian pathway along
the northern Amador Valley Boulevard frontage. The Amador Valley
Boulevard frontage should receive the same sound-architectural wall
as is to be located along Dougherty Road. Pedestrian access through
the walls for access to the convenience store site should be provided
in proximity to Units #4 and #8 in Village I and Units #27/#28 and
#21/#22 in Village II.
The design criteria established regarding the recommended treatment
of the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard frontages are
addressed within the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development
Rezoning, appearing as Conditions #64 to #67.
F. CONVENIENCE STORE SITE PLAN LAYOUT - The proposed size and layout of
the convenience store appears inadequate to handle anticipated peak
hour useage. Staff's preliminary review indicates that the
commercial parcel's Dougherty Road frontage width would have to be
enlarged by at least 17 feet to provide room to roughly double the
on-site parking provided. This change would increase the site by
approximately 3,000 square feet (from 17,500+ sq. ft. to 20,500+ sq.
ft.). To accommodate the proposed adjustment to this site, cha;ge
would be required to the layout of building groups in the adjoining
sections of Village I.
A third driveway to the site appears appropriate for establishment at
the northwest corner of the site along Amador Valley Boulevard.
Additional design considerations involving the pedestrian walkway
system, the gasoline pump island layout, the method of tying into the
adjoining sound-architectural wall, etc., should be addressed in
conjunction with the Site Development Review for the site. Part of
the submittal requirements for that subsequent submittal should
include information documenting the needed parking requirements for
the proposed convenience food store. It should be noted that the
findings of that Study may reveal that an even larger commercial
parcel is necessary to accommodate the parking amounts determined
necessary.
The recommended design changes for the convenience store site are
outlined in the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development
Rezoning, appearing as Condition #75.
G. LOOP TRAIL SYSTEM - The size, location and layout of the subject
property (i.e., presence of Alamo Creek and its proximity to the
recently acquired 90-acre open space area along the ridge line of the
South Dougherty Hills) lend themselves to the establishment of a
formal trail network. The applicant is proposing the development of
approximately one mile of a pedestrian pathway system along the top
of Alamo Creek. ("Development" means a detatched walkway of six feet
in width, as opposed to a standard, attached four to five foot
sidewalk.). This system should be formally interconnected to the
Dougherty Hills open space area at the proposed cul-de-sac at the
western terminus of the access road running between Villages VI and
VII. The right-of-way secured in Village VI at the northwesternmost
corner (adjacent to Lots #113 and #114) should be modified to assure
the City retains the flexibility of subsequently developing a
secondary interconnection between this project's roadway/pathways
and the Dougherty Hills open space area. The grading and lotting
layout in the northwesternmost corner of Village VI should be
-11-
modified to assure that subsequent development of pedestrian access
from the cul-de-sac along the north side of Lots #113 and up the
adjoining slopes is not precluded by this project's development.
Development of this secondary access point should be pursued only as
a fallback position if site planning for the adjoining property to
the north across the City/County line does not take advantage of the
opportunity to mirror the trail network proposed on the subject
property and create a sub-regional trail system with interconnections
between a creekway and ridge line trail routes that potentially could
run uninterrupted from Old Ranch Road in San Ramon to Amador Valley
Boulevard in Dublin, creating paralelling trail systems of
approximately 1.5 miles.
To facilitate the interim trail development, the cul-de-sac bulb at
the terminus of the roadway separating Villages VI and VII should be
moved further down the slope to function as a "knuckle" and to allow
an easier slope transition for pedestrian trail access up the slope
to the adjoining 90~ acre open space area. Access in this area would
necessarily traverse an oddly-configured open space remnant of
approximately seven acres in size that would lie above the day-light
zone of the proposed grading for the single family residential
development. It is recommended that the City pursue the acquisition
of this area through an offer of dedication allowing it to be tied
into the immediately adjoining 90+ acre area presently controlled by
the City. -
Staff recommends that the dimensional criteria for the creek-side
pedestrian walkway is recommended be a six- to eight-foot detached
concrete meandering walkway that maintains a minimum four-foot
landscaped setback from the face of curb at the adjoining loop
roadways and a four-foot landscaped setback from the flood control
maintenance fence.
H. ACCESS - CIRCULATION - PARKING FOR VILLAGE I - During the course of
the site plan review for the subject proposal, Staff indicated a
variety of concerns relating to the layout of units, driveways and
parking for the IS-building, 60-unit Village I area. Staff indicated
a desire to utilize a second vehicular connection to the site (either
from the south through the Arroyo Vista housing project or along
Amador Valley Boulevard) to improve internal circulation and to allow
diminishment of the distances between the more remote units from
proposed available parking. (See Background Attachment #8 -
Applicant's letter dated December 10, 1985, regarding these
concerns.) Further complicating the layout for Village I is the
apparent need to expand the commercial site, as previously discussed
in Item F. above. Additionally, a redesign might actually allow for
a more efficient, slightly denser use of the property to allow closer
conformance to the medium-high density range presently covering the
parcel.
Staff recommends that a combined Conditional Use Permit/Site
Development Review be required to address the design concerns
identified for Village I. This application should address the
following issues:
1. Provision of Secondary Access - The preferred means of access
would be from the south through the Arroyo Vista Housing
Authority project. The developer should be required to
diligently pursue the necessary approvals to develop such an
access. Failure to secure this access shouldn't release the
applicant from providing a secondary access, as a second access
along the Amador Valley Boulevard is considered feasible and
appropriate.
2. Internal Circulation/Parking Count - Revisions to the site plan
layout should attempt to reduce the distances between available
parking and the more remote dwelling units marked for develop-
ment. The parking count should also be adjusted to match the
standard being observed elsewhere across the project (the site
is nine spaces short of the 129-space suggested standard) or a
-12-
more restrictive standard to acknowledge that development of
three bedroom units may result in a geater need for parking
then the other multiple family residential Villages.
3. Proiect Density - More efficient site planning, possibly in
conjunction with introduction of some eight-unit building
groups, should be pursued to provide closer compliance with the
site's General Plan density range (i.e., increase the
residential density to, or above, the 14.1 du/acre standard).
4. Commercial Area - A revised site plan layout should accommodate
the larger commercial site (the size and configuation of that
site should be determined in advance of the submittal of the
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review application for
Village I) while not scrimping on the building setbacks shown
by the current site plan submittal.
A final, optional consideration is the adjustment of the size and location
of the recreation area to provide a larger, more centralized site and
facility.
I. DIMENSIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES -
Several generalized design changes are recommended by Staff for
application to the six proposed multiple family residential Villages.
The first generalized area regards building inter-relationships and
setbacks. The minimal dimensional design criteria for the multiple
family units recommended by Staff areas follow:
1. Building to Building Separations - 20-foot mlnlmum separation
between buildings, with deviation of the minimum separation
subject to review and approval by the Planning Director through
the Site Development Review process to consider case-by-case
reductions to IS-feet when:
a)
b)
one of the facing building walls has no windows;
living room to living room windows are separated by a
minimum distance of 40 feet;
living room to bedroom windows are separated by 30 feet.
~
c)
2. Building to Roadway Separations - IS-foot minimum, except for
building setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard,
and along the first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads off
from their intersection with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley
Boulevard, where a 20-foot minimum setback (measured from the
rear face of the sound-architectural wall, as applicable) shall
be observed.
3. Patios/Decks and Patio/Decks/Building Walls Separations - 15-
foot minimum.
4. Building Walls and Parking Areas Separations - 10-foot mlnlmum
with a minimum of 5-feet of the width landscaped for screening
of parking.
5. Building Walls to Building Appurtenances (including stairways)
Separations - 20-foot minimum separation of heated exterior
building walls and 20-foot minimum separation between living
room deck and adjacent building appurtenances (except patio).
6. Building Appurtenances to Building Appurtenances Separations -
10-foot minimum separation.
J. PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS (Note: Staff met with the applicants
on Wednesday, February 12, 1986, to discuss park dedication
requirements. This is a key issue area where the Staff and
applicants are in disagreement. The City Attorney's Office is
reviewing this matter. The analysis will be provided for the next
Planning Commission meeting.)
-13-
K. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE - As noted previously, the City recommends
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
be adopted for this project. The draft environmental document
prepared for this project reflects the culmination of over one year's
review of potential environmental impacts. The review dates back to
December, 1984, when Staff formulated draft environmental review of
the preliminary development plan submittals and indicated that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) appeared necessary. At that same
time Staff recommended that a variety of project studies be initiated
to provide more detailed assessment of environmental impacts that
would potentially be related to this development proposal. The
studies recommended by Staff to be performed were acoustical, biotic,
archaeological, hydrologic, soil and geotechnical, erosion and
sedimentation, traffic and visual.
From the period of January through July, 1985, a variety of the
referenced studies were prepared. These studies were subsequently
incorporated into Staff's Initial Study of Environmental Analysis,
which was distributed on September 7, 1985, as a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The NOP
served as notice from the City that preliminary review of the project
indicated unmitigated and potentially significant impacts that would
necessitate the preparation of an EIR to meet the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. The NOP was distributed to
approximately 45 agencies with a cover letter indicating that by
benefit of the detailed project information generated (i.e., detailed
initial study, various project studies and draft mitigation measures
prepared by Staff), the City was hopeful that a majority of the
identified potential environmental project impacts could be directly
mitigated through project redesign and/or by securing binding
agreements from the project developer to build in required mitigation
measures.
On October 28, 1985, the applicant entered into an agreement to
utilize consultant services, Wagstaff and Brady - Urban and
Environmental Planners, to fine-tune the project's environmental
review documents to determine whether a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance could be recommended to be
issued for the project, or whether unmitigatable impacts continued to
be present and would precipitate the need for the preparation of an
EIR.
The end product produced is the document labeled "Expanded Initial
Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek, January 30, 1986" (Background
Attachment - 2, forwarded to the Commission on February 3, 1986).
The document incorporated the previous Staff environmental documents
with supplementary materials to provide an environmental assessment
with detailed project setting analysis and summation of potential
impacts and corresponding mitigations for each of the following
areas:
1. Land Use
2. General Plan Policies and Zoning
3. Hydrology and Water Quality
4. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
5. Biological Resources
6. Traffic and Circulation
7. Air Quality
8. Noise
9. Municipal Services and Facilities
a) Schools
b) Sewer Service
c) Water Supply
d) Fire Protection
e) Police Protection
f) Recreation
10. Visual Resources
11. Cultural Resources
12. Energy
-14-
The document is currently in circulation form, with the comment
period extending 30 days and ending on March 2, 1986.
This document is the basis for Staff's recommendation that the
Planning Commission adopt Exhibit A, a Draft Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for the project. The document further
serves as the framework of projected related conditions of approval
recommended in Exhibits Band C.
L. ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND GRADING - The proposed
architecture of the multiple family residential units is indicated to
be very similar to that of the units developed at the Amador Lakes
project. Major differences involve the propsal to introduce up to 13
three-story building groups (with 24-one bedroom units in each
building group) and the introduction of a new unit type, a three-
bedroom unit in an eight unit building group (proposed for exlusive
use in Village I).
A primary concern of Staff regarding the proposed unit architecture
is that adequate diversity across the project as a whole be provided
to avoid monotony, and that roofing material be upgraded to tile or
the equivalent to provide additional texture and shadow pattern.
Individual Villages should be designed in a manner to stand alone
with village-specific architectural features (such as alternate types
of roofing or siding materials, alternate use of open or enclosed
stairwells, etc.). The detailed design review of project
architecture shall be made at the time of submittal of the respective
Site Development Review applications.
The size of the project, in conjunction with the limited detail on
the plan submitted by the applicant regarding project landscaping,
dictates that detailed review of landscape architecture also be made
at the Site Development Review stage.
Site grading considerations were detailed extensively through the
Expanded Initial Study prepared for this project and in turn are
reflected through the recommended Conditions of Approval contained in
the Draft Resolutions for the Planned Development Rezoning and
Tentative Map requests. Review of final grading plans will
necessarily have to occur with the submittal of the respective Site
Development Review requests.
CONCLUSION
As indicated previously in this Report, Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission utilize this initial public hearing to gain an overview
of the project proposal and associated developmental impacts and concerns,
keying in on the 12 sub-groupings of primary considerations identified by
Staff. Upon receiving input from the Staff, applicant and the general
public, Staff recommends the Commission provide comments and/or specific
direction for additional Staff review or revisions to the attached Draft
Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION
FORMAT:
1)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, applicant and the public.
4) Provide Staff and the applicant with the Commissioners'
comments, keying in on the identified issue areas, and
provide direction for additional Staff review and/or
revision to the Draft Resolutions.
5) Continue the public hearing to the Commission meeting of
March 3, 1986.
-15-
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A
Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance and Expanded Initial Study for the
Villages at Alamo Creek
Exhibit B
Draft Resolution regarding the PD; Planned
Development Prezoning and Rezoning
applications
Exhibit C -
Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511
Exhibit D -
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map
Submittals
Background Attachments:
1) Applicant's Written Statement
2) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance
3) Draft Ordinance for Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
4) Site Location and Area Maps
5) Schematic Land Use Layout of Camp Parks Facility
6) Applicant's Letter of November 22, 1985, regarding Master Tract
Map Formal Proposal
7) Applicant's Letter of December 6, 1985, and Accompanying
Transmittal, regarding Parkland Dedication Requirements
8) Applicant's Letter of December 10, 1985, regarding Assigned
Covered Parking Scheme for Village I.
9) Applicant's Letter of January 20, 1986, regarding Proposed
Building Separations
10) Applicant's Letter of February 4, 1986, regarding Revised Lotting
Pattern for Village VI
11) Applicant's Letter of February 4, 1986, regarding Expanded Initial
Study
12) Charts Summarizing Staff's Recommendations for Parkland Dedication
Requirements
13) Agency Comments Received in Conjunction with Project Submittal
14) Agency Comments Received in Conjunction with Environmental
Assessment Documents
-16-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SIGNIFICANCE BE ADOPTED FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING AND
TENTATIVE MAP 5511 REQUESTS FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF 1,165~ DWELLING UNITS, A FIVE-PLUS ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE,
A COMMERCIAL SITE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS A CONVENIENCE STORE, AND COMMON
OPEN SPACE PARCELS COLLECTIVELY PROPOSED OVER A 135+ ACRE PROPERTY
FRONTING ALONG DOUGHERTY ROAD, EXTENDING SOUTHERLY FROM THE
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF DOUGHERTY ROAD
FOR 4,200~ FEET, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 85-041.1 AND .2 VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development submitted a
request that the City rezone to a Planned Development (PD) District 135+ acres
lying in the northeast corner of the City with a concurrent request for-
tentative map approval covering the planned residential/commercial
development; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act and City Environmental
regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental
impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.,
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
prepared by the Dublin Planning Department with the project specific
mitigation measures outlined in Staff's Expanded Initial Study dated
January 30, 1986, regarding:
A) Land Use
B) General Plan Policies and Zoning
C) Hydrology and Water Quality
D) Soils, Geology and Seismicity
E) Biological Resources
F) Traffic and Circulation
G) Air Quality
H) Noise
I) Municipal Services
J) Visual Resources
K) Cultural Resources
L) Energy
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider said
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance at its meetings
of February 18, 1986, and March 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings on February 18,
1986, and March 3, 1986, were given as legally required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the project, PA
85-041.1 and .2, has been changed by the applicant and/or the applicant has
agreed to provide mitigation measures resulting in a project that will not
result in the creation of any significant environmental impacts indentified in
the Expanded Initial Study;
"1. :fll!t~"
::~_~t~ "i~~'~ ..,
"
,
A
..
-1-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
of Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance
with State and Local Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations and that it
is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of February, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS
AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING
CONCERNING PA 85-041.1 AND .2 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK -
RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development is requesting
the City rezone approximately 135 acres lying in the northeast corner of the
City, to a Planned Development (PD) District for a planned residential/
commercial development of 1,165 dwelling units (including 1,019 multiple
family residential units and 146 lots for future development of single family
residential detached units), a five-plus acre neighborhood park site, a 9,OOO~
square foot commercial site for future development as a convenience store, and
common open space parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the
project on February 18, 1986, and March 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning
is consistent with the City General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared
for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning
will not have a significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning is appropriate for the subject property in
terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, and will not
overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning wil not have substantial adverse effects on
health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be
injurious to property or public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning
is consistent with the City's General Plan and policies; and
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning will
be a detriment to, or interfere with, the City's General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
request PA 85-041.1 subject to the following Conditions of Approval.
JPJff ff:r()LVTl~ - ?p f?efbWIN t.r
EXHIBIT 8
-1-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA 85-041.1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for a mixed use planned residential-commercial
development of a maximum of 1,165 dwelling units and a 9,000~ foot
commercial site for a small convenience store. Development shall be
generally consistent '.ith the following submittals, modified to conform
with Conditions of Approval outlined below.
A. Revised Illustrative Development Plan - Composite Plan - Proposed
by Anthony M. Guzzardo and Associates, Inc., dated received
February 3, 1986.
B. The Villages at Alamo Creek Tentative Map - Villages I, II, III,
VII and Park Site - Prepared by Tetrad Engineering, Inc., dated
received July 31, 1985.
C. The Villages at Alamo Creek - Villages 1-5 - Prepared by Backen,
Arrigoni and Ross, Inc., dated received July 31, 1985.
D. Alamo Creek: Village VI - Dublin, CA - Preliminary Site Plan and
Building Elevations, consisting of four sheets, prepared by Aram,
Bassenian and Associates, Inc., dated received January 27, 1986.
E. The Villages at Alamo Creek - Landscape Plan - Typical Unit
Cluster and Recreation Center, Schematic Park Plans and Site
Sections - Consisting of five sheets, prepared by Anthony M.
Guzzardo and Associates, Inc., dated June 14, 1985, amended to
include sheet LP-7, Village VII Landscape Plan (dated received [).
F. Proposed Alamo Creek Improvements, Amador Valley Boulevard to
Contra Costa County Line - Consisting of six sheets, prepared by
Bissell and Karn, Inc., dated received May 23, 1985.
G. Alamo Creek - Village I Convenience Store Study Schematic Site
Plan and Building Elevations, Dublin CA - Prepared by Backen,
Arrigani and Ross, Inc., dated received August 2, 1985.
H. Village VII - Flood Control Maintenance Road Emergency Fire Access
- Consisting of a single sheet, prepared by Anthony M. Guzzardo
and Associates, Inc., dated received December 11, 1985.
I. Alternate Lotting Layout - Village VI Lots 1-104 - Consisting of a
single sheet, dated received February 6, 1986.
J. Cross Sections at Alamo Creeks - Consisting of a single sheet,
dated received February 6, 1986.
K. Preliminary Parking Assignment Plan - Village I - Consisting of a
single sheet, dated received December 11, 1985.
2. Site Development Review approval for each phase of this project shall be
secured prior to the recordation of the respective Final Maps or the
issuance of building permits.
3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of
approval, the development shall comply with City of Dublin Site
Development Review standard Conditions (see Attachment A).
4. Except as may be specifically provided for within these Conditions of
Approval, development shall comply with City of Dublin Police Services
Standard Residential Building Security Requirements (see Attachment B).
5. Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is specified in
Section 8-31.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance.
-2-
6. If the subject project is not subdivided, as proposed under Subdivision
5511, the project shall remain subject to the Conditions of Approval
established for that Subdivision, as determined applicable by the City
Engineer and the Planning Director.
AIR QUALITY
7. Roadway Improvements
The site plan shall be altered to make prOV1Slon of bus turnouts for
future transit plans servicing Dougherty Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard. Such turnouts shall be located along the internal loop roads
in Villages II, III, IV, and V, or as required by the City Engineer and
the local transit authority.
8. Particulate Control
A. Significant landscaping shall be provided along project streets,
including Dougherty Road frontage, to partially filter particulate
matter emanating from Dougherty Road.
B. Dust control measures, as approved by the City Engineer, in
conjunction with the project's improvement plans, shall be
followed at all times during grading and construction operations.
Construction areas shall be sprinkled during periods when work is
proceeding and during other periods, as required, to minimize the
generation of dust.
C. Construction areas shall be revegetated and hydromulched upon
completion of grading operations. Where feasible, hydromulch
shall be installed in stages.
D. To the extent feasible, phased project construction shall balance
cut and fill to avoid off-hauling, or importation of material
along roadways.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
9. Loss of Maior Trees
A. Trees identified in the Horticultural Report, prepared by Hort
Science, Inc., September 20, 1985, and the tree preservation
identification list (Appendix A of these Conditions) shall be
preserved and protected. The project shall implement the Tree
Preservation Design, Construction, and Maintenance Guidelines
contained in the Horticultural Report. Within the creek channel,
the applicant shall have the responsibility for implementing these
guidelines for a minimum period of one year from the completion of
construction, or until the Alameda County Flood Control District
or other public entity accepts the channel, whichever is later.
B. A horticulturalist shall develop a specific preservation plan for
preservation of trees identified as "preserved" and "high
probability to preserve" following development of final grading
plans. During site preparation and construction, a
horticulturalist shall monitor and implement the specific
preservation plan, and shall supervise construction activities,
especially grading, as needed to implement the plan.
C. A revegetation plan for the creek shall be prepared and
implemented which includes the replanting of native species. The
revegetation plan shall include provisions to aid new trees during
early years through irrigation, fertilization, deer protection and
disease prevention.
-3-
D. New trees and shrubs shall be planted on both sides of the creek
as well as on new embankments to be constructed along the creek.
Trees shall be located above the maintenance road per Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7 specifications.
E. Two new trees of at least 15 gallon size shall be provided within
the creek tree planting plan area to mitigate the loss of each
existing tree over 8 inches in diameter. To the extent feasible,
new trees shall be of the same species as the trees lost. All
plans for additional tree planting shall be subject to review and
approval by Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7.
F. Whenever possible, construction activities shall be restricted
from within the drip line. At the maximum, no more than 40
percent of the area within the drip line for trees planted to be
preserved shall be altered.
G. During project construction, damaged roots shall be cut cleanly
with a saw. Trenches shall be back-filled as soon as possible to
avoid exposure of roots from dessication. Irrigation during and
following construction shall be provided where necessary.
H. Supplemental irrigation for trees subject to stress shall be
provided.
I. Positive drainage away from tree trunks shall be established and
water shall not be allowed to stand at the base of the trees.
J. Open areas around trees to be preserved shall not be grubbed where
grading activities are not required.
K. Organic mulch shall be applied and maintained under the trees
within the development areas.
L. Horticultural care, monitoring of pest population and the
incidence of disease and control treatments when necessary, shall
be provided. This measure shall apply to all trees with health
classified by the Horticultural Report as A, B, or C and as
identified by the tree preservation identification list (Appendix
A of these Conditions) as "preserved" or as having a high or
medium probability of being preserved.
M. Temporary fences shall be constructed around the trees to be
preserved too exclude all equipment from within the drip line.
N. All wounds to trees to be preserved shall be repaired promptly,
with such repair and pruning to be performed by a qualified
arborist.
10. Riparian Habitat Loss
A. Temporary fencing shall be provided during the construction for
those areas of riparian habitat not intended to be included within
the construction zone.
B. An erosion and siltation control plan shall be incorporated within
the grading plan for the project.
C. A revegetation effort shall be implemented on all reconstructed
channel banks as soon as possible after construction is completed
to enhance riparian habitat consistent with proper channel
maintenance for flood control. Such revegetation plans shall
include the following:
1) Use of trees, shrubs and vine species native to the region.
2) Use of shrubs with high wildlife value on the lower channel
slopes.
-4-
3) Use of indigenous tree species, such as valley oak, live oak
and buckeye, on the upper channel slopes above the
maintenance road, together with shrubs and vines to
approximate a natural riparian community.
4) Planting of trees on the upslope side of the channel
maintenance road.
5) Trees, shrubs and vines may be established from seeds, liner
stock or small container stock (one gallon) or hydromulch
where feasible.
6)
Undertaking of an irrigation program to aid
woody plants during the first few summers.
fixed irrigation shall be installed.
survival of
Where feasible,
7) Inclusion within the revegetation plan of portions of the
existing riparian corridor which are intended to be left in
their present condition, including provisions for native
trees, shrubs and vines, where they do not now exist.
8) Obtaining the approval of Alameda County Flood Control
District for the revegetation plan, which shall be
consistent with Flood Control maintenance requirements.
9) Provision of revegetation along the riparian corridor and
the successful establishment of plantings. Subsequent
maintenance and management of vegetation in the stream
channel will be the applicant's responsibility for one year
following completion of construction.
D. Drop structures shall not exceed a maximum height of two feet and
shall be constructed in a manner the Department of Fish and Game
approves.
11. Construction Phase Impacts
A. Earth moving shall be undertaken and carried out during the dry
season.
B. Prior to winter rains, all bare ground shall be hydroseeded. If
grading is undertaken during winter time conditions, a plan shall
be submitted for stabilization and control of erosion. Such plan
may include mechanical soil stabilization, sediment barriers, and
settling ponds.
C. Conditions of the California Department of Fish and Game Stream
Alteration Permit (see Appendix B of these Conditions) shall be
followed to minimize erosion during construction in the creek
channel.
D. Sediment control measures shall be used within construction areas
to reduce movement of silt and other sediment from the site.
E. In order to protect both the riparian corridor and isolated trees
from construction equipment, vehicular activity, and dumping of
trash and debris, areas not intended to be graded shall be
protected with temporary fencing.
12. Long Term Impacts
Human use of the riparian corridor and stream channel shall be
restricted and, where feasible, fencing erected for this purpose.
-5-
ENERGY
13. All units shall contain standard and currently available energy saving
devices, and shall be insulated in accordance with Title 24, State of
California Administrative Code. All buildings shall be designed to
comply with Title 24 Energy Regulations.
14. All multi-family units shall be provided with separately metered gas for
hot water. All meters shall be screened from view within an enclosure
that is compatible in design, location and materials to that of the
building to which it is to be installed.
15. Exterior lighting fixtures in multi-family areas shall be energy
efficient, fluorescent or metal vapor lighting.
16. Landscape design shall incorporate use of solar shading for south- and
west-facing walls in multi-family housing areas.
17. Recreation area pools in the multi-family project shall incorporate
solar heaters. The developer shall submit documentation that the
number, size, location and design at the solar collector panels will
suffice to provide adequate pool heating for a reasonable length of time
in each calendar year. Heating of the pools may be supplemented by gas
heaters.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
18. Increased Flows
A. The capacity of the Alamo Creek channel shall be increased
sufficiently to meet the future flows both of this project and
future buildout of the Alamo Creek drainage (as established by the
Hydraulic Analysis of Alamo Creek, Alameda and Contra Costa
County, prepared by Bissel and Karn, Inc., 1984).
B. Drop structures shall be installed as needed to reduce the
velocity in Alamo Creek to the 5-7 f.p.s. range and to reduce
erosion caused by the existing creek. The drop structures shall
conform to the Department of Fish and Game requirements, as
follows: Drop structures shall be of a height no greater than two
feet, and the area immediately downstream of the drop structure
shall be left in a natural state. If a ponded or pooled area of a
minimum dimension of two feet deep and six feet out from the drop
structures is formed which allows fish to congregate and migrate
upstream at peak flows, then a concrete base below the new drop
structures may be used. If concrete is not used, then a two foot
headwall deeper than the drop structures shall be installed to
prevent undercutting.
C. Alamo Creek shall be realigned to reduce erosion and severe bends
within the channel and to stabilize the existing unstable slides.
D. The applicant shall be responsible for the project's proportionate
share of the cost of flood control improvements, which are
anticipated to be specifically two box culverts, of a size
sufficient to accommodate 100-year flood flows, to be installed in
the Alamo Creek channel under Amador Valley Boulevard. The
project's share of the improvement cost will be calculated based
on the project's overall contribution to the incremental increase
in the 100-year flood flows.
19. Increased Erosion and Sedimentation
A. Grading within Alamo Creek shall be limited to the period from
April 15 through October 1 of each year.
-6-
B. An erosion control plan shall be prepared by the developer's
Engineer and submitted with the grading plan. The plan shall be
in use until permanent storm sewers have been installed and
streets paved. Erosion control plans shall include, as required,
hydromulching cut-and-fill slopes, sediment barriers, and
sedimentation basis and ponds. Grading shall be conducted in such
a manner that standing water is not retained in the vicinity of
trees to be preserved.
C. A permanent revegetation plan shall be prepared for revegetation
of the channel, consistent with the requirements of Alameda County
Flood Control District Zone 7.
D. Culverts discharging into the stream channel shall be constructed
in such a manner as to avoid erosion by providing impervious
spillways on the side slopes to the bottom of the channel
E. Final improvement plans prepared for the channel shall maintain
the maximum amount of existing channel vegetation feasible and
shall preserve existing tree stands identified in the
Horticultural Report, The Villages of Alamo Creek, September 20,
1985, prepared by Hort Science, Inc., and subsequent tree
preservation and protection analysis contained in Appendix A of
these Conditions.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
20. Water Supply
A. The project shall extend water service from its current location
at Stagecoach Road and Amador Valley Boulevard to the project.
B. The project shall incorporate all reasonable water conservation
measures including water conservation appliances and separate
metering of gas for hot water heaters. The project Architect, or
Civil Engineer, shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or
Building Inspector stating that water conservant toilets, shower
heads, faucets and automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles will
be installed in the units in this project.
21. Fire Protection
A. All dwelling units within the project shall incorporate smoke
detectors and spark arrestors on fireplaces.
B. Ongoing provision of fire breaks shall be included in the plans
for maintenance of the open space abutting Villages VI and VII.
C. Emergency access routes to Village VI and to the west side of the
creek shall be provided from Amador Valley Boulevard via the
maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek. Emergency
access to the site at the north end of Village VI shall be
provided at the time of development of the adjacent project to the
north in Contra Costa County. Emergency access routes are subject
to the approval of the District's fire protection service.
D. Fire hyrdants at the locations approved by the DSRSD-Fire
Department shall be installed and operable, to the satisfaction of
the DSRSD-Fire Department, prior to combustible construction.
Provision of raised blue reflectorized pavement markers shall be
made in the center of the private vehicle accessways at each fire
hydrant.
E. Each building and residence unit shall include a lighted, clearly
visible address. A lighted, clearly visible project directory
shall be provided at all major project access ways within the
multi-family Villages.
-7-
22. Police Protection
A. Emergency access along the Alamo Creek channel maintenance road to
the lands lying west of the creek shall be developed.
B. Fencing of a design and location acceptable to the Dublin Police
Services shall be provided along the Alamo Creek corridor.
C. Provision for a future emergency connection at the north end of
Village VI to the adjacent project on the north side of the County
line in Contra Costa County shall be made through modification of
the lot layout in Village VI and the recordation and pursuit of
appropriate complimentary easements between the affected
properties.
23. Recreation
Park land dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
building permits, or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever
occurs first. The City Engineer shall calculate the in-lieu fee based
upon the Subdivision Ordinance. For in-lieu fee calculation purposes,
the preliminary park dedication land required is [ sq. ft. (assuming
units at a dedication of 0.011 acres/du and [ units at a dedication of
0.009 acres/du). Final calculations shall be at the issuance of
building permits or at the approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs
first.
NOISE
24. Camp Parks
A. Noise measurements at the Alamo Creek Villages site determined
that relatively simple plywood noise barriers constructed behind
the shooting ranges would effectively reduce noise reaching the
Alamo Creek Villages site. If, after people move into the subject
residential projects, complaints from residents are received by
the City of Dublin and/or the United States Army, all reasonable
steps by the developer shall be undertaken to assure this
mitigation measure is implemented. This mitigation measure is
consistent with mitigation measures in the preliminary draft
revised EIS which states: "on-site and off-site monitoring will be
conducted to define the extent and magnitude of noise levels
generated by Parks RFTA activities" and that "the U.S. Army will
continue to coordinate with City and County officials regarding
land use compatibility in the areas planned for residential
development. "
B. Prospective purchasers or residents of the proposed project shall
be supplied with a written document indicating that sound levels
of up to 70 dBA may be generated by gunshots at the regional
training facility, and explaining when these activities are
generally expected to occur.
25. Traffic
A. An 8-foot-high sound barrier wall along the project frontage with
Dougherty Road shall be developed in conjunction with this
project.
B. Landscaping along Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard shall
be of a type and planning layout to provide a mature growth
pattern which will grow to create a barrier in excess of eight
feet high.
C. Sound-rated windows (Sound Transmission Class 27) shall be
provided for all multi-family dwelling units to reduce traffic
noise impacts and to meet Title 24 multi-family housing
requirements.
-8-
D. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit
the appropriate documentation to demonstrate that all proposed
development shall meet or exceed applicable State noise
attenuation requirements.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBMITTAL
26. Open Space
A. Common open space areas for the multiple family residential
villages shall be increased to meet a minimum standard of 35
percent for each respective village. Density shall be reduced if
necessary in order to increase useable open space within the
villages to meet this standard.
B. Deck dimensions for multiple family units on second or third floor
elevations shall be increased a miminum requirement of seven feet,
excluding fencing or railing.
C. Private useable open space (patios) for multiple family
residential ground level units shall be a minimum of 140 square
feet in area.
D. Through the Site Development Review process, the developer shall
investigate the feasibility of leaving portions of the creek in
the vicinity of Village VII accessible as useable open space, to
be incorporated into the park system. Additional hydrology and
engineering design studies shall be performed and submitted and
shall detail the necessary channel improvements to ensure safety.
The developer shall prepare a draft joint use agreement for
possible use between the City and the Alameda County Flood Control
District. If creek access is not feasible, a bridge to link the
two park areas shall be considered.
E. A recreation center and/or a common open space area in Village VI
of sufficient size to serve the needs of the proposed population
shall be detailed in the Site Development Review submittal for
Village VI.
F. Separated bikeway lanes throughout Village VI shall be detailed in
the Site Development Review submittals for Village VII. Bikeways
for this area shall connect with the proposed community park site.
G. Pool length shall be increased to 50 feet minimum length in at
least two of the six proposed recreation areas.
H.
The initial Site Development Review shall include
proposed master trail system which provides for a
the pedestrian system, the bikeway system and the
with the regional open space in Dougherty Hills.
bikeway to the west part of the park and Villages
also be provided for by this plan.
submittal of a
connection of
community park
A linkage of the
VI and VII shall
I. The Site Development Review submittals for the multiple family
residential Villages shall define pedestrian ways from assigned
parking spaces to respective individual multiple family dwelling
units, and from dwelling units to recreation centers.
J. The Site Development Review submittals for the multiple family
residential Villages shall observe the following:
1) 20 feet between all building walls, which shall be defined
as the exterior side of walls containing heated space (an
exception shall be the enclosed entry in the E-type
building).
-9-
2) 20 feet between the exterior deck in the primary orientation
(from the living room and living room deck perpendicular to
the building) and adjacent building appurtenances including
decks and stairways, excluding patio fences.
3) 15 feet between building walls in secondary orientations
(from the dining room window or secondary bedroom windows
perpendicular from the building).
4) 10 feet between all building appurtenances including patio
fences.
5) 10 feet between parking areas and buildings and patios,
decks and building appurtenances (five feet of the 10-foot
setback is to be planted with vegetation to screen parking
areas) .
K. Fences on the upper tier of lots (westerly perimeter) in the
single family residential area shall be established at the lower
toe of the slope.
27. Landscape Design
The Site Development Review submittals shall detail a separator
landscape strip between the bikeway and the access road along the creek.
28. Architectural Design
Site Development Review submittals shall include plans at an appropriate
design scale which detail that:
A. All dwelling units are oriented properly and at a sufficient
distance from each other, from parking and vehicular areas, and
group use areas.
B. Parking and vehicluar areas are screened, to the greatest extent
feasible, from view of ground floor dwelling units.
c. To the extent feasible, west-facing units have sun-shading devices
or landscape screening to prevent over-heating of units.
D. Architectural design is compatible in color and finish with its
surroundings.
29. The developer shall confer with local postal authorities to determine
the type of centralized mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter
stating their satisfaction at the time the Site Development Review
submittal is made. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department.
If centralized mail units are not required, the developer shall provide
written documentation from the Postmaster stating the exemption.
30. The at-grade patios for the multiple family residential units shall be
individually fenced and landscaped. Individual hose-bibs for each
ground level unit patio area shall be provided by the developer. The
hose-bibs may be maintained left in a "roughed-out" stage until such
time as the units are put up for individual sale. The layout of the
enclosed patio areas (as regards size and placement of concrete patio
pads and the design of the enclosing fencing and retaining walls) shall
be subject to review and approval as part of the Site Development Review
submittal.
31. The developer's Engineer shall develop the expected truck length and
turning radious criteria to use the private streets (fire equipment,
delivery, garbage or moving trucks, etc.) and design the curb radii
accordingly and submit this data and design criteria with the Site
Development Review application.
-10-
32. Wheel stops within the project shall be at the curb at the end of the
parking stalls. Parking stalls shall be a minimum depth of seventeen
feet for standard-sized stalls and fifteen feet for compact-sized
stalls.
33. Special private storage areas of at least 120 cu. ft. per multiple
family residential unit shall be provided within or adjacent to each
unit. Details of the location and design of these areas shall be
subject to review and approval as part of Site Development Review
submittals.
34. Information detailing the design, location and materials of all fencing,
and of retaining walls over two feet in height, shall be subject to
review and approval as part of the Site Development Review submittals.
35. Slopes for areas adjoining both public and private roadways shall be
designed to maximize the level areas available for landscape treatment
and for general safety consideration and shall be subject to review and
approval through the Site Development Review process.
36. Light standards (freestanding, pedestrian and/or wall mounted) utilized
in this project shall be of a design which shields the light sources
from view from off-site while providing for adequate security and safety
illumination. Light standards shall be subject to review and approval
as part of the Site Development Review submittal as regards design,
location, number and illumination intensity.
37. Handicapped ramps and access as required by Title 24, State of
California, shall be provided (parking and walkways serving on-site
recreational facilities). Handicapped parking stalls, appropriately
signed, shall be provided evenly throughout the project with their
location and design as part of the Site Development Review submittal.
38. The use of entrance gates in any portion of this development are
specifically disallowed unless approved through the Site Development
Review process.
39. A pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted as part of the Site
Development Review materials. The plan shall include section details of
the pathway system and a detailed pedestrian walkway lighting plan.
40. To facilitate the development of an interconnection between the proposed
creekside pedestrian pathway system and the 90~ acre open space area to
the west, the cul-de-sac bulb at the terminus of the roadway separating
Villages VI and VII shall be moved down slope 50-75 feet to function as
a "knuckle" and to allow for an easier slope transition for pedestrian
trail access up the slope to the adjoining 90+ acre open space area.
Pedestrian access through this area will necessarily traverse the seven
~ acre remnant open space area that will lie above the day-light zone of
the proposed grading for the single family residential development in
Village VI. A schematic grading plan for the route of the pathway
system connection from the realigned "knuckle" to the adjoining 90-acre
open space area shall be submitted as part of the Site Development
Review submittals for either Village VI or VII, whichever is the first
to be submitted to the City for processing.
41. Signs established at entrances to the respective Villages for project
identification purposes shall be subject to review and approval as part
of the Site Development Review submittal as regards location, copy and
design.
42. The magnitude of potential design changes called for in Village I
(concerning the provision of a secondary access point, adjustment to
internal circulation patterns and parking counts, possible adjustment to
project density, and the impacts to the area resulting from an
enlargement and reconfiguration of the adjoining commercial area)
necessitate the changes be reviewed through a joint Conditional Use
Permit/Site Development Review.
-11-
SOILS, GEOLOGY AND SEISMILITY
43. Seismic Activity
Recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Alamo Creek, April 11, 1985, prepared by J. H. Kleinfelder & Associates,
shall be implemented.
44. Soils and Slope Stability
A. All foundation design, grading operations and site construction
work shall be consistent with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by J.H. Kleinfelder &
Associates, dated April 11, 1985, and of the August 5, 1985,
letter from J.H. Kleinfelder & Associates to Ronald Nahas
regarding response to review comments on the Alamo Creek project.
B. No cuts or fill slopes shall exceed a slope of 2:1. Where
possible, cuts or fills should be designed at 2.5:1 or flatter.
C. All fills of sufficient height shall be keyed into the existing
soils as recommended by the soils report prepared for this site.
D. All cut slopes of sufficient height should have bench gutters to
prevent drainage over the face of the slopes.
E. Prior to any grading of the site, a detailed plan covering grading
(including phasing), drainage, water quality, erosion and sedimen-
tation control for construction and the post-construction period
shall be prepared by the project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, and shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans
shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria
of all erosion and sediment control measures. The plans shall
attempt to assure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from
the site will occur. The plan shall provide for long-term
maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control
measures.
F. Alamo Creek shall be realigned to prevent further undercutting of
existing slides on the east side of the Dougherty Hills. Slope
protection shall be provided within the creek where necessary to
improve slope and bank stability.
G. Emergency access shall be provided to Villages VI and VII along
the west side of Alamo Creek along the proposed maintenance road
to serve as an emergency route in the event of damage to the
principle entrance across the creek due to seismic activity or
other natural disaster.
H. A report addressing the liquefaction danger to buildings adjacent
to Alamo Creek shall be prepared.
I. All structures shall be set back a mlnlmum of 15 feet from the top
and toe of the slopes, pursuant to recommendations in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report, Alamo Creek, dated April 11,
1985 (J.H. Kleinfelder & Associates).
J. Sub-drains shall be installed in all existing natural drainages
which are to receive material. Installation shall be per the
requirements of the Soils Engineers.
K. Catch-basins shall be installed during the primary grading
operation where waters are concentrated in the proposed single
family lot areas.
L. Revegetation with hydromulch with native vegetation shall occur
after each grading season. On Dougherty Hills grading areas,
revegetation shall simulate original conditions to the greatest
extent feasible.
-12-
M. Full-time soils inspection during mass grading operations shall be
provided by the developer.
N. All lots shall be graded to slope toward the streets to avoid rear
yard drainage channels and protect slopes from erosion.
O. The design of all multi-family residences shall be reviewed by a
licensed structural engineer for seismic requirements prior to the
issuance of building permits.
P. Where import depth of non-expansive soils is less than 2.5 feet
thick, post tension slabs should be used to avoid potential damage
from expansive soils.
Q. All import soil brought onto the site shall be of a non-expansive
nature.
R. Where soil or geotechnical conditions encountered in grading
operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and
geological investigation reports, or where such conditions warrant
changes to the recommendations contained in a site-specific/
project-specific soils and geotechnical report which shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City and shall be
accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the
safety of the site from hazards of erosion, settlement and seismic
activity.
45. Mass Grading
A. Cuts and fills shall be designed to balance whenever possible to
avoid the need of offsite hauling.
B. Cut-and-fill slopes shall be contour-rounded to conform as closely
as possible with the natural slopes, to avoid a man-made
appearance, and to form a gradual transition to natural terrain.
C. Variable slopes shall be used to mitigate environmental and visual
impacts of grading.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION- PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS
46. Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection
A. The developer shall widen Dougherty Road both north and south of
Amador Valley Boulevard with a minimum of 24 feet of asphalt
paving to provide four lanes. Widening will take place from the
existing four lanes on the south side of the S.P.R.R. right-of-way
to the northern project boundary. Dougherty Road shall be widened
to four lanes in phases to correspond with the connection of
project access roads to Dougherty Road. (Subject to City Engineer
review and approval, alternative improvements may be acceptable.)
Dougherty Road widening shall be completed from Amador Valley
Boulevard to the northerly line of Village III prior to occupancy
of Village II or III. Those street improvements on Amador Valley
Boulevard shall be complete prior to occupancy of the first
Village developed.
B. The developer shall construct a free right-hand turn interim lane
on Dougherty at Amador Valley Boulevard. Upon construction of the
ultimate right-of-way of six lanes and a divided median on
Dougherty Road, this right hand lane shall be modified to function
as a joint right-hand turn lane and through southbound travel
lane.
C. The developer shall install a signal at Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dougherty Road. The signal is to be installed and operational
prior to occupancy of more than 300 units.
-13-
D. The developer shall increase the number of parking spaces by 32
spaces to meet minimum requirements for dwelling units and to
provide 15 percent guest parking. Parking spaces shall be
designed to meet minimum dimensional requirements. The ratio of
compact spaces to full size spaces shall not exceed 50 percent of
the uncovered parking.
47. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection
The project developer shall pay for construction of a right-hand turn
lane, including curb, gutter and signal improvements, together with
restriping as necessary, to accommodate a free right-hand turn lane off
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. Improvements shall be complete or,
in the event that right-of-way acquisition has not been completed by the
City, funds shall be deposited with the City to cover the required
improvements prior to occupancy of more than 360 project units.
48. Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection
The developer shall reconstruct and improve Amador Valley Boulevard by
narrowing the portion of the median fronting the property line to
Dougherty Road, providing lighting and landscaping, overlaying the
existing street section, providing four lanes from the entrance of
Villages I and II to Dougherty Road, and providing a separated eight
foot minimum width off street bicycle system from Dougherty Road to
Stagecoach Road on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard.
49. Emergency Access Routes to Villages VI and VII
The developer shall provide an emergency access route to Villages VI and
VII. The proposed maintenance road on the west side of the creek may
serve as the emergency access road, providing that design and
engineering studies prove this access feasible. Emergency access roads
must be 20 feet minimum width, and may not be routed through the
community park.
50. The lotting layout of Village VI shall be modified to allow the right-
of-way that is to be offered for dedication at the north end of the
cul-de-sac adjoining proposed Lots #113 and #114 to include all lands up
to the County Line. This adjustment shall be made to reserve for the
City of Dublin the flexibility to pursue a future emergency access
linkage with the land to the north upon the submittal to the City of San
Ramon of a development plan for the property.
51. The right-of-way along the north side of the northernmost proposed
public loop road for Village V shall be widened to include all lands up
to the CoVnty line. This adjustment shall be made to reserve for the
City of Dublin the flexibility to consider possible road connections
serving future development to the north, in the City of San Ramon, which
may subsequently be determined desirable to minimize the number of
intersections along Dougherty Road and/or to mitigate possible alignment
conflicts of intersections proposed to be located along Dougherty Road.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
52. The developer shall increase the size of Dougherty Road from the
existing two lane configuration which would accommodate project traffic
to a full four-lane configuration with a 3-foot painted median (or
alternate improvements as approved by the City Engineer). This section
of road shall be complete prior to occupancy of 650 units.
53. The developer shall construct an additional two lanes along Dougherty
Road where the existing curb and gutter have been installed for the
Arroyo Vista development across the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.
This section of road shall be complete prior to occupancy of 650 units.
-14-
54. The developer shall widen Amador Valley Boulevard to four lanes from the
entrance from Villages I and II to Dougherty Road. This project should
be completed prior to occupancy of Villages I or II.
55. The applicant will install conduit for future signals at the main
project entrances to Villages IV through VII and at the Amador Valley
Boulevard entrance to Villages I and II.
56. The developer shall provide for the development of complete plans for
the final improvement of Dougherty Road for the entire project frontage
to its ultimate design configuration.
57. The developer shall modify the site plan layout to provide bus turnouts
along the internal street system, Dougherty Road, and Amador Valley
Boulevard, the locations and design of which shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer and the local transit authority.
58. The following changes in the circulation system shall be made in Village
VI: 1) the north-south streets serving Lots 1 through 27 shall be
terminated in cul-de-sacs at the north ends of the streets; 2) the cul-
de-sac at the west end of the street between Village VI and Village VII
shall be modified to a knuckle and lowered down the slope; and 3) the
emergency access to be provided at the north end of the site shall be
designed for emergency access only, not for through traffic.
59. The internal major collector loop streets shall be dedicated to the
City. These streets include those which connect the Villages and are
the main entrances to the project, and also include all streets in
Village VI.
60. Developer shall furnish and install signs stating "Private Street" and
"Fire Access - Park in Designated Locations Only" along all private
streets. Guest parking spaces shall be designated by sign paint or
equal.
VISUAL RESOURCES
61. To the extent feasible, development shall provide for the incorporation
of part of the creek corridor into the park area, to provide views
uninterrupted by cyclone fencing (as determined appropriate and feasible
by the City and the Alameda County Flood Control District).
62. A landscaped buffer area 15 feet wide shall be incorporated into the
north side of the east-west street that divides Villages VI and VII.
This buffer shall extend from the entrance to the single-family Village
and continue west to the end of this street. The buffer shall be
designed to screen off the single-family area from offsite views through
the park, and to provide a transition between the single-family and
multi-family areas.
63. Detailed planting plans developed for the park area within the 500 foot
corridor east of Dougherty Road shall accommodate long-distance views to
the Dougherty Hills. (Appendix B of these Conditions illustrates this
concept.)
64. The following design criteria shall be reflected in the Site Development
Review submittals for Villages I through V for the Dougherty Road
frontage strip adjoining the proposed sound-architectural wall:
a) Total minimum width of the strip, as measured from face-of-curb to
face-of-wall, shall be 19 feet, and shall be widened to 23 feet
wherever feasible.
b) Four-foot minimum landscape strips shall be utilized as measured
from face-of-curb to the front edge of the sidewalk and between
the rear edge of sidewalk and the face of the sound-architectural
wall.
-15-
c) The sidewalk shall be a mlnlmum of six feet in width and shall
meander both horizontally and vertically through the center 11-
foot strip (minimum width) that remains between the two minimum
landscape strips established above.
d) Wall design shall provide detailed architectural design on both
sides of the wall and shall utilize "pop-outs" of a minimum depth
of three feet, being regularly spaced along the wall's entire
frontage.
65. The following design criteria shall be reflected in the Conditional Use
Permit/Site Development Review submittal for Village I for the Amador
Valley Boulevard frontage strip adjoining the proposed sound-
architectural wall:
a) Total minimum width of the strip, as measured from face-of-curb to
face-of-wall, shall be 18 feet, and shall be widened to 21 feet
wherever feasible.
b) Four-foot minimum landscape strips shall be utilized as measured
from face-of-curb to the front edge of the sidewalk and between
the rear edge of sidewalk and the face of the sound-architectural
wall.
c) The sidewalk shall be a minimum of five feet in width and shall
meander both horizontally and vertically through the center 10-
foot strip (minimum width) that remains between the two minimum
landscape strips established above.
d) Wall design shall provide detailed architectural design on both
sides of the wall and shall utilize "pop-outs" of a minimum depth
of three feet, being regularly spaced along the wall's entire
frontage.
66. The following design criteria shall be reflected in the Site Development
Review Submittal for Village II for the Amador Valley Boulevard frontage
strip adjoining the proposed sound-architectural wall:
a) Total minimum width of the strip, as measured from face-of-curb to
face-of-wall, shall be 18-feet, and shall be widened to 21 feet
wherever feasible.
c) Four-foot minimum landscape strips shall be utilized, as measured
from face-of-curb to the front edge of the sidewalk/bicycle path
and between the rear edge of sidewalk/bicycle path and the face of
the sound-architectural wall.
c) The sidewalk/bicycle path shall be a minimum of ten feet in width.
d) Wall design shall provide detailed architectural design on both
sides of the wall and shall utilize "pop-outs" of a minimum depth
of three feet, being regularly spaced along the wall's entire
frontage.
67. The Dougherty Road frontage shall be landscaped in an attractive manner
with a variety of shrub and tree massings.
68. The undeveloped area on the west side of the site shall be offered for
dedication to the City or an appropriate public recreational district.
69. Single family homes in Village VII at higher elevations shall be subject
to architectural design guidelines requiring exterior colors and
materials compatible with the scenic corridor, established and
enforceable through project CC & Rs.
70. Engineered slopes shall be contoured to blend into the natural
topography and shall not, to the extent feasible, exceed 2.5:1 slopes.
-16-
71. Cleared open space areas shall be revegetated. Natural areas shall be
enhanced by planting of oak, naturalized grasses, or other native
vegetation.
72. In Village VI, uniform, durable fencing compatible in design and
materials with the natural appearance of the hills shall be installed
along the boundaries of all lots which are located on or adjacent to
graded slope areas.
73. Uniform tree plantings shall be installed and maintained on all graded
slope areas adjacent to single-family lots in Village VI. Approximately
one tree at 350 square feet of slope area shall be planted. Tree
species shall be compatible with native vegetation.
74. All open space and landscaped areas now owned by individual single-
family lot owners or within Villages shall be placed within a lighting
and landscape special assessment district, or maintained by a master
homeowners association.
75. Based on Staff's preliminary review, the Dougherty Road frontage width
of the proposed commercial site (proposed Lot #153) shall be widened a
minimum amount of 17 feet to provide for a doubling of the on-site
parking to be developed. This change shall increase the site by a
minimum amount of approximately 3,000 square feet (from 17,500+ sq. ft.
to 20,500+ sq. ft.). To accommodate the increase in the size ~f the
commercial parcel, changes shall also be made to the layout of building
groups in the adjoining sections of Village I. A third driveway to the
commercial site may be developed at the northwest corner of the site
along Amador Valley Boulevard. Additional design considerations
involving the pedestrian walkway system, the gasoline pump island
layout, the method of tying into the adjoining sound-architectural wall,
etc., shall be addressed in conjunction with the Site Development Review
for this site. Part of the submittal requirements for that subsequent
submittal shall include information documenting the anticipated parking
requirements for the proposed convenience food store. If the findings
of the Study reveal that an even larger commercial parcel is necessary
to accommodate the parking amounts determined necessary, then the
appropriate additional adjustments shall be reflected in the Site Plan
Layout.
MISCELLANEOUS
76. The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in
the design, but not the use, may be approved by Staff. Any other change
will require Planning Commission approval through the Conditonal Use
Permit review process or, depending on the magnitude of the
modification, submittal of a new Planned Development Rezoning submittal.
Changes to the proposed finished floor elevations and site grading shall
not exceed a maximum deviation of two feet from the elevations indicated
on the Revised Tentative Map and Development Plan, dated received
December 12, 1985.
77. If the project is developed in phases, all physical improvements shall
be required to be in place prior to occupancy except for items
specifically excluded in a Phasing Plan approved by the Planning
Department. No occupancy shall be allowed until the entire area, or
approved phase, is finished, safe, accessible, provided with all
reasonable expected services and amenities, and completely separated
from remaining additional construction activity. Any approved Phasing
Plan shall have sufficient cash deposits and other assurances to
guarantee that the project and all associated improvements shall be
installed in a timely and satisfactory manner. Any approved Phasing
Plan shall also include written acknowledgements from the property
owners and any and all occupants or tenants to be filed with the
Planning Department. Said acknowledgements for a subdivision shall be
part of the settlement documents between the developer and buyer.
-17-
78. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any units:
A. Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as approved by
the City Engineer.
B. Fire protection devices shall have been installed, be operable,
and conform to the specifications of and inspections by the Dublin
San Ramon Services District Fire Department.
C. Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit.
D. As-built drawings showing the locations of all underground
utilities (water, storm and sanitary sewer, gas, electric,
telephone and cable TV) shall be provided to the City.
E. Street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the
Planning Director, shall have been installed.
79. Prior to occupancy of any unit, each phase of development (landscaping,
irrigation, fencing and landscape lighting in accordance with approved
landscape and erosion control plans) shall have been installed, or a
bond or letter of credit for the landscaping, lighting, appurtenant
structures, and irrigation system shall be provided to the City. A
statement from the project Landscape Architect certifying that
landscaping has been installed under his/her supervision and is in
accordance with approved plans shall be submitted to the Building
Official and Planning Director.
80. Should the project be phased:
A. The undeveloped area shall be maintained as acceptable to the
DSRSD - Fire Department and shall be kept free of trash and
debris.
B. A road system of a design determined acceptable to the City
Engineer and the Planning Department shall be installed.
C. Each phase shall be landscaped and developed such that should
construction of subsequent phases be delayed, the constructed
phase(s) will appear as a completed project.
The landscape buffer along the north and east sides of the east
half of the project shall be installed as part of the first phase
of development on that side of Silvergate Drive. The recreation
facilities for the half of the project under development in the
initial phase(s) shall also be installed as part of the first
phase of development.
81. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, the following
reports shall be filed with, and approved by, the City Engineer at the
time the units are put up for individual sale.
A. A report by a licensed roofing contractor certifying that the
roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely
to be in need of replacement for at least 10 years.
B. A report by a professional Engineer attesting that the structure
of all buildings, pavements, storm draininage facilities, and the
interior and exterior plumbing, electrical systems, and utility
and mechanical equipment to be owned in common, or as part of the
individual condominiums, are in good and serviceable condition.
C. A report by a licensed painting contractor certifying that
painting throughout the project is in good condition and that the
building exteriors should not require repainting for at least five
years.
-18-
D. A report by a licensed termite and pest control specialist
certifying that the structures are free of infestation and
structural damage caused by pests.
82. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, all
applicances shall either be replaced with new units or be warranted to
the values of new appliances at such time as the units are put up for
individual sale.
83. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Dublin
assuring that a minimum of 10% of the units are to be rented upon
initial occupancy and for a minimum period of five years thereafter.
The agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Attorney.
84. Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the
single family residential lots proposed in Village VI shall include the
following:
1. Front Yards - 20-foot mlnlmum; subject to review and approval by
the Planning Director, may be varied from 18 to 22 feet to provide
variety while maintaining the 20-foot average.
2. Side Yards - A. One-story Units =
- 5-foot minimum each side
- 12-foot minimum street side sideyard
B. Two-story Units =
- 6-foot minimum each side
- IS-foot minimum street side sideyard
3. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and visible
In addition to the above, the design of single family residential units
developed shall provide for the maximum unit privacy through use of
building layouts which provide useable side and rear yard areas with
offsets of windows and similar inter-building design considerations.
Additionally, two story units shall be subject to an additional front
yard setback whereby the building face of the second story shall be
setback an additional five feet ~ minimum from the building face of the
garage.
85. The minimal dimensional design criteria for the multiple family units
proposed for Villages I through V and VII shall include the following:
A. Building to Building Separations - 20-foot minimum separation
between buildings, with deviation of the minimum separation
subject to review and approval by the Planning Director through
the Site Development Review process to consider case-by-case
reductions to IS-feet when:
1) one of the facing building walls has no windows;
2) living room to living room windows are separated by a
minimum distance of 40 feet;
3) living room to bedroom windows are separated by 30 feet.
B. Building to Roadway Separations - IS-foot minimum, except for
building setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard,
and along the first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads off
from their intersection with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley
Boulevard, where a 20-foot minimum setback (measured from the rear
face of the sound-architectural wall, as applicable) shall be
observed.
c. Patios/Decks and Patio/Decks/Building Walls Separations - IS-foot
minimum.
D. Building Walls and Parking Areas Separations - 10-foot mlnlmum
with a minimum of 5-feet of the width landscaped for screening of
parking.
-19-
E. Building Walls to Building Appurtenances (including stairways)
Separations - 20-foot minimum separation of heated exterior
building walls and 20-foot minimum separation between living room
deck and adjacent building appurtenances (except patio).
F. Building Appurtenances to Building Appurtenances Separations -
10-foot minimum separation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
th day of
1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-20-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP 5511
CONCERNING PA 85-041.1 AND .2 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK -
RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE SITE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development requests
approval to subdivide 135+ acres of land in the northeasternmost corner of the
City into a 156 lot subdivision creating the following lotting pattern: Lots
1 through 145 - for the proposed single family residential lots; Lots 147
through 152 - being one lot for each respective proposed multiple family
residential village (which are proposed for subsequent subdivision into
residential condominium air-space units); Lot 153 - for the proposed 9,000+
square foot commercial lot; and Lots 154 through 156 - for flood control
right-of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard right-of-way and improvements, the entry
road right-of-way and improvements servicing Villages VI and VII, and rough
grading for the entire project; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the
adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property
may be divided into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or
financing unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin subdivision
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on
February 18, 1986, and March 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared
for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests; and
WHEREAS, The Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Tentative Map be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports and recommendations as herein above set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Tentative
Map will not have a significant environmental impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does
hereby find:
1. Tentative Map 5511 is consistent with the intent of applicable
subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinances.
2. Tentative Map 5511 is consistent with the City's General Plan as
they apply to the subject property.
3. Approval of Tentative Map 5511 will not result in the creation of
significant environmental impacts.
4.
health or
injurious
Tentative Map 5511 will not have substantial adverse effects on
safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be
to property or public improvements.
I1ttJfr ,!i9LVT7tJYr/-- 7bJJ-Iff1r1e At# 5571
J:'(H, lB. IT "
b."l\. ! I . I.-r
-1-
5. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in
that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of
development proposed in locations as shown, provided the geological
consultant's recommendations are followed; and the site is in a good location
regarding public services and facilities.
6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in
that the design and improvements are consistent with those of similar existing
residential developments which have proven to be satisfactory.
7. The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of
being compatible to existing land uses in the area, will not overburden public
services, and will facilitate the provision of housing of a type and cost that
is desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin.
8. General site considerations, including unit layout, open space,
topography, orientation and the location of future buildings, vehicular
access, circulation and parking, setbacks and similar elements have been
designated to provide a desirable environment for the development.
9. This project will not cause serious public health problems in that
all necessary utilities are, or will be, required to be available and Zoning,
Building, and Subdivision Ordinances control the type of development and the
operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve Tentative Map 5511 - PA 85-041.2 subject to the
conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified the following conditions shall be complied with
prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Each item is subiect to review and
approval by the Planning Department unless othewise specified.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Approval of Tentative Map is subject to the subdivider securing final
approval from the Dublin City Council for the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning request covering the subject property. Any modifications to
the project design approved by the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
action shall supercede the design on the Tentative Map and shall be
considered as an approved modification on the Tentative Map. Site
Development Review approval for the project shall be secured prior to
the recordation of the Final Map. Site Development Review and Final Map
recordation may occur in phases.
ARCHEOLOGY
2. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered,
construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist
consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the
opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as
may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect
them.
BONDS
3. Performance, labor, and material securities to guarantee the instal-
lation of improvements, including streets, drainage, grading, utilities
and landscaping, shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer
prior to approval of the Grading and Improvement Plans.
4. Prior to release by the City Council of the performance and labor and
materials securities:
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improve-
ment Plans and Specifications.
-2-
b. All required landscaping shall be installed and established.
c. An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape
Architect and a declaration by the project Landscape Architect
that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the landscape plans.
e. The following shall have been submitted to the City Engineer:
1) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, including original ground surface elevations, as-
graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage, and
locations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities.
2) A complete record, including location and elevation of all
field density tests, and a summary of all field and
laboratory tests.
3) A declaration by the project Civil Engineer and project
Geologist that all work was done in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the soil and geologic
investigation reports and the approved plans and
specifications.
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
5. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. & R.'s) shall be
established for the multiple family residential portions of this
development. The C.C. & R. 's shall be approved by the Planning Director
prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
The C.C. & R.'s shall be reviewed and approved by the City to assure
that:
a. There is adequate provlslon for at least the maintenance, in good
repair, of all commonly owned facilities, property and
landscaping, including but not limited to open space, common
parking and driveway areas, lighting, recreation facilities,
landscape and irrigation facilities, fencing, exterior of all
buildings, and drainage and erosion control improvements.
b. Payment of dues and assessments shall be both a lien against the
assessed land and a personal obligation of each property owner.
An estimate of these costs shall be provided to each buyer prior
to the time of purchase.
c. The Association shall keep the City Planning Department informed
of the current name, address and phone number of the Association's
official representative.
d. Payment of the water and street lighting bills (maintenance and
energy) and maintenance and repair of storm drain lines, are the
obligations of the Homeowners' Association, unless paid for
through a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District.
e. Each buyer is to sign an acknowledgement that he has read the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Homeowners' Association and the
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions applying to the
development.
f. The Homeowners' Association shall contract with, or be advised (as
to how to handle maintenance operations) by, a professional
management firm.
g. No exterior parking of recreational vehicles or boats may occur
for a period longer than twenty-four (24) hours within this
development.
h. The C.C. & R.'s shall prohibit the use of guest parking areas by
project residents.
-3-
i. The C.C. &. R. 's shall include a statement outlining the
obligations of the property owner to be responsible for public
liability in case of injury in connection with public utility
easements, and for mainentance of private vehicle access ways and
utility trenches in public utility easements. They shall further
be void of any mention of future dedication of the access way to
the City as a public street.
j. Restrict the recoloring, refinishing, or alteration of any part of
the exterior or any building until the Owner or Declarant first
obtains approval from the related City of Dublin Departments.
DRAINAGE
6. Roof drains shall be tied into the storm drain system in a manner
approved by the City Engineer.
7. A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all public storm drains
to ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage.
DEBRIS
8. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The
developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to
the City of Dublin.
9. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways free and
clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris, and clean-up shall be
made during the contruction period, as determined by the City Engineer.
EASEMENTS
10. Where the subdivider does not have easements, he shall acquire
easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property
owners for improvements required outside of the property. Original
copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in written form
and shall be furnished to the City Engineer.
11. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the grading and
improvement plan. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular
and utility service access for all lots.
12. The developer shall be responsible for the development and recordation
of an appropriate agreemment, which shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney, which assures provision of the
vehicular/pedestrian/bicycle cross access between the respective
multiple family residential Villages of this project and provides for
the joint use of the recreation facilities developed in each Village.
13. Public utility easements shall be established for the electric
distribution system and to provide for lines for the Telephone Company.
FIRE
14. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and
appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire
protection, must be installed by the developer and conform to all
requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications
of Dublin San Ramon Services District. All such work will be subject to
the joint field inspection of the City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon
Services District.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS
15. Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within
the development and as required off-site, to include curb, gutter,
sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on the existing paving, if
necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint.
-4-
GRADING
16. Prior to commencement of construction of any structures, site grading
shall conform with the recommendations of the project Soils Engineer, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A declaration by the Soils
Engineer that he has supervised grading and that such conformance has
occurred shall be submitted.
17. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base
materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service
connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable
TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines shall be installed in a manner
which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk
when future service connections or extensions are made.
18. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading
plans and recommendations of the project Soils Engineer and/or
Engineering Geologist, and the approved erosion and sedimentation
control plan, and shall be done under the supervision of the project
Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who shall, upon its
completion, submit a declaration to the 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 specifica-
tions. Inspections that will satisfy grading plan requirements shall be
arranged with the City Engineer.
19. Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval of
those property owners affected.
20. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation
report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations
contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic
report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall
be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety
of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement and
seismic activity.
21. The developer and/or his representatives shall notify the Department of
Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any
construction activity proposed in conjunction with this project that may
affect Martin Canyon Creek in accordance with Sections 1601 and 1602 of
the Fish and Game Code. A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be
secured by the developer from the Department of Fish and Game.
HANDICAPPED ACCESS
22. Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as required by the State
of California Title 24.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS AND SECURITIES
23. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving and utilities, must be constructed in
accordance with approved standards and/or plans.
24. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and specifications
for street improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type and
location of drainage facilities both on- and off-site) and erosion and
sedimentation control shall be submitted and subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
25. The subdivider shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City
for all public improvements. Complete improvement plans, specifications
and calculations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the 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 adjacent public street(s) and property that relate to the proposed
improvements. 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 costs,
-5-
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City and affected agencies
having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the
Improveffient Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION
26. Park land dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
Building Permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever
occurs first. The City Engineer shall calculate the in-lieu fee based
upon the Subdivision Ordinance. For in-lieu fee calculation purposes,
the preliminary park dedication land required is approximately 50,573
sq. ft. (0.009 acres/dwelling unit X 129 units). Final calculations
shall be at the issuance of Building Permits or at the approval of the
Final Map, whichever occurs first.
STREETS
27. The mlnlmum uniform gradient of streets shall be 0.5% and 1% on parking
areas, and 2% on soil drainage. The street surfacing shall be asphalt
concrete paving. The City Engineer shall review the project's Soils
Engineer's structural design. The subdivider shall, at his sole
expense, make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and base is to
be constructed and furnish the test reports to the City Engineer. The
subdivider's Soils Engineer shall determine a preliminary structural
design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the
developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design
of the road bed and parking areas.
28. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any
work done within the public right-of-way of Amador Valley Boulevard, San
Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Donlon Way, where this work is not
covered under the improvement plans.
UTILITIES
29. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided
underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies and
existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within
public utility easements, or public streets sized to meet utility
company standards.
30. Prior to filing of the grading and improvement plans, the developer
shall furnish the 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 the development.
31.
Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the
system excluding individual laterals.
acceptable to DSRSD.
on-site sanitary sewer collection
The system shall be designed as
32. All utilities to and within the project shall be undergrounded.
33. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base
materials, all underground utility mains shall be installed and service
connections stubbed out beyond curb lines. Public utilities and
sanitary sewers shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb
the street pavement, curb, and gutter when future service connections or
extensions are made.
WATER
34. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be
installed at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District
standards and specifications. All material and workmanship for water
mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the
requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the Distict, and
will be subject to field inspection by the District.
25. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on
the map, that is known to exist, is proposed or is located during the
course of field operations, must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or
-6-
maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection
ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted at 443-9300 for additional
information.
36. Comply with DSRSD, Public Works, requirements, particularly regarding:
a. The elevation of the storm drain relative to the sewer lines.
b. The location of the sewer man-holes. They shall be in parking
areas accessible by District equipment.
c. Dedication of sewer lines.
d. Location and design of the water system values.
MISCELLANEOUS
37. Copies of the improvement plans, indicating all streets and drainage
facilities, shall also be submitted at 1" = 400-ft. scale, and
1" = 200-ft. scale for City mapping purposes.
38. Maintenance of common areas including ornamental landscaping, graded
slopes, erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment
control improvements, shall be the responsibility of the developer
during construction stages, and until final improvements are accepted by
the City, and the performance guarantee required is released;
thereafter, maintenance shall be the resonsibility of a Homeowners'
Association, which automatically collects maintenance assessments from
each owner and makes the assessments a personal obligation of each owner
and a lien against the assessed property.
39. There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department requirements, Flood
Control District requirements, and Public Works requirements. Written
statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has
jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
issuance of Building Permits on lots of the subdivision or the
installation of any improvements related to this project.
40. Unit address information and directories shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the DSRSD - Fire Department, Postal Services, and Dublin
Planning Department.
41. Install street light standards and luminaries of the design, spacing and
locations approved by the City Engineer.
42. The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs, in
accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin, bearing such names
as are approved by the Planning Director. The subdivider shall furnish
and install traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the
City of Dublin. Addresses shall be assigned by the City Building
Official.
43. Street trees, of at least a IS-gallon size, shall be planted along the
street frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting
plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning
Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks shall be
provided with root shields.
44. A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties
having any record title interest in the property to be developed and, if
necessary, copies of deeds for adjoining properties and easements
thereto, shall be submitted at the time of submission of the grading and
improvement plans to the City Engineer.
45. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be
accomplished at no expense to the City.
-7-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
th day of
1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-8-
~
1
~
~.
i
\- f
~ ~
~ i{
~ \\
~ i
~.
r~
, . ~
lh it
\
\
\
tWJ
V
~
,IJ
o
.J
~
2
(
.J
D.
'," .
";, .
, . .
,
- -.' ,
~>.,,,
--
;--::~.
o
[]o
LIVING
o
oUIlf
J:t
11
.\
, .'
"
",; IJ
,
. '
. .
. .. ..
. "
'..L'~
'..J-
-,- ...
BEDROOM 2'
jP!L JC.k>-!!.
~EDROOM 3
~!LJ{~
,
,
'"
,I
C'
({
. ...
. "
"
.
..-
"
1-,-,'"
.,.,.~-.:.~_ ~;";-.iJ'>.',,- -'- "~,'
,.-;..-.....,.'.,.1.'...
.
" . . '_~J - ~.;:;: ~.~~~i'
," c"'-::-;7~
~..
DO.
OIJ
DO
5
~CQ)
'IE
. ~.:
'. -,. ,
r~~t..~4~;&
-~
c:I II:
~ 5
iii UI j
a 11/: II.
~ ~ II:
o CIl 2
ID a II:
~ 0 ~
~~
~
~
";_1'.'''"''--
~
.;
..
,
..
~
W>
1,-;~;;;~~t'~~~1~f~iJ~~
I 1
\- - ~ t
1 1
~ .! ~
, -
'1
. ~ r
. <l.~f
, . , 'm!
~ ~~
~ \\\ ~~
..
i
)-
I ~~ . y-:r1-Rf
l III ~l ~! ~1 i :J
.
~
~,
..
m
tWJ
,IJ
o
.J
aJ
/
2
(
/0 Ii (I / / a..J
11/// III "
. / I ! / I .<..
BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2
.,~x /2. ,/SJ<./2
~
.~
~
!
~~Jtn~
If?J ~ 1Nt ~
18,05 sa FT '
- ,
. . .'~
., :.," "~:~v,,'~-.: ..c'._.... ,.",-._ ,-Ai. .. '<"~;"_..". .- ~,&.' -,
~
I
.0
<<l
I ,5
.~
.I
of.
It 35'-0"
\
~71~
\ -Ll . '1- ....'
, IV rr-. 7'- T
V'
i'( I
~
J. 1
ttJ ll-+-
if =::-
tj ,-<~~
4
DN/NG
10 ~ /0
;~
CtJ
j><:~ /),
~/VI
--r'\
I LIVING
-r
=~TI
I +
,bd.,.
0>-
till. -
'.
-
T
1~
o
-
"J
....~
~L,7
~ ~I
1 -
"! -
I- -~
~.-:
t71 :-t
I
\
r0~.
7'" I
~\~~
\ '
,
. "
.
"
7
~.
"
,
~~\. . I I
\ i/ '
~_ L
-' -T , , -!- t
~,I '\:J, i I ~
I " '-=L ~
,0. I
I , I , 1
\" , \[)C:
. (~~ t
~ 151 ~II
I. 2=1
II
~ I
..
'.
..
s.'t
.
,
1'=;
u"-
I'
....J
:.-
,0
'0
FAMILY
IZ~XI8~' l-L
i \ .
JT I
"
I
.J mrrrmrTrrrnm1 e-
~"
I
UP
-II- -' , J-
-::::,,&W"-
IT""--.
1'1 ....;::::-
I'
,
. ....
-+--
dIb...
or T,
_~_/POWDEFiO
-, -;-
r.;~ -2
,,'-- '-L
'~N --
^ :f., -1
I
,I ~~
\
GARAGE
-
E
o
I
CO
V
~,/""
.-
--~-",-,','''''-''"''..-, .:.--------------""--"-'-., "-.....,, --.,~-~-~.,.....-"-..,-
''r,'''-''!')>-'
,~
,
~:i~~i~~k&~~~~1~~~t~
,.. -.. .'~
,,~~tJ~i~:)
:.~: .
f
II:
~
lit
j
A.
a:
2
a:
,~
)(
=
"
~
~
.:~ "
i:.~,~~~~;},.,!
.
\t
. ~
! ~
~ 1
r i
~ ~
~ '~
\\) -:J
~ ~ ~
'! t ~
,~
j t
F
~
J
1
1 ~
\\ '
~ ~
~ ~
~ l
"]
F 1
1. I
{ ~
" ~
\= \\
~ L
\X ~-"]!
7 ~ 1 ~
~ (t _\ ~
-'r
~i
t~
~ } 1 '
t~ ~!t
~ \)~~t
l~ U~
~ i )-~ -
~~ \\) It J.
o
m
oIJ
o
.J
l'J
2
(
.J
D.
~
l~~'
~ ~":
11:;.;:.- ~...
~~ ~
-~ F~
~ ~-""
< \ ,::
BEDROOM 4 ~ ~ r ~
/0;< /z- - i h: \ ...-
I'~
,/"
i
.--+- -.-
,
J
1'/
~
-, '
'\~.'
'",-
- --
Yi
..
-
/-
,
(
.
..
.
- +-
BEDROOM 3
Cf~,' /2.
BEDROOM 2
'1~I'-I').
~
Il
I
-0
III
/ I
II - t -)
L. I
= 1 I~
-- .~~
E-=
r=:"""
-=a
I-- ~.::
MA.;TER ~
- BEDROOM ~ ;.
/8l;)l./1-:" l[~:1ntJl -'
--- n
.
-., ,
'I T
IFJ
-,
\
I
-
,.
-
. I
I rwruntTul
- 4'
'1." ,~
VBATH~' '
, '\ I
~ L\ I: '- )
iJ,~
~~'
~
= " L'::!1
= '\~
'J0'~ 'II
\, "" ,",
~ ~- f\
I ,--'
0'-
- -
~.
1 35'-O~
\
)(\j),~
~ ( ~tJ ~
-X M f\ /}..~ \- i
@ I ~1 I
tfT Lf- >-
, ~F-- ~
t- +t-
I ..l.
.1
DNING
~)(,;o~
~
~
~
~~
["~
,
1\ I I .111 t.I\, _"
d;D
1:0
L.l. ..J.
'~, (. '--
1!!<lliiZJJU "I-
:{~
u'" -L.n- t-
-I- 1i7f
_Ji\UUll
,~
1 ~
1,1 --r--
I I
r-' I' 1
D
,
-0
'"
LIVING
I'f)(/'f
=TI
I ; +
i~t
C)
IQd]
W'
, \
i---- '4
\'
-'t.
N~
V': " T
'-flY
---
,
It. 0.;
- --r-
"
;.
I
'i1
_\
,
,
or
T ...
f- -
n
~
IT ~
.
FAMILY --
IZ!!X/6 ~ U,
\\ 1
-'--
ii ~ L 1-.. f-
--= -'- ""
OT '
" /POWDER'v
~ , -p.
-~- ~
. I' 9 '-..---u
\~
v
f - f-
~t
GARAGE
I
01
,
CO
V
-
- --
I I '-d__ *~
_ T \ T -----
.. \ .._1 -a )
, '\ \2\
" .(c..------;-
'.
, \tg \
I II r ;r
Zc:> <::::>
1/
v
"
IS' c=>
...
.
~
ID6
<,..:",' .
,>;".,".)"
;
i -'~'>'~;~J#~W-~I
~~;,;-~~.- - ~
\~
....;\.
{~;(>\ '
'""
~.... ..,
.....-"-
..;t:x.:..;.;.... .
.'
J!
~
-;, .':'._'<_~l "~.;::"'t.,.~:,,. ~,.<.._,."." .,:-......:1:'~-~",- ... ,'. ..,-.-..._", -':'-)'-......-.. J"
I
t~i~;f~~~~:1[~;,~~~~~~~~~
~ ~
~
f i
t
.
}
1
t
t-
; l
t ~ j
~ 1 I
-
......
-
~
~
I - -
,{'
~
1
~ \
J
1
1\
l
x
\\
"-J
~
-
-~
1
~
t
~
\\\
\l
"
1
)
\\\
L
"
2-
~
~
,
.-/
~ t
t ~
t- ~
1.
ii, l
~ ."' ~:: ,. =~ .:.-\ . .
"-'.,', ,.' . ",
. '::;1/ <,~!.:; ~ ."~.~":'~ . "~._' .
''',' . _,:'..' -01:' '. ." ",~ -:.
~~ \ <::~.:".;~~:.~.~ '<':,:.~ -~: ..'~
~~:~~fiiJ#j}~~~~~jh;fj#~hii~, .
"-' ~'~~..;:>_x:,~?,~'~':.:',~'<._l,~~::_'..;':
1.'.'
~
q
~
o
.J
V
2
<(
.J
[l
;
"
M BEDROO
/7J..-x/3
'k.
I
,~
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
.,a.)( IZ1:.. It:) Jl./O
~
2075 'sa FT
j
I"'"
.~
.
IL_
~l(\
.J.-..---"-l ~ } ~ J
u
. V"J' -,V7\
...-
-c T -^ f/C-/
~~~/~Y /f-L~ '1~ /
t=t
41~~"
Otr-
.~JI.
I
, .
v'"' v
,
r\tC;~
\4e?3~-~- II II II ''X! ,n
( ... ~ ' I~rf--
~l..ldou.l
I~ll l ~ ~~
00 I ~./
00 I
~/
-,
~
!nn~ @.~
-.-
HM
t DINING Ht
/1'( 12. t4
~~
~o
I
I
UP 1)(.. ~
rf 'i I'
l'oc- --
""" LIEN E
E .
,
'1'-
J
-, \ BEDROOM 4
~ '-. loXIO
1/
----
I -L
-+-
I-
oJnI
1
. I-
TI'
-
:L!;J, 0
'ef-~~~-~P - -- pu_U_ . ,,-
\:
4 ) n
\,c\~
~v"
rv-~
. J
~-------
~
N
I
N
LO
'.'
J
10-- -
, {
J , , , ~
I , , 'I
, ,
: ,
J
,
l~\
-'-
},)\
-I \[~1-
\61
r
I
. __ ____~._.__. - ...~ .,______.__.._+..__u_..__.... .-'-- .--
-i
.
~
--
.
w
"
t t ..~ 1".
\,...
~
~
.
.
~
,
"
.
1
.
.
.
.... .'~.~;. j:. ,
,;. -';"
I ~ '. '.. ' .', . r -:'. _: -,'..'._, <
l~~~~s~~~t~.
:~
w-
~ II:
e ~
II) II)
a 1&1 j
a: :ll: A
~ ~ ;;
g ltl 2
a a a:
a: 0 ,~
~ 0 )( ,
~
. .~ -.. ~.-.
"i"..~;--,,-J'
,
,
L,~~~\~~~,",~~~~l4i
.
,
'. . ~
,
M
,.
-
l
~
, '1\
Il
'; ~
~ ~I
~ ~~
~ '"
~~ '~f
~t< It
!
hm,
~~-
it
~!
~~
.~
a:l
L
~i
~a
L
H
~
!~
~~
;..
~~
~
t~
h.
L>'
~.
~t:
P
,,t
..."\
..~
~'-
H
~I
t
tlL
"Ii>
,~ <(
~" .
<(
2
D :~
- 0
I- .~
U"
w ~
UJM
,-
~ .
i--
,
-,;;,.,....,.-.,:.~~ ~-,.. .
~~""'"":""-:i-
... . ,
~\i!
.ra
-'= l~~/.
, i it~
. }~
~~ \~~
~~ }if
oL
~ !~"
B , ~
- t II-
" !f~!
b
'0
N
',.
u
.~
~~
ii
~~
~~
w
~
~
u
UI
uI
"h
~..:t
~x~
l!l
,,~
o
. .--.....:...
m
.
m
2
o '0
-"
1-' .~
U,.
w~
rng
...
He
"
~
t1CJI1
'a
..
III
>
GI
'3
o
CD
>-
.!
iii
>
..
o
'a
III
E
ollC
i
DOU9herty Road
/0-----------'"
{ '''~ (
,
.
SITE PLAN
Scale 1": 40'
.
.
"
-:_-
---- :r.:
---.
..>
.. -- --~'
~ ---.
- ..
~=,.c-_~, _ U I
.,
-=:-.--
:..
-~~-----~i
---. - . ---:-:-=:Li
_'i
---=---=--, i I
--:.....=~_7.::.::.::~j
-
z
0 0
i= I
<t ~
> ....
. .
W I:
..J V
W "'"
....
J:
I- C1)
ex: (ij
0 ()
z en
i
I,
r --~ ~,.. .. j i
a ~~""7--~ "
;,.,..,.....,...-.j
, .-
, .
I,
I
r
I '
i'
I
/
i .
I
I
! -'
...
Z I:
00
- I
1-;-
<t ..
>~
W.,
-I ,..
,W
I- (1)
en C6
<t 0
w en
.! \,
,t'. "
f
1
. ..\"\
. ~\,\'l. \,..,\ .
,-';
\
.,.,'\ \.#
, ,
.,
,
'..
~.
. ~
,'-
~
-
'.
.....
,~
-;,
. ..,....
I ~ . .
'. . i ~ ~ '
."\
\t'
),.,
, "
~< li~' ~ ~
'VHi !H; imnHHH'i H~ ~i
.W IPa !Hpi;ll{lil. H" H
i I" I'~~ 1~ll"l~ffl!; ~~ !
, i ~l'l~l! I"
T I I Jil_i! f !'
'f ! f :!f ~!
I! ~ i
"j ..-..~. .. .-
I !-l!~~i Ii -;
f~ :Ii[g~~ ii :1
f !!iii ,{
HH[H
!r!'i ~~r
I' { J-
i
~ ~!~ ~
1Hil"m-1
! Ii ii"
W~i~l!
l'f-~H~
f ,"il
!'~i
{ IiI
iW"IH I
JiJ!hi:
~~hHfa
t i ~;" ...
. ;
~
I;f~
li~1
!i!;
..j.
Ih!
..:t:
f:i:
Je;1 ~
31 ii
Ii ·
Iii
i ~~I
11 ifi!~A IfflS I
1 lm~! flirt
~ I H=;' 'IF~
!" -,., .,.j.
ii hi. i "=i
~ '~q i
,
"
~/
InHfH
! g if
f j H
~iHi I
'Ii.'
nu
./,.
..---
.,..-
./
./
./
./
/'
THE VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK
,
.;
.,.-
CALIFDRNIA
::::;:"'''':..Jr'"'__
,;;-l' ~ .-;;;--;::..."';.~~~. ..:.;-.'~- ~
, ....:' ..... '..'~ .....:: :''';.Jt.. >:::,.~
.'. ..
"."
.,
..
.'.' '"T"'. ~ - ", .
'-$."...~'_.'
'" ...\-
:_::J.~-'
~:.>-:,.....-~
-,
I
'~
a
~m
.0
~.I
im
0;1~
~
n
i
i'D
!r-
)>
2
1m
, --, '
-(0 fil f~ I!
Eo ~~. i U
~.I di rr r
8m !
0;3:
'):!
~
n
I~
I)>
[2 J~
I
I)> n
n
I t\
:Ii
I 'I
I~
· i
I II
;! U II '}
t
tin ~~ "f i H
iP ~
. ~p ;n
.~ t ..
.-
I 1 ~ i
AT ALAMO CREEK
AAFANELU & NAHAS
AN,-...oNY M. OUZZARDO
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
~~":'::~A C
DEVELOPER
CALIFORNIA
.__.....ooo.""r
c.....""" _,~.. .....,......_..
, .~'
-;.-----
...
E ...
~ ...
~ '"
~
c '"
z ."
: G)
Z :II
o 0
~ '"
;. '"
o
~
z
c
z
~
.
.
;:
?
.
~
~
I
~(')
'fo
CIl:U
-tz
Om
:u:u
::$c
z
:j
"Il
,..
:l>
Z
~
O\~ i
. z "-
~ ...
$ ~
,-
.
r
N
'"
"
~,
+-
r
I
I
I
II
'I
i~,1
I ~ '.Q"
I~" .' '
24'-0'
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES ~1-5'
DUBLIN
,CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
RECEIVED
" ; ~ ','S;5
DUBUN PLANNING
II
II
-11]: ,
, I
I .
II
,II
II
~ 5 CD
! ~ I
0
i ~ 0
::D '"
I ~ Z lD
!II ~
! c
z
! =I
"Il
>
z
N
O\! III
::D
"
...
III
. i ~
-,
I\)
22'-0"
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
~_.
~.~ 0
~ !(l I'
...
I ~ n 0
0 r!i
:II
I l'.l z
!D
~ c:
! ~
~
T N
III
. e ~
N
III
. ~
(,0)
23'-0'
RAFANELLI/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
,0
I f 1Il C
..... I
~ l/l l/l
." ." 5!
I !il gj
00 :D
I ~ g: c CD
C
I I Z
~ ~ 1 ~ '"
! ~\! "lI ~
~
z
j;i
DI
:D
. ~ "-
N
DI
. ~
.,:.
41'00'
~
a
;:
THE VILLAGES AT
. ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES ',1-5
PUBLIN
j:ALlFORNIA '
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
. ~ ".' .:" ."..",
~~
CS]
N
"!
~
. .
.....:=
~O
~m
~~
~~
cO m
. '" I
;: '"
~ c:
" CI>
! ;., Z 39'-4'
m IOl ::j
% '"
~ 0 "Il
,. CI> ,..
~ CI> )>
~~ Z
M -
~ Z
" 0 Col
"! r
m ." lD
'c ." m
~ c
.- :Xl
~
.\1 0
0
i:
"'-
. i N
lD
. )>
~ -l
. :z:
U1
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
0 :;~
~ I
. i
~lll u
:r- 0
~C CO
!'> a.
;-
"
0
CD
;
,I
38'-6'
m
Z
C
m
r-
m
<
:I>
-t
o
Z
". 0".", en co
Q -o~ c: c
"'~o
N' ~NO 5' 3
0 go~ IQ :;-
" Q.a~ 0 c
i!! ~!..., ~ ;I
3 :Cs1 g ~
.. 5'
" ~CIlIO " 0-
0 =.00 0
2, :.1a.~ ~
i -CD ,-
" Uu
". !!to
0 -..
~ ..~
" 0-
"
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLI/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
0)
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
/
::r 'C:::reO ~
~ -<~;; 9:
~ ~[~ ~
~ 8.a& 0
- <E!!.~ ~
3 .....3'< 0
:: :m ~ i
g ;,~ ~
_. n:J-
CD !!.;
~ 2"g
~ ;~
" Cl.
..
o :;>'
. _J
:; I
.. ~CD
~r-
10
p,
;
-.a
"Il
:a
o
z
-i
m
r-
m
<
)0
-t
o
Z'
I
..
;;,-
3'
D
ii
,~
o
2.
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
't) 'C:TIC !!!
j ~3.g 9:
o Or;: < ~
8. &.a& 0
. . ~'2. 'S
;c- :c~~ g
~ !:ClIO fit
- -00
~ ~S.~
- -.
2' ~g
;: r;~
~ ~
o
..
"
o
.
;
Q)
"Tl
:D
o
Z
-t
m
r-
~
:s-
-t
o
Z
IXl
I
lJl
r-
c
fi>'
:D
m
:s-
I:D
'm,
r-
m
<,
~
o
~'
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
to 'O:rc (J)
., -<~., e;
~ ~N~ ~
& g,~ & 0
~ .!!.q g
~ :~~ g
g ;:1"g ,.
Q. n"g Q. i
~ !.;":
~ !g
:> iia
..
I
13
iD
..
L
i
~
l
(-
:IE
~
:IE
'f
rr
.q l5'
~ ~
8. ;.
1 !
~ -
~ ~
I
o ~o
; I
. al!!
c
F>
"11
~ I
~ I
r .
E I
o I
Z I
i
J
2
J
!
I
;:
<0
o
I
ai'
r
C
p
;:;
:>
"
0'
...
~
-<
"
0'
!!!.
'~ .
".,"~ .
'i; '. )1
J:' ~ J..... ~
Yil_~' r;,>- :'"
" .
'J v". .~ j^--' ,:
~ . ~ ..
- -
. .
29'
RAFANELLI/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
o lie
E I
I
. ~l!!
c
Cl
. ,
;
...
o
r
c
~
n'
!!.
,'"
.Q
~!:
a.
'.
r I
I i-
t i
} !
!
t
i
~
:Il
m
)>
:Il
m
r-
m
<
)>
-i
o
:2;:
9'
'"
C!
im
z
c,
m
r-
m
<
)>
,-i
o
I~
28'
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
THE VILLAG!'S AT
ALAMO CRE~K ':" VILL~GES ,1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
- _l.._.._.
"O:TOO Ul
~3.g ~
os: Q
aaa. 0
~!.'2. ~
:c~~ g
~CIIO M
='00 '
~~i
~ -lP
~ eg!
:I ;~
~ di
"l
o
o
<
&
"0
-<
:IE
o
o
a.
.,
"
o
<
CD
..
o
em
~ I
:m
M,..
~c
Ii)
.
.
:
~
m
z
c
m
r-
~
,.
-I
o
Z
':u '
m;
,.:
:u
m
;r-
m
<
,.
-I
o
Z
27'-6'
1"1'1'
':U
'O'!
Izl
1-1
I III
'IT\'
l<;
, "1
, -I'
lei
':;1:'
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES 1-5
..,
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLI/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
:xJ
m
o
::J:J
m
~
o
z
o
o
3:
"'0
r-
m
><
I
<
F
~
G)
m
I\)
:\ ~
~
I\)
"'-- ------------- -- --..,
... . . . , t
. ~. '. ..: ; ~
-,
I
I
I
I
I / /
I / /
J / /
k~~---~--_! !
I ~
I ~
I. ~
I n
I '
I
I .
1
I /
I // I
J .. . . I
>'----------.1
THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - VILLAGES ,1-5
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
RAFANELLl/NAHAS
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
~
m
III
...
;;;
z
...
:II
~
m
,..
/II
<
.
...
(5
,;I:
.
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
/)
- ~,
11 (D ,
.
.
I
I
i
'"
,--
(
('
~
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
May 23, 1985
Mr, Kevin Gailey
Ci ty of Dublin
P,O, Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Kevin:,
Transmitted with this letter is our application for Plan Development
Rezoning and Subdivision Map for the Alamo Creek project, I have
attached a list of the submittals included with this application, We
are electing, Kevin, to submit the tentative Il'ap, preliminary landscape
plans, building elevations ar.d preliminary improvement drawings for
Alamo Creek prior to completion of the traffic report, noise studies
and biotic survey, We are doing so in order to eh-pedi te your planniI'.g
review process for the project, Although those studies are not
complete, these submittals will be sufficient to commence the internal
plan review process,
Alamo Creek is divided into seven phases, Five of those phases are
multifamily housing, One phase consists of 146 single family lots on
standard subdivision public streets, The final phase is an
unsubdivided lot reserved for future development, We have provided a
maximum land use intensity on the lot and have designed the access
roads to accomodate the maximum density allowable, We have also
instructed Chris Kinzel of TJKM to prepare traffic studies based upon
the maximum allowable density, We have -reserved this unsubdivided site
to enable us to respond to future Il'arket demands which cannot be
ascertained at' the moment, As you know, when Tract 4719 was approved,
the property containing Amador Lakes was an unsubdivided parcel
containing a maximum allowable density for multifamily use, We would
anticipate the same sort of structure on this parcel,
Kevin, I would greatly appreciate your reviewing the application and
the plans and letting us know where additional information will be
required at this time. Timing is, as you know, very important to us,
We rave always appreciated the interest and cooperation of the staff.
I particularly appreciate your willingness to jump into this
immediately prior to your vacation,
my'dL-
~ Nal1as
Enc,
cc: Rich Ambrose
Larry Tor.g
[RECEIVED,'
( C)) ') 085
' {.J tJ v
20638 PATIO DRIVE. CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537-0486
DUBLIN PLANNING'
ItJ g~-(/'II
fllVuj,V7~ }111-L7!d~
ATTACH ENT j
CITY OF DUBLIN
Planning/Zoning 829-4916
Building & Safety 829-0822
Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
Development Services
P,O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR:
PA 86-041.1 and .2 Villages of Alamo Creek - Rafanelli and Nahas Real
Estate Development Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Subdivision Map
(Tentative Map 5511) for a proposed planned development with 1,165
residential dwelling units, a convenience food store, a five-plus acre
neighborhood park site and common open space parcels.
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2100, et seq.)
,
LOCATION: The 135+ acre site is located in the northeasternmost corner of
the City, consisting of Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No. 4575 and
fronting along a section of the west side of Dougherty Road, extending
southerly from the County/City line, for a distance of approximately
4,200 feet. (APN 941-500-2-1, 941-500-2-4, 941-500-7, 941-500-8 and
946-101-1-2)
APPLICANT
AND REPRESENTATIVE:
Ron Nahas/Mark Rafanelli
Rafaneli & Nahas Real Estate Development
20638 Patio Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94546
PROPERTY OWNERS:
Larry C.Y. Lee, Campion Investment, LTD.
and Standard Nominees LTD.
1275 "A" Street
Hayward, CA 94541
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planned Development (PD) Rezoning proposal for 1,165
dwelling units and a small convenience store. Subdivision Map approval
for a 156 lot subdivision is concurrently requested and proposes the
following lotting pattern: Lots 1 through 146 for the proposed single
family residential lots; Lots 147 through 152 - being one lot for each
respective multiple family residential village (to accommodate a total
of 1,019 multiple family residential units which are proposed for
residential units which are proposed for subsequent subdivision into
condominium air-space units); Lot 153 - for the proposed 17,500+ square
foot commercial lot; and Lots 154 through 156 for flood control-right-
of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard right-of-way and improvements, the entry
road right-of-way and improvements servicing Villages VI and VII, rough
grading for the entire project. An individual Final Map is proposed to
be filed for each Village as construction phasing begins.
-1-
WAFr ;111 Tlfn9tdJ tlr6-tffNt
~rlJ ~F e1/,),!PrV,.{/Q-tltF
ATTACHMENT l
FINDINGS: The project, as now proposed, will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment. Observance of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Expanded Initial Study dated January 30, 1986, documents
the steps necessary to assure that the subject project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
INITIAL STUDY: The Expanded Initial Study dated January 30, 1986, provides a
detailed discussion of the environmental components listed below. Each
identified environmental component has been mitigated through project
design or through binding commitment by the applicant, as outlined in
the Mitigation Measures Sections of the Expanded Initial Study.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS:
1. Land Use
2. General Plan Policies and Zoning
3. Hydrology and Water Quality
4. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
5. Biological Resources
6. Traffic and Circulation
7. Air Quality
8. Noise
9. Municipal Services and Facilities
a. Schools
b. Sewer Service
c. Water Supply
d. Fire Protection
e, Police Protection
f. Recreation
10. Visual Resources
11. Cultural Resources
12. Energy
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
-2-
,- .., '.~ ~ -,#. ""fJW.I"'~ ,
~-
-~..-.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
GENERALLY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
The Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby
amended in the following manner:
Approximately 135 acres located in the northeastern corner of the City,
consisting of Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No, 4575 and fronting
along a section of the west side of Dougherty Road, extending southerly
from the County/City line, for a distance of approximately 4,200 feet,
are hereby rezoned to the Planned Development (PO) District; and
PA 85-041 (,I and .2) Villages at Alamo Creek -- Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development, California, Inc" as shown on Exhibit A
(Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance),
Exhibit B (Approval, Findings and General provisions of the Planned
Development (PO) Rezoning), Exhibit C (Resolution regarding Tentative
Map 5511) on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department, are
hereby adopted as regulations for the future use, improvement, and
maintenance of the property within this district. A map of the area is
as follows:
SECTION II: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty
(30) days from and after the date of its passage, Before the
expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be
published once with the name of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the same in The Herald, a newspaper published in Alameda County
and available in the City of Dublin,
on this
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin
th day of , 1986, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
?fIrFT ~{lf),tJ~tE fi7~ PO ~"V&-
ATTACHMENT .3
j-
1-
"
,,:itllllllll
- . _.
:
..
FiGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
l'
SrrE U[lmd J~ MO MEtJ ftlM's
ATTACHMENT 'f
~-
/'
.,\\'t
, ,
.1
i
. . -~
- i
u":i
1
: ..,~
.!
.;:; ...;
~". '~~~("1
."c.,""1
".,- -~ 1
,c...'l
'-'--.-,:;....:,-1
, : .;,;}f;-:,~i
II
~~..~ . :;~
i
,-./--
'.-
,
I
/
- '!::)~"'It' f.N
. !...e,..rARY
;"""OL.
. ..........
((
,
7.:
\;.
"
::
;:.:~ RV.:
~'41 -
~
<3. ./
\
,
~~
...
.
"
!~~I
r,
. _____C'..'.'
~ ...4..,rc
-"-',
...
"..
,.. ..":,,,..;:...:;~...,,... .....~ ."". . ",",
D(He7J.M1l WD ~~ pLfrtJ ~F
(/'rM.- P f trm fi}-L if.- tTlf
ATTACHMENT 5
("
, /
(~
I'
RE;CEl~E.a_
j'lO V ~ 719851
J),UBuN aANNWG
..1 <
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development ,
"'."
November 22, 1985
Mr, Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
P,O, Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Corv3.i tions of Approval - Alamo Creek
Dear KElvin:
This week we are canmencing construction of an apartment project in
-Richmond, The project was approved as a subdivision with a tentative
map, The conditions of approval of the project, however, allowed us to
draw building permits and canmence construction in advance of the
filing of the final map, All of the conditions which related to the
improvement drawings and building permits were fulfilled upon issuance
of the building permit, The final map simply had to be filed within
the appropriate time period before expiration of the tentative.
This process, Kevin, allowed us to save a significant amount of time in
the preparation and processing of the final map.
In the case of Alamo Creek, all of the offsite improvements are part of
the master tract, The final map for the master tract would be filed in
advance of any construction on site. We would request, however, that
building permits be issued upon approval of the building and
improvement drawings wi thin an individual Village prior to recordation
of the final map for that Village, If this can be accomodated, it
would be a significant help to us in securing sewer permits and getting
underway during the surraner,
(J2Z-
Ronald C, Nahas
RCN/rrnmn
cc: Larry Tong
Lee Thompson
20638 PATIO DRIVE. CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537-0486
,#tlcANi.s ~tJ{ II - 2? -~S-
RF: ;11As7n2- rMcr',11tJf f&P,,"sh
AtTACHMENT h
~
~~
,
1
Kevin Gailey
r
2
(
December 6, 1985
r
proposal, that that corridor is 15 feet wide on the
average. There are some areas, Kevin, where it is
up to 40 feet wide and other areas where it is nar-
r9wer. The exact acreage must be determined upon
preparation of final improvemetn drawings for the
individual villages. For purposes of concept appro-
val, however, 15 feet seems to be a reasonable estimate.
3. Alamo Creek Corridor Pathway System Improvements:
I have assumed improvement costs within the pathway
corridor of $21 per lineal foot. This is arrived at
by taking the cost of a six foot meandering pathway
and deducting from that the cost of a normal sidewalk.
I have then assumed landscaping within the corridor
of $1.50 per square foot for a toial cost per lineal
foot of $21. Again, these numbers will have to be
fixed at the time of improvement drawings.
4. Private Open Space:
There are four areas which qualify for private open
spaces. These are the four recreational facilities
within Villages 2, 3, 4 and 5. I have assumed a
setback of 10 feet for purposes of calculating the
100 foot minimum dimension. I have assumed 10 feet
because a typical building separation is 20 feet wall
to wall (15 feet minimum). These four areas amount to
a total of approximately two acres divided between
Villages 2, 3, 4 and 5.
5. In Lieu Fees:
I have calculated in-lieu fees at the acreage price
which we are paying for the property ($48,148 per
acre). We strongley des agree with the concept that
our expenditures to improve the property be included
in the land value for calculating fees.
There are certain villages wihch have net credits be-
cause of other dedications. It is our assumption
that each village will act independently. To the
extent in lieu fees have been paid by a village in
which such fees are due, those fees will be refunded
to any village with a net credit at the time the
tract map for that particular village is filed.
Kevin, this proposal seems to us to meet the direction of the
General Plan by providing onsite private recreation, enhance-
ment of the Alamo Creek corridor, and dedication of teh eight
acre park.
Kevin Gailey
{'
2
( December 6, ~985
,v
I believe it responds well to the overall timing and schedule
of this project.
(2~
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/jcd
Enclosure
cc: Rich Ambrose
Larry Tong
Mark Rafanelli
Lee Thompson
I-l""'
OJ OJ
p.1-l
c.l
00 cd
'<J'
rl
00
'<J'
fh ""'
;:l'- 0 ""' r:IJ
QI (/) 0 0 rl 0 0 C\1
...... QI rl CD ,..., 0 Lfl e-
....:I QI ~ 00 ~ 0 ()) 0
F<< Lfl ~ "l' ~ ~ ~
l:: C\1 00 Lfl rl "l' 00
H ifT '-' '-' CD rl (Y)
ifT
(/)
QI C!l QI C!l
I-l ;.., H H
ill+, c.l c.J c.J c.l
bJ)'..... cd CIi 0;1 cd
0;1'0 CD C\1 I rl 00
QIQI (Y) 01 ! Lfl
h H . .
tlU '<J' '<J' ())
<:
I
QI Q) !
QI QI H r-. ,
+'() tl () I
0;1 0;1 cd 0;1
+'?P
...... '..... CI.l Lfl Lfl
'01-< C\1 C\J
QlP<~ . ,
I-< I-<
U I-< 0;1
~P<
,
;>.(/} I
0;I+, H ;.., I
I-< ;S l:: 0 QI 0 CJ
o .c: QI H ..
~
fL.+,S 0 c.l 0 ;)
cd OJ 0 cd C\J ct
+,P<? e- ())~O
'..... 0 ~OO
'O,!>:;I-l CDrl C\1rl .
QJQJQ Lfl . Lfl ,
H QJ 5 fhrl ifTrl
U HH
0
l::
0
,!>:; '.....
QJ+,
QI 0;1 QI Q)
I-<c.l I-< H
U...... c.l ()
'0 cd 0;1
I-< QJ
Ol=l (Y) e-
<r; en r:IJ
? . .
+,cd
...... ;s
'O.c:
QJ+,
H 0;1
UP<
I
,!>:; r 1
+'1-< I
'..... cd QJ QJ ill C!l QJ
'OP< I-< I-< ;.., ~ , ;..,
QJ c.l tl c.J v I c.l
1-<1-< cd ~ cd ell 0;1
UO
~ rl rl rl rl rl
. . , , . , I . .
c.l , tl c.l c.l c.l c.l c.l c.J
'0 cd cd cd cd 0;1 0;1 cd cd
QJ QJ
I-< bJ) '<J' C\1 '<J' 00 00 '<J' C\1 00
...... cd Lfl (Y) '<J' CD C\l rl C\1 Lfl
;:l QI . C\1 en (Y) l'- (Y) (Y) '<J'
0'1-< . . . , , .
QI c.l C\1 rl rl rl rl rl 0
~<: rl
UJ
+'
'n 0 00 CD C\J C\1 CD 00 C\J
l:: (,0 '<J' rl L() en <:Ji <:Ji (,0
P C\l C\l rl rl rl rl rl
~
:q, rl
UJ
rl C\l (Y) '<J' Lfl CD i e- rl
i ro
QJ QJ QI C!l CJ , C) C!l +'
i I
rl bll bJ) bll bll b!J t;,jJ bJl 0
QJ cd ro cd ,1J ~ ro cd E-<
c.l rl rl rl rl ,..., rl rl
I-< rl rl ) rl rl rl rl I)~
ro '..... ...... '..... '..... '..... '.....
P< :> :> ~l :> :> :> :> :>
,~
r
(~
p
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
RECI=!Hr:D
DEe 111985
DUBLIN PLANNING
December 6, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gailey
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Re: Alamo Creek Park's Proposal
Dear Kevin:
This letter is intended to follow up your request for clarifi-
cation of park dedication requirements for Alamo Creek. I have
broken it down by Village. As you know, it is our intention to
file a master tract map which creates an individual lot for each
Village. The park site has been reserved for dedication to the
City on Parcel Map 4575, and will be further dedicated on the
master tract map. Approximately 50% of the total parks' obliga-
tion will be met with the filing of the master tract map. We are
suggesting in the attached breakdown, an allocation system for
that park's dedication. We have followed the general guidelines
on the Parcel Map by assigning two acres to Parcel 2 of the
Parcel Map and three acres to Parcel 3.
We are proposing to meet the park dedication requirements thro-
ugh a combination of land dedication for the neighborhood park,
land dedication for the Alamo Creek corridor pathway system,
private open space and in-lieu fees.
1. Park Dedication:
As mentioned above, we are anticipating dedication
of the park to the City upon recordation of the
master tract map. The assignment of acreage credits
as shown on the attached exhibit, will be detailed
on the map. Although the total park site, (inclu-
ding the portion within the creek) is approximately
8 acres, only five acres will count toward the park
dedication per the requirements of the City Council.
2. Alamo Creek Corridor Pathway System:
We will be conveying to the City not only the streets
along the east boundary of Alamo Creek, but also a
landscaped corridor between the street and the creek
right-of-way. I have assumed for purposes of this
20638 PATIO DRIVE, CASTRO VALLEY. CA 94546 (415) 537-0486
;1rP/J U7fST5 ~ 0 F (1.' (p - 85
~1N?:r flJW./r/lD Pfl}{u9flttJ feQr!
All ACHMENT 7
Real Eslale Development
~-t=1t.t. ·
-t(
~anelli and Nahas
December 10, 1985
RECEIVED
DEe 1 3 1985
~~, Kevin Gailey
Ci ty of Dub1 in
P,O, Box 231,0
~ublin, CA 94568
DUBUN PLANNING
",
Dee,!." Kevin:
Enclosed is a copy of the site pl&l for Village 1. on it I have
assigned covered p:-::.rking spaces to each u..'1i t, You will see that six
uni ts have walking distances in excess of 160 feet, A minor hlilding
rotation will cure the distance problem for units 27 and 28. 29 and 30
will be more difficult to improve upon. I would like to suggest that
this be handled in a staff condition directing us to address the
walking distance problem on the two buildings during final design.
Working on a 60 scale, it is difficult to do a definitive 2...'1alysis, It
is apparent, however, that walking distances are not a major problem
for more than just a few units,
OZ'
Ronald C, Nahas
RCN/nn-::
Enc,
cc: Rich Ambrose
/Sheila Brady
V Larry Tong
De!1!1is .Hunune 1
20638 PATIO DRIVE, CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537-0466
'. ;/ti'bwiJs LE?/Ce Yr ~e;r1~~ I~ /CfeS-
If: #S>fQrv'tiJ ~ ffr,-. - J4Mt,c L
ATTACHMENT S
r"" -. ~. _,..
r--'
(-
REceIVED
JAN 22 1986.
DUBUN PLANNING
(.,
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
J~ 20, 1986
Mr. Larry Tocg
Ci ty of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Si te Developnent Review
Alamo Creek
Dear Larry:
Following up on our meeting on Friday, I have revieN:!d both the Amador
Lakes and Alamo Creek. plans to identify areas where separations between
building appurtenances are less than 15 feet. I have enclosed drawings
which indicate those areas. These measurements were taken on the 20
scale improvement drawings for Amador Lakes and on the 60 scale
tentative map drawings for Alamo Creek and as such, uay contain errors
where the dimensions are close to 15 feet.
You will see that I have identified 26 locations on the Amador Lakes
project and apprcodmately 27 in Villages I through V of the Alamo Creek
project, which represents 864 multifamily tmits. In each project, these
closer dimensions occur in at least one location on roughly half of the
buildings. It ~d appear fran this cursory examination that the
spaces between buildings on the two projects are catq;)arable.
As I mentioned on Friday our architect, Bob Arrigoni, is extremely
concerned about having arbitrary building separation requirements which
will have an adverse impact on the large open spaces wi thin the
project. We are hopeful that in final design sane of the larger spaces
can be increased in size. This ~ cause additional tighten1rg between
patios, walks and stairs. Havirg gone through this exercise of
studying the buildirg separation, we ~d be averse to resolving this
question by establishing an arbitrary percentage of buildings that
could be within the 15 foot dimension. We believe it ~d be more
N:>rkable to establish a minimum 20 foot separation between buildirg
walls (excludirg stairs, patios, balconies and entries) and a 10 foot
dimension between all other appurtenances. This ~d be a more strict
criteria than was applied at Amador Lakes where we had several
separations less than 10 feet.
Also on Friday, Larry, we discussed a resolution of the recreation area
requirements for the single family lots. I believe we concurred that
the only recreational amenity which could not be provided by the
canmunity park was a sw1nm1ng pool. We ~d suggest the followirg
approach:
20638 PATIO DRIVE, CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537-0486
11!w,/J1V7'5 Lt?p6F 1-':?0-8{o
ff: flvt#JerO Br;,L./)INCr ,~#'f/5
ATTACHMENT 'I
,.,.
~ .
r-
(
~
Mr. Larry Tocg
-2-
January 20, 1986
1. We ~d set aside a site of sufficient size to acCOJOOdate an
appropriately sized swinmirg pool (20 feet x 40 feet plus
ancillary service buildings) .
2. The builder for the single family lots would set aside a sum
equal to 50% of the cost of improvirg the site with a swimmirg
pool and would provide the documentation required to set up a
discretionary swim club. Club membership would not be uandatory,
but would be available to anyone amirg a lot in Village VI.
3. The hanec:Jwners wi thin Village VI would have a period of three
years to organize a swim club and raise the other 50% of the
funds to build the pool. Upon completion of fund raisirg, the
developer ~d construct the pool for the benefit of the swim
club and contribute the land to the swim club.
4. If, after a period of three years followirg sale of 90% of the
houses in Village VI a swim club has not been fomed, then the
developer ~d contribute the site to the City of Dublin and
camn1 t the JOOney which had been set aside for 50% of the cost of
the pool facility to the landscapirg and other improvement of the
site.
Larry, I believe this provides an easy method for satisfying the need
for swiJllnirg facilities, if indeed there is a perceived need, and yet
camnits the sirgle family lot a-mers to a significant involvement prior
to conveying the facilities.
In addition to final agreement on the above site plan issues, there are
several other outstandirg conditions which we need to finalize:
l. We proposed using the same configuration of patios as used at
Amador Lakes, but excludirg the air condi tionirg couq;lressors from
the patio.
2 . We can meet the goal of 35% open space on the multifamily parcels
as a whole, but we are under on Village I. Al though parkirg and
pathway lengths can be reduced in Village I by adjusting the mix
to include two bedroan tmi ts, the 35% open space goal will not be
achieved. We ~d request that the multifamily projects be
taken as a group in determining canpliance with the open space
criteria.
~
i
~
~ .
. ~~ ' .
'If' ~'" OOLOOOOOOOOOOOO 0
. _. am.aa..omoooa~.oaoo~OOOoooa
. . ~ . ",,0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · '" m ~ · a · ~ · a ~
~ ~ OOLOLO.-l
" -.", .-lLOC\IC\I I' I I I I I I I I , I I I I , I I I 1 I I I 1 I
I
~ I I I I C\I~~ooOC\l~WooOC\l~WooOC\l~WooOC\l~WooO
$ . O.-l.-l.-l.-lC\lC\lC\lC\lN~~m.~~~~~~~LOLOLOLOLOW
\:.1 C\I ~ W oo.-l ft ft ft ft ft ft .ft ft ft ft ft ft_" ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
_ " ft.ft ft ft ft.-l ~ LO ['0- en .-l ~ LO ['0- m .-l ~ LO,['o- m .-l ~ LO ['0- m .-l ~ LO ['0- m
~!.-l~~['o-m.-i.-l.-l.-l~C\I~~C\lC\I~~~~~~~~~~LOLOLOLOLO
~ . ..... .
L1='l(}"OO'OO"
R::,OIU78.~4'
.15()2~'
1
" L1 ~ 90~OO'OOH
R::30' Lz 78.,41
::::.:=::-
l~
N
,1(\
~
.
~/
" '
~i
, .
~;
~.
~.
, !
i
I
,
I
.,
.,
"l
;
1
I
I " .
"-,
,
"
....
~~
r
(
,
Mr. Larry ToDJ
-3-
January 20, 1986
3. As yet, there has not been a response fran the City on the
structure of the park contribution. Although this is not a
required element of the tentative uap, it is in the best
interests of everyone to resolve the uncertainty at this stage.
4. Revisirg the method of calculating parking requirements does not
appear to adversely affect Villages II through. V. Village
I,l:'IcMeVer, will have difficulty. We would, therefore, request
flexibility in the conditions which would allow us to substitute
sane two bedroan tmi ts in an 8-plex configuration in order to
meet the ~ tional nine spaces for guest parkirg.
Larry, I believe that this covers all of the outstanding issues. We
look fonerd to a meetirg to resolve these as quickly as possible in
order to meet the February 18th Planning Camnission date.
(j2'V'
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/1IDDIll
Enclosures
cc: Rich Ambrose
Mark Rafanelli
--
r
r
(
/io-?~L
~~
j
,
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
February 4, 1986
RECEIVED
FEB G 1986~
Mr. Larry Torg
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
DUBUN PLANNING
Dear Larry:
I have enclosed the sections through the single family lots which you
requested. In reviewing the sections you should note that they have
been intentionally cut through the most severe grading condition on the
site, which is not at all typical of the overall plan. The ergineers
have also prepared a couple of minor sections illustrating the change
in slope where the cuts meet natural terrain. The single family lots at
Alamo Creek generate a total cut of 178,565 yards or slightly over
1,200 yards per lot. By way of canparison, Tract 4719 generated
610,000 yards of cut on the single family lots or slightly over 4,000
yards per lot. I do not have the figures for other projects in the
region, but I think you will firrl if you check. some of the grading on
the west side of town, that the actual grading for this subdivision is
modest.
As was requested, Larry, we have also enclosed a revised layout which
reflects culdP.'=cs on all streets wi thin the tract. Followirg our
meetirg, I spent some time looking at other subdivisions and am.
convinced that the benefits which you, Kevin and Sheila identify are
N:>rth pursuing. The enclosed plan is an attempt to provide the rraxi.mum
rn.nnber of culdesac lots. It does have three drawbacks:
1. We have lost at least one, and possibly more, lots.
2. There are areas where the slopes, which were largely three to
one, have been steepened to two 'to one. 1 have circled. those
areas .
3. The engineering department and fire department may have
significant conceITlS about all of the dead end streets.
Fran a construction and marketing point of vi6'l, we are
canfortable with this revision and suggest that it be builtin as
an alternate, subject to approval of the engineering and
e.'1lergency services people. To the extent that lots are lost
through revision in the layout, it is understood that the
allowable density on Village VII (currently under 10 per acre)
will be increased by a like rn.nnber.
20638 PATIO DRIVE. CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537-0486
."... -.' '''.. ,'.: .~,..~.
./!!f1;ZM5 2i7lcilii;F J2;;'1-g~
ff: ~ttff 5Ff<.i."!77iYCr ~
ATTACHMENT 10
--
I"
r-
1
Mr. Larry Tong
-2-
February 4, 1986
Larry, I have tentatively set up a meetirg with Kevin to review staff
corrlitions on Wednesday, February 12th.
C:z?d~
Ronald C. Nahas
Ene.
cc: Lee Thompson
Kevin Gailey
Sheila Brady
Mark Rafanelli
~.' ....,., -'".,' '.:-.
, ,'" :_~.,.''- ".,..
:.'".:'..-.,'.:<; ;--,....-..,
,4vif:~
1
(-
~~
I
r
Rafanell i and Nahas
Real Estate Development
February 4, 1986
R
E eEl
FtB 6 It E D
.19861
DUBLIN Pl.4 - .
NNING
Mr. Larry Tong
Ci ty of Dublin
P.o. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Larry:
Kevin and I had a conversation M:mday afternoon regardirg the ExpaIDed
In! tial Study for Alamo Creek. There were a few i terns included in the
final draft which were not presented to us in advance. Al though these
items are not of such significance that they will affect the public
camnent which is currently undeney, they could create significant
design problems if not addressed with flexibility. As you will note, a
few of these items are simply errors which may be corrected if they are
camnented upon by a.'ml outside agency.
1 . Page 40, Subparagraph S provides that bus turnouts be provided on
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. It will be extremely
difficult to accanodate a bus turnout on Amador Valley Boulevard.
There are only a couple of locations on Dougherty Road where a
bus turnout is possible if we wish to maintain the lar:dscaping
width called for. As a practical matter, due to the construction
of the smmd wall on Daugherty, there will be no convenient
location for bus turnouts. We are suggestirg bus stops alorg the
loop road on the east side of the creek.
2. Generation rates for students on page 52 are not entirely
accurate. Amador Lakes has generated 51 children. 29 of whan are
preschool. The generation factor, therefore, is less than half
of the .10 shcMn. Likewise, the generation factor for grades 9
through 12 would be .02 or a total of 21 students for the
multifamily homes in Alamo Creek. Even with the single family
hanes included, the total ~d not increase to 166 as provided
at the end of Section A, SUbsection 2.
3. The 15 foot landscape buffer on the north side of the street
dividirg Villages VI and VII was mentioned. We believe sane
landscaping there ~d be desirable. Fifteen feet is a large
area. We will attempt to accanodate it, but may need flexibility
in order not to lose a significant number of lots.
20638 PATIO DRIVE. CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537-0486
...
('
r
1
Mr. Larry Tong
-2-
February 4, 1986
4 . A min1nnDn 12 foot dimension for landscaping along Dougherty
Road is a new one. Again, we will attempt to accanodate that,
but it depends up:m final grades am width of sidewalks. We have
assumed on the sul:m1tted plans a standard width sidewalk.
5. Uniform tree p1antings on the graded slopes in Village VI were
limi ted in our previous discussions to the interior slopes
between tiers of lots, an:i w:mld not be required in slopes above
the upper tier.
6. As a point of clarification, on page 24, paragraph B,
subparagraph 1, it indicates there are a total of 34 feet of drop
structures proposed with structures varyirg in 2 to 6 feet in
height. This is not correct. 34 feet of drop structures are for
the entire creek fran Amador Valley Boulevard to the northern end
of the Lee. property. There are nine drop structures proposed in
our section. each of which is two feet in height, or a total of
18 feet. This includes one drop structure which is a part of the
boxed culvert crossirg into Village VI.
Addi tionally, Larry, the requirement for revegetating trees in the
channel has been increased over previous proposals. Requirements for
horticul tura1 improvement on the existing trees has been substantially
increased to include trees falling into the "c" category of health. It
is our intention to do our best with regard to maintaining existing
vegetation am revegetating. ~r, the cost impact of these
chan;;Jes, which we were not aware of, is excessive. We ~t some
flexibility on the part of the staff.
Mark an:i I are very pleased that we met our first deadline toward the
February 18th hearing date. We are preparing our uaterials for the
hearirg and look forward to meetirg with Kevin on the 12th to review
the staff recamnendations and corrli tions.
CorQ.ia1~IY' .~
a,/
-;!.
. na1d C. -
RCN/rranm
cc: Kevin Gailey
Sheila Brady
Lee 'I'hcm1pson
Mark Rafanelli
;-'.~.. -;.'.,.
....-. -- ......-.... ,,' -_..'......~.-....,;..,..
. ._ ...-;'.'__;~,_ ._.~~.___~,w_"_'."_. ',C __...., ,~.._ :..--..,--..."_ u_
E-<
~
<
:::::
U \0
:><: co
~E-< '-
~::z: ......
~~ ......
'-
N
~~ I
....JO' e::
<~
~ 'M
E-< ......
,0
<::z: ::l
0 0
CI.lH
~E-< <l-l
e,,< 0
<U
....JH l>..
....JO
H~ +J
>0 'M
U
:><:
~
<
p..
+J
e::
Q)
El
::l Q)
Q) I-<
'M'M
...... ::l
+JIO"
Q) e:: Q)
::Z:H~
......
a:l
e::1:+J*
o 0 e:: *
'M 'M Q) ~
+J+JElI-<
I-< a:l I: a:l
o U 00P-.
o,'M 'M a:l
O-otlll-<Q)
I-< Q) 00 0 I-<
p..0<~<
Q)
..c::
+J
+J
'M
-0
Q)
I-<
U
U U U U U U U
a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l
N CO I'- \0 ~ I'- ......
CO \0 ...... ...... 0 CO ......
N ...... 0 I'- 0- \0 I'-
.
0 ...... ...... 0 0 0 0
00
I:
'M Q)
~ ;>
o C""l +J'M
...... CO 'M +J
...... I -0 U
a:l~Q)Q)
1'-1-<0,
U 00
+J Q)
Q) 0 Q) I-<
Q)::Z: I-<
<l-l U..c::
I: a:l U
Q) 0 a:l
I-< 'M 0 Q)
a:l+J
:::l:::llf'l<l-l
0"...... 0
00 0 0
tIl+J+J
OQ) I:
O~......:::l
o 'M 0
~...... U U
If'l 'M I:
U :::l +J
@.> I: O'M
:::l U I:
+J 0 :::l
'M U >.
I: +J Q)
:::l l>..'M..c::
+JU+J
oo'M
I:UQ)I:
tIl'M .c:: 0
Q).-I I-< +J
1-<...... Q) -0
.UQ)o,>,Q)
If'l a:l ~ ,0 00
-0 Q) a:l
+J-o'o
Q) a:l Q)
I: I-< +J
o 'M 00
I: El 'M
I: O'M 00
a:l 'M.-I a:l
..c:: +J ,0
+J a:l 00
U a:l a:l
tIl'M ~ +J
00 -0 a:l
Q)Q)~I-<
.-1-01-<0
a:l I-<
0,0,
U
a:l
If'l
CO
If'l
U U ,.-... U ""'" U,.-... U ,.-... U ,.-... U ,.-...
a:l"-'" a:llN1 a:llN1 a:llN1 a:llN1 a:llN1 a:llN1
lN1 0- ~ If'l CO C""l I'-
CO If'l ~N I'- If'l NO ~~ I'- If'l CO 0-
If'l...... \0 N If'l N N ~ .
N 0...... 0- CO \0 C""l CO \0 \ON \0 N
.If'l .N . ...... . ...... ....... . ...... . ......
o '-J ...... '-J o '-J o '-J o '-J 0'-' o '-J
I:
0
-0 'M U U U U U U U
Q) Q)+J a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l
I-< ooa:l
'M a:l U 0 N ~ CO CO ~ 0-
:::l Q) 'M ~ C""l ~ \0 N ...... If'l
0"1-<-0 If'l N 0- C""l I'- C""l C""l
Q) U Q)
~<O 0 N ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
*
Q)
+J
"0 a:l
Q) ~
tIl+J'-
o 'M +J
0,1:1:
0:::> ::l
I-< 0
p........U
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
00 00 00 00 00
a:l a:l a:l a:l a:l
.-I a:l .-I .-I ...... .-I
.-I Q) .-I ...... ......N .-I C""l .-I ~
'M I-< 'M 'M 'M 'M
:>< > :> :> :>
Q)
00
a:l
.-I
.-Ilf'l
'M
:>
If'l 0 ~
COtll+J1-<
Q) a:l -0 a:l
I-< 00 0, 0
OUQ) 01:
......a:l+J+J.c::0
a:l'M I-<
:::l1:0"O
0" ;:1,0 Q)
Q)'-..c:: I:
000000
>. Q) 'M 'M
+J I-< Q) 00
'M U I: 00
00 a:l a:l
I: -0
Q) 0- Q) Q)
-0000,0
o 0
+J . o...""tj
tIlUOO.-l
+J Q) I-<:::l
.M...-,a:lO'O
I: 0 ..c::
;:I I-< <l-l Q) 00
o,O.c::
+J~
.-I I: I-<
.-1.0 I-< a:l
a:l 'M 0 0,
I-<+J<l-l
Q) a:l Q) Q)
;>U+J.c::oo
O'M'M+Ja:l
.-I -0 .-I
Q) 0, Q) 1-<.-1
..c::o,I-<O'M
E-<a:lU<l-l;>
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
O::l 0;:1 0;:1 0;:1 O:::l 0;:1 O:::llf'l
0-0 0"0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0"0 0"0
.~ro .~~ .~N .~N .~~ .~~ .~
o U~ U...... Ulf'l UO- U~ Ulf'l u.
\o@.>a:lN@.>a:lN@.>a:l......@.>a:l......@.>a:l......@.>a:l......@.>a:l......
Q) Q)
00 00
a:l a:l
.-I ...... a:l
.-1\0 .-II'- +J
'M 'M 0 *
:>:> * *
?TtTFr'> ~fV/e'ND/'fI'ltI'IS M-
f'~IhV/) [}tfx umlY'l /XGj)1~5
ATTACHMENTJ,
00
/-
.
"DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
~ General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard · Dublin, California 94568 · (415) 828-0515
~
-
April 10, 1985
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: File No. PA85-021 - Furnishing Water, Sewer end Fire
Protection Services to Parcel Map 4575
Rafanelli & Nahas/Ponderosa Homes
Dear Mr. Gailey:
You are hereby advised that the parcel referred to above lies
within the boundaries of Dublin San Ramon Services District, City
of Dublin portion, and is entitled to water, sewer and fire pro-
tection services in accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations set forth in the District Code.
Water Service
The District is capable of providing an adequate and continuing
supply of water for domestic, commercial, industrial, institu-
tional and fire protection uses to said parcel map 4575.
Water facilities must be connected to the District system and
must be installed at the expense of the developer in accordance
with District specifications. All material and workmanship for
water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of
the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the
District and will be subject to field inspection by the District.
Fire Protection
The District is capable of providing adequate fire protection to
all structures in said development at this time.
All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connec-
tions, and appurtenances thereto necessary to provide water
supply for fire protection must be installed by the developer and
conform to all requirements of the applicable provisions of the
Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District,
the Insurance Services Office, and the applicable provisions of
A POUTt("..AL ~~.;BDI\iI~lL:-'''.j r.r HiE $'fATE Of CAlIFO~N1A . PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITlIE"'5 OJ:: AMAOOR-U'/ERM\)AE AND $Ar-. RMAON \/A\.LEYS
ALA~'fuA A'-4D COP\;TPA C8SiA. COu!'~";rs
to 85'-"0'/1
.'
J(;eNC'l {V?f1A1f"NrS iirE;~ It!
Wd.zTvl'lcnh'J vJ IrfI PbJtcr ..JvPJrlt [/fji--
ATTACHMENTJ5
Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner
Ci ty of Dublin
Page 2
the City of Dublin Ordinance Code. All such work will be subject
to the joint field inspection Df the City of Dublin Public Works
Department and Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Sanitary Sewer Service
The District will make sewerage service available in accordance
with the provisions of the Sewerage Ordinance No. 157 adopted
August 5, 1980.
Sanitary sewers necessary to provide service must be installed at
the expense of the developer in accordance with District specifi-
cations. All material and workmanship for sanitary sewers and
appurtenances thereto must conform with all the requirements of
the officially adopted Sewerage Code of the District and will be
subject to field inspection by the District.
Water and sanitary sewer service should be made available to each
lot in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for disturbing
the street pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalks when service
connectiDns are made.
Any necessary relocation of existing public utilities shall be
accomplished at no expense to Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Very truly yours,
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
c~.~ ~Q,'-~
EK:ns Emil Kattan
Assistant Civil Engineer
cc: Rafanelli<< Nahas
r~
(
I\PR 10 1985
~.
~
\
.
SUPERINTENDENT
RICHARD F, COCHRAN
BUSINESS MAN"OER
STANLEY L. MALESKI
URRA Y SCHOOL DISTRICT
DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM
VINCE ANACLERIO
74.16 BRIGHTON DRIVE . DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA 94568
ADMINISTRATION OFFICES (415) 828,2551
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
HEINZ GEWING
Apri 1 16, 1985
DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVICES
JACK B. TAYLOR
Mr. Larry TDng, Planning Director
City of Dublin
. P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Larry:
Mr. RDnald C. Nahas has informed me of plans for
developing four acres sDuth of AmadDr Valley Boulevard
and approximately 140 acres Dn the north side of
Amador Valley Boulevard. They are projecting a
develDpment of:
258 units - single family houses
60 units - multifamily 3-bedrDom units
480 units - multifamily 2-bedrDom units
320 units - multifamily l-bedrDDm units
When this develDpment is completed, we will have
space at Frederiksen Elementary School and Wells In-
termediate School. As you know, we are a declining
enrollment district and would certainly welcome any
additiDnal students that would come to our district
as a result Df this development.
~~1f:h
Assistant Superintendent
HGjmp
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Po 85'~()~ I
\ ia( '( )lllC-J]cVIS]()n
JUN
4 1985
June 3. 1985
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin. CA 94568
Gentlemen:
This letter is to advise you that we will be serving Rafonelli
and Nahas' new Alamo Creek development to be located along
Dougherty Road in Dublin.
Very truly yours.
RECEIVED
JUri 1 J ;985
DUBLIN PLANNING
(,(,10 Sit'Cra Lalli'
))"I,li"
Calil..rlli.l \1.J.5W
Tdl'\lhllllt'
415 82!~B.'i]U
\ I Ii, i....iull III
'I \'j;worll 11I1"l'Ilallllll..! Ill'
PLEASANTON JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT
AMADOR V ALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
DR, BILL J. JAMES
Superintendent of Schools
\ 'J 'C: \)
'CCt:
R 'i \'j?,S
j\J\'\ '
NN\NG
t'lU~\.\N "V:
NEIL SWEENEY
Deputy Superintendent
BUSTER McCURTAIN
Assistant Superintendent~
Business Services
RALPH LAIRD
Assistant Superinrendent.Personnel
June 5, 1985
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
I am writing at the request of Mr. Ron Nahas. Based upon information
he has provided, I have determined that the location of Alamo Creek
Villages subdivision falls within the boundaries of the Amador High
School District.
Our district will provide high school facilities for students from
this development.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 462-4225.
Sincerely,
~Q~
Ray ~enning
Assistant Director of Special Services
RP/br
P.O. BOX 130. 123 MAIN STREET. PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94566. TELEPHONE: (415) 462-5500
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
~
PACIFIC I"". BELL_
6377 Cla~ Avenue
Room 200
Dublin, CA 94568
JLlIUc? 6, i 98:5
C it Y 0+ DLlb 1 i f1
Development Services
P.O. 8m.; 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
lll:nt 1 f?mE!n:
Re: Alamo Creek Subdivision
Dublin, California
This is to inform you that under its present plans Pacific Bell
expects to be in a position to provide telephone service to the
applicants in the above subdivision upon request in accordance with
requirements of and at rates and charges specified in its tariffs
on file with the California Public Utilities Commission.
This tract will be served with underground distribution
facilities. In accordance with the above-mentioned tariffs, the
applicant or customer on his property will be responsible for:
1) furnishing; installing, and maintaining conduit if
Pacific 8ell requires it far the service connection
wire or cable; or
2) providing or paying the cast of the underground
supporting structure (usually a trench) if Pacific
Bell determines buried wire or cable is to be used
for the service connection.
Very truly yours,
J
:r#~~
~ Manager - Engineering
: ki:\r
RECEIVED
JUN 1 3 '\985
DUBLIN PLANNING
"
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
IP@~IE
+
998 MURRIETA BOULEVARD
LIVERMORE. CALIFORNIA 94550
L. R. (LOU) HOLVECK
MANAGER - LIVERMORE
June 11, 1985
fCt.\'JfO
R , '''~S
.11.11'\ 1,: ,:J
\.A.1\lN\NG
oUB\.\N \' .'
City of Dubl in
Planning Department
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Attn: Mr. Larry Tong
Gentlemen:
Re: Tract 5511, The Vi 11 ages
at Alamo Creek
A tentative map for this project was received and reviewed by this office.
We anticipate serving the various phases from the overhead electric line
in Dougherty Road. The overhead line will require relocation or under-
grounding depending on the City's requirements. Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dougherty Road is the proposed route for future electrical circuits
and the developer will be responsible for (2) 6" conduits.
The gas main is proposed to be extended from Amador Valley Boulevard
and Stagecoach Drive or from Dougherty Road and 8th Street, depending
on right-of-way acquisition.
Facilities will be in a joint trench wherever possible.
Sincerely,/
/ ~I/
~~:. --?j///j/ ~./&,/~.-
'--- 'j_.c../~v., , ///./--/ '
_. ~/
Roger L.-;Myers / /
New Building Representative
\RLM: kf
(-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRAN ITATION AGENCY
/
I
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 7310
SAN FRANCISCO 94120
(415) 557-1840
Mr. Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner
Ci ty of Dublin
Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVED
JUN 2. 0 ';985
DUBliN PLANNiNG
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
The Villa~es
at Alamo Creek develonment
File # PA 8S-041
Our response is indicated by those comments which are checked.
~ The proposal is not in conflict with any existing or planned State
~ highway facilities.
[] The material received is being given further review. You may expect
our detailed comments by
O The plans do not contain enough detail to make a positive
determination of the effect on State facilities. Please send us the
detailed plans before they are approved by your agency. We
particularly wish to review the grading and drainage plans.
r! The State currently has no funds programmed for any improvements of
~ this portion of the highway within the next five year period.
~ The proposed development will generate traffic which, when added to
~ that of the other traffic generators in the area, .may tend to congest
the highway. A traffic analysis should be prepared indicating the
effects that the traffic generated by the proposed development will
have on adjacent State highways or interchanges. This analysis should
be submitted to the undersigned for review.
o
A study should be made of the possible effect of freeway traffic noise
on future residents or occupants of the proposed development. Any
noise attenuation measures or devices deemed necessary should be
provided as part of the development.
4PD 803f (Rev. 11/84)
[J This application appears to involve a change in ownership of the
subject property. If that is the case, any existing encroachment
permits are now void and a new encroachment permit is required.
[]NO work may be done within the State highway right-of-way unless
authorized by a State highway encroachment permit. Application for
such a permit should be made to:
Permit Engineer
150 Oak St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone (415) 557-1984
The permit application shall be accompanied by three sets of plans.
In addition, most permit applications also require that an adequate
environmental document, prepared and processed in accordance with
current State requirements (State Administrative Code Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3), be attached. Application must be accompanied
by a fee, which will vary depending on the nature of the encroachment.
QdPlease be advised that your Letter of Referral does not substitute
for the Notice of Preparation for. projects requiring an EIR/EIS
under CEQA/NEPA regulations. Also, this informal Caltrans review
letter coes not constitute consultation with the Responsible
Agency required by CEQA if either an EIR/EIS or a Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental document. Formal
Responsible Agency contact in the EIR/EIS process is accomplished
through the State Clearing House. Consultation contacts with
Caltrans are made through the District 4 CEQA Coordinator,
Mr. J. M. Ellis. His address is P. O. Box 7310, San Francisco,
CA 94120. Telephone 557-8532.
[j]Other comments: 'T'he Traffic Report should address effects on
Route I-SSO, the Hopvard-Doughertv Rd/I-7S0 interchange, Route
:,.,:.)JC
1-680, and the Alcosta Blvd/I-680 interchange. The cumulative
traffic from this development and other developments in Dublin
and Pleasanton needs to be addressed in this studv.'
:5fy{1L 02~~
Steve c).C. Lee
Senior Engineer
Cal trans '
Project Development C
4PD 803b (Rev. 11/84)
~',>,,- .
AL.AMEDA COUNTY
Edward R Campbell
Shirley J Campbell
Fred F Cooper
Frank H, Ogawa
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Thomas J_ Corcoran
(Vice Chairperson)
Sunne Wnght McPeak
MARIN COUNTY
AI Aramburu
NAPA COUNTY
Harold I. Moskowlte
SMJ FRANCISCO COUNTY
Harry G. Bntt
Carot RUTh Silver
(Secretary)
SAN I\~ATEO COUNTY
Gus J NicOIOpulos
K. ...iC1cqueilne Speier
S.';NTA CLARA COUNTY
Roa Dirloon
(Chairperson)
R3Ip" P Doetsch. Sr
Roberta H_ Hugh.1n
Susanne Wilson
SOL.ANO COUNTY
Osby Davis
SONOMA COUNTY
Helen 8_ Rudee
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
June 25, 1985
City of Dublin
Development Services Department
P.O.Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RECE/YED
JUN {,o:; 1185 '
..J _ "-'
DUBLIN PJ.A.f\JNINq
Attn: Kevin Gailey
Senior Planner
Dear Mr. Gailey:
We have received the application for approval of a Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Tract Map for The Villages at
Alamo Creek. The project would include 1165 residential units
and one-third acre of commercial development on a 135-acre site
located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard. Though we do not have any comments on the
completeness of this application, we believe that the project is
subject to CEQA review procedures.
We recommend that the City prepare an Initial Study for
the project according to the requirements of CEQA or proceed
directly with the preparation of a Draft EIR. We expect a
project of this size located in the Tri-Valley Area to have a
significant air quality impact individually and/or cwnulatively
with other development.
Please send a copy of any CEQA docwnent prepared for this
project and direct any questions to Jean Roggenkamp, the Planner
in our office.
Sincerely,
~~~
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
MF:ce
939 ELLIS STREET . SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 . (415) 771-6000
m
WILFRED T. USSERY
PRESIDENT
JOHN GLENN
VICE-PRESIDENT
KEITH BERNARD
GENERAL MANAGER
DIRECTORS
BARCLAY SIMPSON
1ST DISTRICT
NELLO BIANCO
2ND DISTRICT
ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS
3RD DISTRICT
MARGARET K. PRYOR
4TH DISTRICT
ROBERT S. ALLEN
5TH DISTRICT
JOHN GLENN
6TH DISTRICT
WILFRED T. USSERY
7TH DISTRICT
EUGENE GARFINKLE
8TH DISTRICT
JOHN H. KIRKWOOD
9TH DISTRICT
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Telephone (415)464-6000
RECEIVED
,,' U. 1 :3 1985
June 27, 1985
DUBUN PLANNING
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
P.O. BDX 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: PA 85-041.1 Planned Development Rezoning-The Villa-
ges at Alamo Creek
PA 85-041.2 Tentative Map-The Villages at Alamo
Creek
Dear Mr. Gailey:
Thank YDU for the oppDrtunity to comment Dn the above listed
project. As it is our understanding that the city wi 11 be
preparing an environmental assessment for the project, BART
staff would like to offer the following comments.
The BART L ivermore-Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Study Update
Analysis was completed in December of 1983. Subsequent to the
completion of the Update Analysis, the BART Board of Directors
adopted a portion of the LPX alignment which extends along SR
238 and the 1-580 right-Df-way from the existing Bayfair Sta-
tion to the proposed Dublin Station at the 1-580/1-680 inter-
change. This station site is included in the City of Dublin
General Plan. BART staff will prDceed in the near future with
a supplemental analysis which will investigate alignments east
of the Dublin Station to downtown Livermore as alternatives to
routes identified in the LPX Update Analysis. The two primary
route alignments identified in the Update Analysis are the
1-580 alignment and the Railroad Corridor Route. The purpose
of a supplemental study is to develop recommendations which
would assist the BART Board in completing the adoption of a
preferred alignment.
The LPX Update Analysis identifies two site alternatives for
the Pleasanton Station, reflecting the two BART alignments.
Consequently, it is anticipated that the supplemental analysis
will result in the recommendatiDn and Board adoption of one of
the station alternatives. The 1-580 alignment station alter-
native is bisected by 1-580, with nine acres of parking to the
south of the freeway and fifteen acres of parking to the north
of the freeway within the City of Dublin's proposed annexation
area. The City of Dublin General Plan contains a general
designation of this station alternative.
P age Two
Letter to K. Gailey
Dated 6/27/85
As both the proposed Dublin Station and the Pleasanton Station alternative would
serve the City of Dublin's proposed project, BART requests that they be consid-
ered in the environmental assessment for the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mari-
anne Payne at 464-6173 if YDU have any questions.
Sincerely,
s{E~?/!1.~I11uf;Yoffi/
Manager of Planning
cc: Dick Wenzel, Supervisor Df Planning
Marianne Payne, Livermore-Pleasanton
Extension Planner
~ity of San Ramo..
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 838-2424
~.:'3 n rc::>
" !! U I' ~ vW ~-:) ~
.,,~ I: ::.J ,; ~
., (;iJ ..1.' !-, '10
, . -:> '-'::1 ill
.JUL "5 1925 I!...
July 3, 1985
-(-'(
'-I 0;: Dll" 'N
JU:L::;!h!(]. It"l.~~:;':,-.;;o-'"
....1 -~"....; .-1 DEPT.
Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
Development Services
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: PA 85-041.1 & .2 - Rafanelli & Nahas PD
Dear Mr. Gailey:
The City of San Ramon Planning Department received your request
for comment on the above application on June 21, 1985, 4 days
prior to deadline for comment. We, therefore, respectfully
request that you extend the deadline for comment an additional
14 days, to expire July 8, 1985.
In the interim, we notice no indication of the CEQA status for
the project. Will an EIR be required? If so, and we support
that conclusion, please ensure the initial study includes
reference to potential traffic impacts on Alcosta Boulevard,
growth inducement (type and quantity) on adjacent lands to the
north, and cumulative impacts on community character/visual
impacts for lands to the north.
Sincerely,
~~~
Brian Foucht
Associate Planner
BF/sa
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION
9399 Fircrest Lane
San Ramon, California
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Telephone:
829-2333
July 5, 1985
~
-- ".-{
16,
t ~ ! 1
'; il
S ~ l 'i
II ~ I. 1
I'" 1
{_-J
:." r ~ ~ ~q ~
.,j b J \;J ''''
Mr. Kevin Gai ley
Dubl in Planning Department
P. O. Box 2340
Dub I in, CA 94568
":1
< 'J" ,
'.........,.
cr:~( c:r-= C!.rlU~J
:~U:L'.~i>-~~; !1-',!~-";~C~:-iC~f D~?T.
RE: PA 85-041.1 and PA85-041.2
Dear Mr. Gai ley:
Fol lowing are the requirements of the Department with reference
to the above development:
1. If a traffic signal is installed in the area, it will be equipped
with an Opticon.
2. Plans shal I be submitted detai I ing the street and bui Iding locations
so a determination of access and turnaround areas can be made.
3. On-site hydrants wi I I be required and wi I I be located by this De-
partment at a later date.
4. On-s i te hyd rants must be fu I I Y cha rged before construct i on with com-
bustibles begins.
5. Street names and bui Iding locations shal I be indicated on a directory.
6. Bui Iding numbers wi I I be visible from the street.
7. Extinguishers shall be located on all apartment bui Idings.
8. An all weather roadway wi II be provided for fire apparatus before
construction of walls begins.
Should you have any questions, please contact this Department.
Very truly yours,
?:jxt~
Fire Inspector
CA:cb
(
tvOUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard · Dublin, California 94568 · (415) 828-0515
August 14, 1985
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey,
Senior Planner
City of D..Jblin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Gailey:
This letter will a:mfim our telephone conversation during the last
mmth regarding the Various application referrals within the last two mmths.
1. File No. PA85-041.1 Planned Deve10pm:nt Rezoning - The Villages at
Alarx:> Creek, dated June 7, 1985.
We are in contact with the engineers, Tetrad Engineering,
Inc., and the developers, P.afane1li & Nahas regarding the major
sewer trunk lines and water system within the development. The
District has major concems for the various utility routing, and
is reviewing them with the District I s consultants. We will
advise the City when roore concrete info:rmation is available.
2. File No. PA85-035 Hatfie1d..Investor, Inc. - Prezoning and
Armexation Applications dated Jtme 20, 1985.
We are in contact with the engineers, I-Tilsey & Ham of Dublin
regarding the overall facilities, including sewer, water and fire.
This deve10prnent is tied in with the construction of a new reser-
voir within our third zone system. We will advise the City of
our concems when we review the various improvements that the
engineers will provide us in the near future.
3. File No. PA85-045 D..Jbney Site Deve10prrx=nt Review for a Proposed
Two-Story Office Building dated June 11, 1985.
The District requires the usual water and sewer service lay-
out for this property prior to final approval of the project by
the City.
4. File No. PA85-0SS Hoffman, Site Deve10prrent Revi6-7 for an Office
Complex dated July 5, 1985.
The District requires the usual water and sewer service lay-
out for this property, prior to final approval of the project by
the City.
S. File No. PA8S-0S7 MJrrlson HortEs- The Envirornrental Center -
Site Development Review f6r a proposed 174 lot M.l1tip1e Family
RECEIVi=D
NOV 1 6 1983
A POLITICAL sueOIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA . PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF AMAOOR-L1VERMORE AND SAN RAMON VALLEYS
DUBLIN PL,...",
ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES.
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey
August 14, 1985
Page 2
Residential Project dated July 8, 1985.
This proj ect is a continuation of a previous developm:nt
approved by the District. It appears that the utilities layout
is acceptable to the District.
6. File No. PA85-062 Enea Bros. - Site Developm:nt Review for
Theater Addition and New Retail Complex, qated July 22, 1985.
We are in contact with the architect, Ronald Findleton,
and have no major conceTIlS for this project. The District re-
quires the usual water and sewer layout prior to final approval
by the City.
7. File No. PA85-067 KB Enterprises - Comrercial Project - Ternporaxy
Construction Office, ttbbile Unit, dated July 26, 1985.
The District has no objection for the use of a ternporaxy
construction office at this site.
8. File No. PA85-049 .A1rerican City Truck Stop, Conditional Use Pennit
dated July 24, 1985.
The District has no objection for the continued operation of
a truck stop and weigh station at 6117 Ibugherty Road.
9. File No. 85-063 Arbor Creek Mfr. Project, dated July 22, 1985.
The District has no objection for the use of a ternporaxy
construction office at this site.
Yours very tnliy,
C'M~ ~~~
Emil Kattan
Assistant Civil Engineer
FlZ/dh
cc: Doug HcMi11an, Office Engineer
Fire DepartrrEnt
RECEIVeD
NOV 16 1983
DUBLIN Pi.ANN....~
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION
9399 Fircrest Lane
San Ramon, California
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Telephone:
829-2333
September 4, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gai ley, Senior Planner
City of Dubl in Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dub I in, CA 94568
RE: PA 85-041.1 and 85-041.2
Dear Mr. Gai ley:
In regard to our letter of July 5, 1985, on The
Vi I lages at Alamo Creek, it has come to our attention
that only one access to Vi I lage 6 is being planned.
This single access does not meet with our approval.
We wi I I require that additional access be provided to
Vi Ilage 6. If you have any questions, please contact
th i s Depa rtment .
Very truly yours,
cec~el~
Fire Inspector
CA:cb
RECEIVED
S;::P .. 5 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
r "~
(
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD . LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 . (415) 443-9300
September 25, 1985
Line F
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Notice of Preparation of EIR for Villages at Alamo Creek
Rafanelli & Nahas (City File No. PA 85-041.1 and 2)
Dear Mr. Tong:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments:
Section 1.4
Section 1.4
Section 3.A
Section 1.0
Section A.3
Section A.4
Section D
Initial Study
Existing side slopes greater than 2:1, unstable areas
and slopes on bends need slope protection.
There will need to be four box culverts not three as
described in the initial study.
A letter on Woodward-Clyde's investigation of an
inactive fault trace uncovered at the Dougherty
Reservoir site during construction has been enclosed
for your information.
Mitigation Measures
Hydraulic calculations have been submitted to Zone 7
and reviewed. We have found no major problems with the
calculations. Final approval of the calculations will
be reserved until after the final channel improvement
drawings have been submitted.
Riparian re-vegetation should conform with the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Revegetation Manual.
Hydraulic capacity of the channel should reflect
increased friction from vegetation.
Grading should be such that no surface runoff be
allowed to flow over channel banks. All drainage
should be directed to a storm drainage system that
discharges to the channel through an outfall structure.
RECEIVED
v.:.P 2 G 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
September 25, 1985
Page 2
The double la' x 10' box culvert should be included in the design of this
project. Even if the culverts are not constructed as a part of the channel
improvements, the location and alignment need to be set to determine if the
proposed channel right-of-way can accommodate them. It may also be necessary
to dedicate right-of-way on the property south of Amador Valley Boulevard in
order to have an access road on the east side of the channel.
Construction of the Alamo Creek channel improvements should comply with Zone 7
of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards.
Please give us a call if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Mun J. Mar
General Manager
d
By
Vincent Wong
Supervising Water Resources Engineer
VW:DG:bkm
Ene.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOX 7310
SAN FRANCISCO 94120
(415) 557.1840
STATE OF CALlFORNIA-8USINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
October 2, 1985
ALA580-PM19.86
SCH #85091009
AL580097
Kevin Gailey
Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Notice of Preparation for the Villages at Alamo Creek
Dear Mr. Gailey:
Thank you for including Caltrans in the environmental review
process for the above-referenced project. The environmental
document should address traffic impacts in the following terms:
a. Trip generation, distribution and assignment;
b. ADT (average daily traffic), and AM and PM peak hour
volumes for State Rte 580 and for all significantly
streets and highways;
c. Volumes for all through and turning movements in the
affected intersections/interchanges should be shown
and intersection capacity utilization calculations
should be done;
d. Data should relate to existing and future conditions, the
latter with project traffic and with cumulative traffic
generated by approved projects within the study area;
e. Proposed mitigation, including modal alternates and
highway improvements and their proposed financing
mechanisms should be discussed.
We look forward to reviewing the draft ErR. We expect to receive
a copy from the State Clearinghouse. However, to expedite the
review process, you may send an advance copy to the undersigned,
contact person for this agency, at the following address:
RECEIVED
OCT /. 1385
DUBLIN PLANNING
WALLACE J. ROTHBART
District CEQA Coordinator
Caltrans District 4
P.O. Box 7310
San FRancisco, CA 94120
AL580097
Page 2
October 2, 1985
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Peter Estacio of my staff at (415) 557-2483.
Sincerely yours,
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
RECEIVED
n'~-
l',.; I
, ''''8~
(~ 1:J J
DUBLIN PLANNING
(-
(
SUPERINTENDENT
RICHARD F. COCHRAN
A8818TANT SUPERINTENDENT
HEINZ GEWlNG
URRA Y SCHOOL DISTRICT
7..., e BRIGHTON DRIVE . DUILlN. CALlI'ORNIA 94568
ADMINISTRATION Ol'I'ICES ....,51 828.2551
BUSINESS MANAGER
STANLEY L MALESKI
DIRECTDR DF SPECIAL SERVICES
JACK B. TAYLOR
November 15, 1985
DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM
VINCE ANACLERIO
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 101
Dublin CA 94568
Dear Mr. Gailey:
This is to let you know of the interest of the Murray School District
to reserve adequate space for an additional elementary school in the
area of Stage Coach Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and
the Alameda/Contra Costa County Line.
In reviewing the data pertaining to new housing units to be developed in
this area as well as reviewing data about housing development in other
parts of Dublin, we find that there will be a great increase in the
number of housing units in our school district. Currently, Dublin has
a population of 15,608 and 4,814 housing units. The projection made
available to us by your department indicates that in 1990 Dublin will
have a population of 23,758, and 8,342 housing units. Our current
projections indicate that we generally get 30 students for every new
100 homes. This projection is a slight increase over the .2 child per
home which we have been seeing in the last few years.
In addition to this increase, which is a result of additional housing
and a larger number of students per household, the Murray School District
also expects to be responsible for educating the children who reside in
the Arroyo Vista attendance area by September, 1985. These children
currently are part of the Pleasanton Elementary School District, but
as a result of legal boundary changes, these students will be attending
the Murray School District.
If there is any additional information that we can give you pertaining
to our need for future planning by the City of Dublin to enable us to
reserve space for an elementary school, please let me know at your
earliest convenience.
~ince ely,
. 0bJ~
Helnz ewing
Assistant Superintendent
RECEIVED
ti: \/ 21 1985:
DUBUN PLANNING
HG/mp
EQUAL O~RTUNITY EM~OYI:"
,..,.....'1......
r
I
, rr ,., , -
-
/--- I~<; - r
, - ,
OABIG
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
MetroCenter
Eighth & Oak Streets
Oakland
(415) 464-7900
Mailing Address:
P,O, Box 2050
Oakland. CA 94604
September 23, 1985
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dubl i n
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Notice ~ Preparation, The Villages ~ Alamo Creek
Dear Mr. Tong:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. The following staff
comments reflect general concerns expressed by many locally elected Bay Area
officials as embodied in ABAG's Regional Plan 1930. ABAG's Executive Board
has not taken a posi ti on on thi s doc ument, nor onthe proposed proj ect.
The DE1R should contain information about the projected income levels of new
Dublin workers. These data should be used to determine whether new housing in
Dublin, both at Village Oaks and in the city in general, will be affordable to
people who will work in Dublin. This should be discussed in the DE1R because
if people who work in Dublin cannot afford to live there, traffic cDngestion
and air pollution will increase.
ABAG has developed some information about income levels associated with
projected new jobs in the I 680/1 580 Corridor. If this data could be of use
to you in preparing the Villages E1R, please do not hesitate to call.
Any questions regarding these comments should be refered to Patricia Perry of
our staff. Her direct-dial number is 415-464-7937.
Si ncerely,
-~~~~)~
Yvonne San Jule
Planning Coordinator
Rl_'E ,C'E , 'I E D'
,,' T,~ 7985
Q/"/StIN PLANNING
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
>.'..._.:. ..,-- ~
.- ;'."' .,~.-".,:<..,
~y'~~s.';ldej,jrlJ
IN CcW.TWCT!$ t^/tTII ~f'
A TT ACHMENTJ If
r
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
John R. Anderson
President
William M, Spinola
Vice-President
HaNey I. SCudder
Secretary
James N, Doggett
Sidney F. Dommes, Jr.
Stuart Flashman
Manuel Garcia
Paul T. Garcia
Michael Greene
Mark J, Hanna
John 0, Hughes
Frank M, Stead
Edwin J. Suchman
John p, Vlzzollnl
(
r--
1(-6 : ?? \--(1-"'-
..
Alameda County
Mosquito Abatement District
FRED C. ROBERTS
MANAGER
23187 CONNECTICUT STREET
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545
(415) 783-7744
RECEIVED
OCT {. 1385
DUBLIN PLANNING
October 4, 1985
Mr. Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report: Villages at
Alamo Creek: City files PA 85-041.1 and .2.
The above proposed development, because of the proximity of Alamo
Creek, has the potential to create mosquito problems for future
residents. Some of the problems have been adequately addressed,
others have not.
A mosquito source could be created by one of the two oxbows that is
proposed to be cut off from the main channel. The northern channel
is proposed to remain unfilled. If that were to occur, it can be
anticipated that rainfall may accumulate in the depression and
create a source for mosquitoes. Perhaps plans can be made to
establish drainage for the oxbow to the creek. If that is not pos-
sible, it might be appropriate for the designers of the project to
contact our agency to enable us to recommend mosquito prevention
measures.
Another area for concern is the construction of temporary siltation
basins. We are not concerned that they will be a significant pro-
blem during the construction phase. Once the disturbed surfaces
have stabilized, however, the basins should be filled,drained, or
modified in some manner to prevent mosquito production.
A number of measures have been planned that, when incorporated will
do much to reduce potential mosquito problems:
1. Grading is to be conducted in a manner to prevent stand-
ing water.
2. Right-of-way on each side of the channel will allow
access for maintenance equipment.
3. Soil stabilization measures are incorporated throughout
the plan.
Community health, comfort and prosperity are promoted by effective, continuous mosquito abatement measures,
RECEIVED
.OCT 11 1985
r
(-'
City of Dub 1 i n
October 7, 1985
Page 2
"The Traffic Mitigation Reference Guide," Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, 1984. Commitments to imple-
menting proposed mitigation measures should be iden-
tified. Mitigation measures to reduce traffic and air
pollutant emissions should be incorporated into the
project to reduce any negative impact it may have on the
environment and to help the Bay Area attain and maintain
the State and federal ambient air quality standards.
Where mitigation measures may significantly reduce local
concentratiDns of carbDn mDnoxide, we recommend that
reductions be quantified.
4. Estimate maximum ambient carbon monoxide concentrations
at points or areas of maximum air quality impact and at
sensitive receptors. The estimated concentrations should
be calculated for 1-hour and 8-hour averaging times. For
projects attracting over 3000 vehicles per day, we
recommend the mDdel CALINE3 to estimate motDr vehicle
carbon monoxide impacts. For smaller projects, some
simplified modeling techniques are contained in the
publication "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Analysis
of Projects," available from the BAAQMD. Be sure tD add
the apprDpriate background concentration to the estimated
locally generated concentration and to explain the source
Dr the rationale for the background level selected.
5. Compare the total projected carbon monoxide concentra-
tions with State and federal air quality standards.
When other development is apprDved or proposed in the
vicinity Df the project, we recommend that the air quality
analysis also evaluate cumulative development impacts on air
quality.
Current data from District air monitoring statiDns are
enclDsed. If we can be of assistance, please cDntact Jean
Roggenkamp, the Planner in our office.
Sincerely,
.?;L?~~
Mi Hon Feldstein
Air Pollution ContrDl Officer
DUBLIN PLANNING M F : c e
Enc losure
o::t
co
0')
,...
5~-gQ)B~~
.0"0"0 c.~ Q) Q)
~ ~ ~~~~~
~~Q)XCl)"C""CJQ)
:3_(/)c..s::
CD.!! 0 i;"c -
0=5_0 ~ ~ Q) Cl Q) 5
c:S..Qc:> en
OE '" ~ E w g,a:
t1l~~I-Q)w
"0;: OQ)(;.c1-
~og.~u.;;o
-g () == C>> N"-_-
:J~1i"'0Q)0l
.c .E ... c: (f) E 02
..... "0 Q) E "C -.;::; 0
a>....a.:1c:c.-::::
:;.g~o t1l;: 5
t:C:t1l0 NOE
t1l t1l a.: 0"0
C. en c: ~z C Ui
c: ....0- cu..... Q)::1
'Q;salP.EEg
:::::s..s::(I)- Q):3c:
a;cb~ica~E
>c.....-Ci)c:o
Q) 0 ~Q)E _0;: 0
OlQlQ) 0..:0'"
t1l.c Q) 000---
liil::...21il-alO'
~ ot1l:J"O_z
c>occn
~.Q Q) Oi ns.=- -g ui
:; == ~ 0.0 al t1l ~
oE~",U -or!
.c~Q)E -Qlu'"
_0)> Me
~a.~~02 r:;Q)
.c"':JOl(;oOE
C>t: 0 e _ ..... '- ..
:c ~-';=.Q(ij.E.g:5
Ql c:~ E lii Q) Ol~
-:5.- _ c:"O Ol.S
Q)UJ._a>cu.....(/J
'~::J Q) r;::IL Cii.9 Q)
: (ij"6, as .. iU 'c -g
~>:cQlEal~oo
EQ)", "Ot1l:2c:
_ Olo_ 0 Q) Q) 00-
.. tU... .- Q) >,- N
~ CD -x ~ ~ c.) ~ 0
O~~EQ)~lij~
~:;:-grJJ--gJ2
Q) 00' Ol;:-ci Ql Ol
~-7(J)a;"O (ij ~.s
~CX)_:I a; 'Ow 0
:c1i)~ ~-g fijai--g
c~.xa1S1i.i~O
~o21oQ.!!1 '" ~ c: E
o.c"O: ~cu<(.-
=rn....c::.::"C"o.!E
o_o-:Jt1lt1lC:Ql:J
c: :::0>:10-"0
~ x:J E 0-0 oQl Ql
o as CI).. '- Q) o..c
-E....- '-(1) 0
-go ~a::~...Jj '"
ctS,-:::,'2"Cf.) as..E-c ~
a8 IIp::."fi T~ ~
~~ >. '" :c 0 r!
Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ I.() -.2
5:2:5~c:::"E1ii
N~Ol~o~t1lE
occ.-....Q)"OQ)
....o.i::t::ca"O~ii
~ E -5 [~af u; i:l
.,
l1.
W
I-
o
w
...
o
z
o
u
~g>
"'<I:
w
z
o
N
o
w
z
o
~
I-"
Ul
'"
~
o
......0000
~
Z
<(
Z
-
:!:
~
z
o
o
..h
z
<(
z
o
-
!;i
~
en
>
ED
<(
W
a:
<(
~
ED
1J
..1:.
....
Z
-
Z
o
-
....
:3
....I
o
0.
a:
<C
c:
t1l
Q)
:2
o ",,,,r--,,,
"''''''''''.,.
\2.
t1l
o
00000
X
t1l
:2
(')(O<OlO..-
('l') ..-C")...-
'"
>.
t1l
o
00000
X
t1l
:2
"'C\l",r--o
,.....,....,.... ,....
'"
>.
t1l
o
,...0000
X
t1l
:2
.
<0 <0 <0 0> 0>
oarioqOoqOari
~
"'0 00 r--
cic:ici""':C\i
'"
>.
t1l
o
000,....(')
X
t1l
:2
O,....O)(Ov
,....,.... ,....,....
o
o
'"
"0 Q; "0
~~ C C>>-c
....cuo:;.....
u..O::E.o8
r::::c-5~c
as cu._;::: 0
WWo::l1.U
I I 100
I I I
I 1 100
I 1 I"''''
I I 100
I I I
o I 100
o ~'"
cO I I ari oqO
0""-(\1.,...""-
ONNariari
o ",,,,,,,r--
.,...10101010
.,....,....,... .,....,...
o
-0
c: ~
'O<<s'E'EO
lij.3~oE
~c:~~~
O~J:at:::i
I C\l0 I I
0>'"
.,.'"
I ~~ I I
101 I I
I'" I I I
I 0 I I I
"'0>
~
I ~ I I I
I'" 10 I
~ .,.
I;: I M I
~"'I
oqOari
.,.r--I"'~
~~I
-j
en -j
_ en
~ - '"
oQ)~ 0
oUJ(a -
0:: 0 a. t1l
E'" (; ~C)
~~o~~
<l:w:2C)...J
10010
1~~If5
10010
IN'" I'"
10010
IO>~IO>
10010
coO> ~
larioqOlr-:
r--.,.
NcO
r--r--ooo
"":oooci
.,..,.
.~~
01
'"
E
:J
E
.~
E
o
U
Qi
>
Ql
00000
cor--
~~
(\1.,...0).,..."'"
.,...,.... .,... T"'"'
~I
01
Q)
~
u;
.E
~
Q)
~
en
i!
~
$
iii
Q)
(ij
o
'{'
e
o
~
;:>.
Q)::
>u~
c:"Oo
S go:: ~
5;:.!!!0t1l
o-g~g~
:2o::WWZ
r--I
01
;:1
.,.1
<0
.,;1
r--'"
"":0
"'~
"0
02. Qi
~'E
~;f
m
WI LFRED T. USSERY
PRESIDENT
JOHN GLENN
VICE.PRES1DENT
KEITH BERNARD
GENERAL MANAGER
01 RECTORS
BARCLAY SIMPSON
15T DISTRICT
NELLO BIANCO
2ND DISTRICT
ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS
3RD DISTRICT
MARGARET K. PRYOR
4TH D!STRICT
ROBERT S. ALLEN
5TH DISTRICT
JOHN GLENN
6TH DISTRICT
WILFRED T. USSERY
7TH DISTRICT
EUGENE GARFINKLE
8TH DISTRICT
JOHN H. KIRKWOOD
9TH DISTRICT
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland. CA 94604-2688
Telephone (415) 464-6000
October 21, 1985
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Villages at Alamo Creek: Initial Study; Notice of
Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact RepDrt
(DEIR)
Dear Mr. Gailey:
BART staff has reviewed the Initial Study for the above listed
project. BART previously submitted CDrrments on this project
in a June 27, 1985 letter (attached) in response to the city's
June 7, 1985 Application Referral. We request that these com-
ments be considered again in the preparation of the Environ-
mental Impact Report for the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Please contact Marianne Payne at 464-6173 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
~r~6!1Etl<l2, Wiad!:V
Manager of Planning . ~
BAN:MAP:mjo
Attachment
cc: Richard C. Wenzel, Supervisor of Extension Planning
Marianne Payne, Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Planner
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 1985:
DUBLIN PLANNING
County Administration Building, North Wing
P.O, Box 951
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Contra
Costa
County
Anthony A. Oehaesus
Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
Phone:372-2035
~
~
~
RECEIVED
OCT 28 1985
October 22, 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for an EIR on the Villages
of Alamo Creek project. I certainly concur that a project of this size and scale require the
preparation of a full-blown EIR.
As the covering memo from your department indicates, you have attached far more
information than usually is transmitted with such a Notice of Preparation. A difficulty with
an outside agency, such as ours, digging through so much material to try to determine the
validity of the conclusion reached is the total absence of maps (beyond to project
application submittal maps) which place the words into context. There is, however, no way
to tell if the requirements in those reports are agreed to in their entirety by the applicant or
if they solve the issue raised. With that as background, I won't try to comment further on
the details of those documents. I presume that they will be appropriately summarized in the
Draft EIR.
There were, however, several issues that need to be identified and discussed in the EIR. One
such issue is the whole question of public safety by allowing new residential uses directly
across the street from the Camp Parks Reserve Training Center. Watching soldiers at play
is exciting. The potential for the project residents children to tresspass on the base would
need to be explored along with other safety issues when such a military base abuts adjacent
urban uses.
A second issue which the EIR should explore is the availability of sewer services to serve
this project. As I understand it, there is a short-term capacity problem. The competing
projects for the available capacity need to be identified rather than presumption that
service is available.
The noise analysis needs to consider the problem from both the point of view of meeting
interior noise standards as well as the affect of noise on the use of outside recreational
facilities and general liveability. The noise analysis material seems to suggest the military's
responsibility to mitigate their noise. One cannot presume that the military will expend
funds for that purpose.
(-
2
Lastly, the traffic analysis report points out that at buildout situation the road improve-
ments may be insufficient to handle the problem. If this is the case, each developer,
regardless of who's jurisdiction it is in, should be required to help contribute to solutions.
For example, the traffic report identifies severe problems in our County at the intersection
of Old Ranch and Dougherty Roads. The EIR should look toward outlining equitable
solutions such as off-site fees to offset their impacts.
As always, our staff will be available to work with your consultant on the EIR preparation
effort.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Community Development
,,~~~Z-- ~/~ ~&r
/" James W. Cutler
Chief, Comprehensive Planning
AAD:JWC/mc4d
,
/--..
., .
{~
(;ity of San Ramon
/"-
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 866-1400
October 24, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gaily
City of Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Villages at Alamo Creek PA 85-041.1 &.2
Notice of Prepartion of a DEIR
Dear Kevin:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the
above referenced project. The documents submitted appear to be of adequate scope to allow
preparation of either a DEIR or as a basis for consideration of mitigation measures sufficient to
warrant a Negative Declaration. Several areas of the Initial Study which we feel should be given
additional emphasis would appear to warrant preparation of an EIR. These areas are as follows:
I). Traffic: given the magnitude of the project, projected extremely low service levels at
Dougherty Road and 1-580, at Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway and the exclusion
from the STlP of additional 1-680 freeway access within the City of Dublin, we believe
that project related or cumulative traffic impacts on Alcosta Boulevard and at the
Alcosta/I-680 interchange will not be potentially negligible as indicated in the Initial
Study. Convenient access to 1-680 for future residents will be available via; a) Amador
Valley B lvd.!Stagecoach Rd.! A lcosta Blvd., b) Dougherty Valley Rd.!OId Ranch Rd.! Al costa
Blvd" c) Amador Valley Blvd.! Village Parkway/Alcosta Blvd.
Therefore, during periods when other points to on/off ramps of 1-680 are operating
below service level "0" for northbound and southbound traffic, we expect the service
level of Alcosta Boulevard to be affected by the project. It would be appropriate to assess
the magnitude of that impact, especially considering development of properties
immediately to the north in the City of San Ramon and sphere will also use Alcosta
Boulevard for freeway access.
2). Visual Impacts: We believe the analysis in the Initial Study to be correct regarding
impacts resulting from development on the east facing slopes of the property. The Initial
Study hints that an appropriate mitigation may be the location of open space surrounding
areas subject to mass grading. We encourage further exploration of alternatives to the
proposed site plan and residential land use mix as one method of mitigating potential
REC.
OCT 29 lS8::l
DUBUN PLANNING
Kevin Gaily
October 24,1985
Page 2
adverse visual impacts resulting from construction on and below the east facing slopes of
the property. We consider this approach especially critical given that the subject
property serves as the gateway to the undeveloped Dougherty Valley, the majority of
which is located within the City of San Ramon sphere and designated planning area.
We are extremely concerned regarding the precedential and thus, cumulative, effect the
proposal will have on the type, quality and quantity of development within areas of
interest to San Ramon. In this regard, and within the limits established by applicable
Dublin General or Specific Plans, we encourage an exploration of design alternatives to the
proposed plan. For example, in village 6, we suggest additional mitigation measures
including redesign of the subdivision within the village to include a greater use of short
blocks and loops, cul-de-sacs, intermediate landscape islands, split roadways, tree
planting easements, requirements of the developer for forestation of areas within the
eastern most portion of yards and intense planting of all exposed cut and fill slopes.
Within villages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 we encourage visib Ie and obvious intrusions of open space
within these higher density areas linking perimeter, creek and hillside open space areas.
3). Water: As you know, this portion of Alamo Creek is at the base of a large drainage system.
As far as we can predict, proposed modification appears adequate given the level of
potential upstream improvement to the creek itself. As we have discussed previOUSly, the
City of San Ramon will be attempting to preserve and enhance the creek as an open channel
integrated with surrounding open space areas. However, there is potential for long term
impacts on future residents of the project resulting from the location of the project and
the high probability of significant development upstream. Some attempt should be made to
address these issues through a discussion of the width and depth of the channel and the type
and location of channel improvements relative to anticipated changes in flow velocity and
volumes due to upstream development.
These are impacts on future residents of the subdivision. However, as previously stated,
the project will likely serve as a precedent for development of properties adjacent to and
north of the proposed subdivision. Given that precedent, cumulative impacts on water
quality and creek habitat, we recommend an EIR be prepared addressing these points,
4). Wildlife: analysis of cumulative effects on wildlife should be prepared in the same fashion
as we suggest for water - considering areawide cumulative impacts.
5). As you are aware, the Cities of San Ramon and Dublin share parks and recreation, fire and
sanitary sewer services through the Dublin San Ramon Service District. The project will
require an expansion of these services in addition to increases in the carrying capacity of
water services, increases in police services and expansion of school facilities. The
relationship between increases in service capacity to accommodate this project and any
resulting growth inducements in the area north of the project should be addressed. The
potential for shared facilities within the Dougherty Valley should be addressed as to the
nature and size of facilities anticipated to be developed to serve the project.
Kevin Gaily
October 24. 1985
Page 3
Fim:llly, in order to aid in the evaluation of potential impflCts and respective mitigation
measures, we recommend that studies be summarized and packaged within a Draft EIR for our
review, Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact me at 866- 1411.
sincerelY~ A ..-
~~
Brian foucht
Associate P Jenner
Bf/mc.017
.J
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Edward R. Campbell
Shirley J. Campbell
Fred F. Cooper
Frank H. Ogawa
(Vice Chairperson)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Sunne Wright McPeak
MARIN COUNTY
AI Aramburll
(Secretary)
NAPA COUNTY
Harold I. Moskowite
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Harry G. Britt
Carol Ruth Silver
(Chairperson)
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Gus J. Nlcolopulos
K Jacqueline Speier
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Rod Dlndon
Ralph P Doetsch. Sr
Roberta H Hughan
Susanne Wilson
SOLANO COUNTY
Osby DavIs
SONOMA COUNTY
Helen B_ Rudee
RECEIveD
OCT 111985'
,--.
I
+
(-"
.J
1/-
-J;- ,
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
October 7, 1985
City of Dublin
Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Attn: Laurence Tong
Planning DirectDr
Dear Mr. TDng:
We have received the Notice of PreparatiDn Df a Draft EIR
for the Villages at Alamo Creek. The prDpDsed project would
consist of 1,165 dwelling units and a convenience food store on a
100-acre site located west of Dougherty Road between AmadDr
Valley Boulevard and the Alameda County line.
We recommend that the DEIR contain a candid qualitative and
quantitative description of the project's air quality impacts.
All pollutants which may be emitted from the project itself or
frDm prDject-generated vehicular traffic should be analyzed.
The vehicle-generated pollutants of concern are carbon
monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and particulates. Calcu-
lations of particulates should include those resuspended from
roads by vehicles and, separately, particulates caused by
cDnstruction activities.
We suggest the following process for analyzing the air
quality impacts of the project:
1. Describe the existing land uses of the project site and
its vicinity in regard to air quality concerns. In
particular, note the location and emissions of direct
sources of air pollutants and airborne hazardous
materials and the location of sensitive receptors,
including residential areas, schools, hospitals, nursing
homes, playgrounds, parks, and recreation facilities.
2. Calculate worst-case air pollutant emissions frDm the
project and due to project-generated traffic.
3. Consider mitigation measures to reduce the air quality
impacts Df the project. Useful references are "Local
Government Guide to Project Mitigation and Other
Improvement Measures fDr Air Quality," BAAQMD, 1983
Draft; "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments,
SectiDn V," California Air Resources Board, 1983; and
DUBLIN PLANNING
939 ELLIS STREET. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 . (415) 771.6000
4. The southern oxbow, if cut off, will be completely
filled.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plan. The documents
were unusually concise and readable.
Sincerely,
+JC.~-r-
Fred C. Roberts
MANAGER
FCR:ep
RECEIVED.
U.'::T 'I' '1'385
DUBUN PLANNING
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
October 24, 1985
Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Kevin:
In response to the City's NOP on The Villages at Alamo Creek,
supports preparation of an Environmental Impact Report analyzing
presented in the NOP. The County is particularly concerned about:
the County
the issues
1. Project and cumulative impacts on traffic congestion on County Roads,
particularly Dougherty Road;
2. Impacts on drainage facilities, both on-site and downstream;
3. Impacts on Alamo Creek, a natural watercourse amenity and biotic and
wildlife habitat;
4. Impacts due to proximity to Camp Parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this NOP.
Very truly yours,
'~'~Ot,}j~ :A1)Jj)..J}.J-;'
(James Sorensen, Planner III
~Development Planning Division
cc: County Director of Public Works
l783D
RECEIVED
OCT 25 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
jtX~;HDUBLIN/SAN RAMON DISPOSAL SERVICE
,1
6175 southfront Rd.
2612 FIRST STREET . LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
Telephone 447-1300
October 25, 1985
Ci ty of Dublin
planning Division
P.O. BOX #2340
Dublin, Co. 94568
Attn: tlr. I(evin Gailey
Dear 1~. Gailey,
Regarding the Alamo creek development by Rafanelli and
Nahas, our main concern is that there be adequate provisions
allotted for solid waste storage and disposal in the cluster
hOQe phase of the project.
The most commonly used container for cluster homes or
apartments is a 3 cubic yard size which measures approximately
4 feet by 7 feet.
I would recommend that container enclosures be at least
8 feet by 10 feet square and have a concrete base and ex-
tended concrete apron. This size enclosure would be adequate
if a 4 cubic yard container was found to be necessary.
please call me if you have any questions or need more
information on this matter.
Sincerely,
Liv~r:;lOre Dublin Disposal
'//-,//a L
' //1'1.. ( , . i,
[1' :J:;z?A'c:t-/y'
'Jm. BrQ.ndi
District Manager
RECEIVED
OCT 2 B 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
TID crp,lE
+
998 MURRIETA BOULEVARD
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
1.., R. (LOU) HOLVECK
MANAGER - LIVERMORE
February 3, 1986
RECEIVED
FEB 5 1986:
DUBUN PLANNING
Mr. Larry Tong
Planning Director
Development Services
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Real Estate Dev. 85-041.1
Alamo Creeks, Dublin
Dear Mr. Tong:
Our comments on this environmental information are the same as in my
letter of June 11, 1985.
RLM:hme
d\.i ;.'
. ~ (
"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE I
00_
~
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
91 5 Capitol Mall, Room 288
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-7791
Kevi n Gailey
Dubl in City
P.O.BDX 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVED
FEe 7 1986
DUSUN PLANNING
February 4, 1986
Re: The Villages at Alamo Creek
SCH# 85091009
The Native American Heritage Commission appreciates the opportunity to express
its concerns and comments in the environmental review process. As you may know,
the CDmmission is mandated tD preserve and protect places of special religious
or cultural significance to California Indians (Native Americans) pursuant to
Section 5097 et seq of the Public ResDurces CDde.
The CDmmission has the further responsibility of assisting Native Americans in
cemetery and burial protection pursuant to Section 5097.94(k) of the Public
Resources CDde. We request that the County Coroner's office be contacted if
human remains of Native American origin are encountered during the project,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 Df the Health and Safety
CDde. Should this o:cur, the Commission will assist in expediting the preservation
and protection of the remains in a respectful manner.
We request that you consult with the lDcal Indian community in this project area
in order to mitigate potential impacts to burial sites and other cultural resources
of value tD their particular tribal customs. I have enclosed a listing of those
individuals and/or grDups WhD can be of assistance to you themselves Dr in suggest-
ing thDse in the local community which may have concerns regarding this project area.
This information is provided to assist you in addressing the cultural heritage
concerns of the appropriate Native American communities, and as such, the enclosed
references are for agency use only and not to be considered a public disclosure.
This information may not be released, distributed or reproduced in any form withDUt
the priDr written permission of the Native American Heritage Commission.
If YO~/have any questiDns please contact me for further assistance.
../
Sl..t;".7M::r.::ur(, _ / .?/ If
.! (.4a~ltL ~ty'
Arnette Os ital
Special Assistant
AO:jg
Enclosure(s)
i ,;
II
I
~. . "
...J_"'_',,.>-..O....,:
Amodor-Pleosonton Public Schools
123 Main Street · P1easanton, CA 94566-7388
(415) 462-5500
file_ ~
?f\ 6S--04-(
Vi l ( C'-{6~.z.
February 5, 1986
RECEIVED
FEB 'j' 1986.
DUBUN PLANNING
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mr . Tong:
After reviewing the expanded study for the Villages at Alamo Creek and its impact on
the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, I have been directed to file the
following statement to you. With the growth that is occurring in the City of
Pleasanton over the next five years, it may be necessary for the school district to
direct some of those students to Dublin High School. This project could pose a
negative impact at Dublin High School since it appears to be moderately priced,
multiple and single family units. The school district has experienced larger student
yield in this type of housing rather than higher priced housing units.
Before the school district could give its approval to this project, we would need to see
the overall residential long term growth management projects projected to be built in
Dublin. It appears from the housing developments that are taking place in Dublin, that
we would need to begin to explore its long term affect on Dublin High School in order
that we may properly plan for adequate space to house the new students that would
result from the new growth.
(;:Iea", ma;! ta u, yau, lang teem gcawth management pcajeet' In a,de' that we may
Lmake a final impact statement relative to your project.
Sincerely,
BOARDS OF TRUSTEES
AMADOR
Juanlt. H.ugen, Pre.ldent BRM/bl
Jack Kend.lI, Clerk
J. Jack Br..
Frank Damerval
David Melander
PLEASANTON
Ronald Oil. Ph.D.. President
Clark Gunson, Clerk
Nancy Hawtrey
Dr. Bruce Merrill
Earn..tlne SChneider
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Bill J. James
Amador V.II.y Joint Union High School ~Iatrlct . PI....nton Joint School Dlat~ct
,.".,',
"""'''-'