HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-041.1 & .2 Vlgs Alamo Creek 03-17-1986
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 17, 1986
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Planning Staff~
PA 85-041.1 & ~illageS 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.
TO:
FROM:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This item was initially heard at the Planning Commission hearing of
February 18, 1986. Staff presented an indepth introductory statement
regarding the project, including a review of the 12 areas of concern outlined
in the Staff Report of February 18, 1986. The 12 areas included:
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
Following Staff's presentation, the applicants, Mr. Ron Nahas and Mr.
Mark Rafanelli, made their project presentation to the Commission, beginning
with discussion on issue area #1 - General Plan/Land Use.
Discussion and subsequent direction on the five sub-categories of the
General Plan/Land Use area of concern were supplied by the Commission.
Discussion deviated from consideration of the 12 identified areas of
concern to more generalized discussion of project-related impacts. The
Commission continued the public hearing to its meeting of March 3, 1986.
At the March 3, 1986, hearing Staff supplied a supplemental Staff Report
which provided additional background information regarding the Park Dedication
Requirements area of concern. Also supplied was a detailed summary of proposed
adjustments to specific Conditions of Approval from the draft Resolutions of
the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and the Tentative Map. The adjustments
were prompted by a series of meetings between Staff and the applicant
subsequent to the public hearing on February 18, 1986.
Cm. Raley expressed his concern that the east side of Dublin was being
developed primarily with multi-family units, and stated that he thought the
untis proposed for this project on the west side of the creek should consist
solely of single family units to assure compliance with the General Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
!1L
COPIES TO:
Applicant
Owner
\
Mr. Rafanelli referred to the General Plan, and stated that he believed
the proposal was in compliance with it. Mr. Nahas stated his opinion that to
increase the size of the proposed single family lots, or increase the cost of
the homes, would not meet the current needs in the City of Dublin, and thus
would not be consistent with the General Plan.
A consensus opinion of the Commission was expressed that both Villages
VI and VII should be developed as single family units.
Staff reviewed the revisions to the Conditions outlined in the
Supplemental Staff Report of March 3, 1986, and their relationship to the 12
previously identified areas of concern. Based on consensus direction from the
Commission, Staff stated that the revised Conditions would be incorporated
into the draft Resolutions.
Mr. Nahas requested additional time to refer to the changes made in
Condition 284, the proposed dimensional criteria for the multiple family
residential units. The Planning Commission continued the item until the
March 17, 1986, meeting.
REMAINING AREAS OF REVIEW/DISCUSSION:
With the Commission's continuance of this item to its March 17, 1986,
hearing, three areas of review/discussion were put over for consideration or
elaboration. These areas include: 1) Responses to Comments received
regarding the project's environmental documents; 2) review of the proposed
multiple family residential standards for minimum separation distances between
buildings and building appurtenances; and 3) provision of additional analysis
regarding the impacts of changing Village VII to a single family residential
area.
In regards to the first area, Staff and the applicant contacted two of
the original private consultants utilized for this project (TJKM and Wagstaff
and Brady) to have them provide responses to the written comments received in
regards to either the Expanded Initial Study or the September 7, 1985, Notice
of Preparation document, which included the following letters that warranted
comments:
1. City of San Ramon - Letter Dated October 24, 1985
2. City of San Ramon - Letter Dated February 12, 1986
3. City of Pleasanton - Letter Dated February 28, 1986
4. Caltrans - Letter Dated February 26, 1986
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District - Letter Dated
October 7, 1985
6. Contra Costa County Community Development Department -
Letter Dated October 22, 1985
7. Amador-Pleasanton Public School District - Letter Dated
February 5, 1986
8. State of California Department of Fish and Game -
Letter Dated February 24, 1986
Responses to traffic related comments (Letters 2 - 24 above) were
addressed by TJKM in their letter of March 12, 1986 (Background Attachment -
24).
Responses to the remalnlng comments (Letters 25 - 28 above) were
addressed by Wagstaff and Brady in their transmittal dated March 12, 1986
(Background Attachment - 25).
These two documents serve to address all substantive comments raised by
responsible agencies in response to the distribution of the Expanded Initial
Study and the Notice of Preparation. These response documents should be
incorporated by reference into the Expanded Intitial Study.
In regards to the second area, the dimensional criteria for the multiple
family residential portions of this project, the applicant submitted suggested
modified language which is substantially reflective of previous discussions
between Staff and the applciant (Background Attachment - 26).
The minimum separation distances proposed would provide for a similar
building orientation to that developed in the nearby Amador Lakes project.
-2-
In regards to the final area, Staff has prepared a series of charts to
facilitate for their analysis of the single family portion of the subject
proposal (Background Attachment 28 - Charts I-III). The charts provide
detailed analysis of the proposed layout of Village VI and establish the
theoretical density yield for Village VII if the area was developed in a
similar single family residential density as is proposed for Village VI. Two
additional charts look at the development standards of the other types of
residential product lines present in the City and provide a calculation of
theoretical density yields if those standards were observed on the combined
areas of Villages VI and VII.
As detailed in Part A of Chart I, the average lot size for lots in
Village VI is 5,850~ square feet. Utilizing the same criteria for the 11.84~
Gross Residential Areas present in Village VII, including an assignment of
22+% of the land area for use as roads, the theoretical yield for Village VII
wo~ld be 69 lots (Part B of Chart I).
Part A of Chart II looks at the dimensional criteria utilized for the
Ponderosa development located on the west side of the City (Subdivision 4236).
That project is the most comparable existing project in the City to the single
family residence project proposed in Village VI. While the average lot sizes
are roughly comparable (Ponderosa lots are 6,095+ square feet compared to
5,850 square feet for the lots in Village VI, for a 4%+ differential), the
average level pad size is 30+% larger in area (6,09>-t square feet compared to
4,675~ square feet).
If the total Gross Residential Acreage in Villages VI and VII (37~
acres) were developed with lots whose average lot size was increased to match
the average lot size used for the Ponderosa project, the theoretical yield
would be 207 lots (a reduction of only 8 lots from the total combined
theoretical yield of Villages VI and VII if Village VII was developed
utilizing the standards currently proposed for Village VI). If the same
acreage was developed to match the average level pad size present in the
Ponderosa project, the theoretical yield would drop down to 166 lots (see Part
B of Chart II).
Part A of Chart III looks at the dimensional criteria utilized for a
Penn Drive area development (Subdivision 2773), an older residential
development located along the valley floor which is representative of the next
step up in terms of lot sizes for existing single family residential
developments in the City. The average lot size for the 82 lot Subdivision is
6,290~ square feet, 7.5ifo larger than the size proposed for the lots in
Village VI. Because the development is located on the valley floor, the
average lot size is also the average level pad size, which is 34.6ifo larger
than the size proposed in Village VI.
If the total Gross Residential Acreage in Villages VI and VII were
developed with lots whose average lot size was increased to match the average
lot size used in Subdivision 2773, the theoretical yield would be reduced to
193~ lots. If the same acreage was developed to match the average level pad
size present in that Subdivision, the theoretical yield would drop down
further to 160~ lots (see Part B of Chart III).
The Commission expressed a four to one consensus oplnlon that Village
VII should be changed to a single family residential area. That change would
shift the total Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) in the project devoted to
single family residential uses from 25~ acres (out of 100+ GRA, or 25%~) to 37
acres (37%~). The information provided above was developed in response to the
consensus direction received from the Commission to provide the Commission
support information to get a handle on the project impacts related to the
proposed changes and to see how further adjustments to the single family
residential area would affect the project.
-3-
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Consider and act on three draft Resolutions:
A - A Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance.
B - A Resolution regarding the Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning.
C - A Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511.
Action:
testimony
taken:
Based on both this Staff Report and previous reports and
received, Staff recommends that the following three actions be
1 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) which recommends that the
City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for this project.
2 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit B) which recommends that the
subject 135+ acres be rezoned to the Planned Development
(PD) District.
3 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit D) which recommends that the
City Council approve Tentative Map 5511.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -
Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance.
Exhi bit B -
Draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning application.
Exhibit C -
Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511.
Supplemental Background Attachments (These items supplement the
February 18, 1986, and March 3, 1986, Attachments.)
21) Applicant's transmittal of February 25, 1986, entitled "School Age
Children Generated by Multi-family Rental Projects in the San
Francisco Bay Area" (this transmittal was hand delivered to the
Commission at the March 3, 1986, hearing).
22) Applicant's letter of March 12, 1986, entitled "Suggested Language
Tentative Map - Condition #46".
23) March 6, 1986, letter from the Department of the Army - Corps of
Engineers advising that the proposed construction may require
Department of the Army authorization.
24) March 12, 1986, letter and accompanying transmittal from TJKM,
Transportation Consultants, regarding responses to traffic
comments.
-4-
25) March 12, 1986, letter and accompanying transmittals from Wagstaff
and Brady, Urban and Environmental Plannng, regarding responses to
agencies commenting on the September 7, 1985, Notice of
Preparation, and the January 31, 1986, Expanded Initial Study -
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance.
26) Applicant's transmittal dated received March 13, 1986, entitled
"Condition #86 - Conditions of Approval of P.D. Map".
27) Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance -
cover document.
28) Charts I - III and Area Maps for Single Family Residential
Analysis.
-5-
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
~LAMO 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 and circulated 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, those responses received for either the January 31, 1986,
distribution of the Expanded Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance or the previously distributed Notice of Preparation
document for this project (circulated on September 7, 1985), which warranted
response were addressed by a Responses to Comments document consisting of the
March 12, 1986, document prepared by TJKM, Transportation Consultants, and the
March 12, 1986, document prepared by Wagstaff and Brady, Urban and
Enrivonmental Planning which are incorporated by reference into the Expanded
Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider said
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the
referenced Responses to Comments documents at its meetings of February 18,
1986, March 3, 1986, and March 17, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given as
legally required; and
rx, HIB' IT
~.,,}t ..... u _fit' ~ d_______
-1-
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 potential creation of any significant environmental impacts
indentified in the Expanded Initial Study;
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 17th day of March, 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 9,000~
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 determined that a change in the
proposed residential density of Village VII, from Multiple Family Residential,
12.75 dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre, to Single Family Residential,
5.80~ dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre, was necessary and appropriate
to meet the General Plan Policy Guidelines that call for the avoidance of
economic segregation by City sector, and specifically call for some of the
units approved in the subject property to be single family residential-
detached; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
previously adopted for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests (Planning
Commission Resolution No. ); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning,
as modified, is consistent with the City General Plan and Policies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning
will not have a significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning, as modified, 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 will not have substantial adverse effects on
health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be
injurious to property or public improvements; and
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning, as
modified, 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.
-1-
rXH. .18,' ~T
'''j" ~" ,12 ,8____.
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 1,083 dwelling units and a 20,000~ square
foot commercial site for development as a small convenience store.
Development shall be generally consistent with the following submittals,
modified to conform with Conditions of Approval outlined below. Village
VII shall be modified from the plans cited below to provide for
development as a Single Family Residential Village with a density not to
exceed 5.80~ dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre.
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 - Prepared by Tetrad
Engineering, Inc., dated received July 31, 1985.
C. The Villages at Alamo Creek - Villages 1-5 - Preliminary Floor
Plans and Building Elevations, consisting of 12 sheets, 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.
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, as
modified by the submittal entitled, The Villages at Alamo Creek -
Village I - Revised Site Plan dated received February 25, 1986.
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. Cross Sections at Alamo Creek - Consisting of a single sheet,
dated received February 6, 1986.
J. 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).
-2-
5. Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is specified in
Section 8-31.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, or as detailed on an approved
project phasing schedule. The phasing plan outlined in the applicant's
letter dated February 27, 1986, is acceptable in terms of the timeline
cited for commencement of construction of the respective residential
Villages. The formal project phasing schedule shall elaborate on this
letter and detail timing of construction of all major project
improvements.
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 provlslon 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 and Amador Valley Road to partially
filter particulate matter emanating from those roads.
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 and pruning, as needed to implement the plan.
-3-
C. A revegetation plan for the creek shall be prepared and
implemented which includes the replanting of native species. The
revegetation. plan shall.includ€ provisions to aid new trees during
early years through irrigation, fertilization, deer protection and
disease prevention.
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 to 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:
-4-
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.
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 feasib12
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
"D.
All units shal-lconta:in -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 €nclosure
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 to that of the projected upstream
increased from future development.
E. Six-foot black clad chain link fencing shall be installed along
both sides of the creek.
-6-
"'-~ "~.-~,":",.~~.:~.:,.~~.,,-,-~~~-. ,<,,,,,,.,,..,:,,,-- ,,-,-, .., " ,~,~~"._'-~ -~ --"<"'.:<'
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.
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, and then these erosion control plans shall be
modified to the new Conditions. 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 into 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 applicances 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 the water conservant toilets, shower
heads, 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 Villages VI and VII 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 servic2~
D. Fire hyrdants at the locations approved by the DSRSD-Fire
Department shall be installed and operable, to the satisfaction o~
the DSRSD-Fire Department, prior to combustible construction.
Provision of raised blue reflectorized pavement Inarkers shall be
made in the center of the private vehicle accessways at each fire
hydrant.
-7-
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.
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 9.747 acres (assuming
1,083 dwelling units at a dedication of 0.009 acres/du). Final
calculations shall be made by the City Engineer 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 subjec~
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 aCLivities are
generally expected to occur.
C. The developer shall construct a minimum 10-foot high berm on the
east side of Dougherty Road (subject to approval by the Army) from
Amador Valley Road north, a point approximately halfway to the
County Line where this berm will terminate into a natural hill.
This earthen berm shall have side slopes flat enough to mow with a
riding mower. This berm shall also be hydroseeded with wild
flowers and native, low growing plant materials (subject to Army
approval) .
-8-
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 planting 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.
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
ne~essary 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
accessible as useable open space in conjunction with a joint use
program between the City and Zone 7.
E. The recreational facility requirements for Villages VI and VII
shall be detailed in the Site Development Review submittal for
that Village and shall be addressed with the overall project
parkland dedication agreement.
F. Pool length shall be increased to 50 feet mlnlmum length in at
least two of the six proposed recreation areas.
G. The initial Site Development Review shall include submittal of a
proposed master trail system which provides for a connection of
the pedestrian system and the community park with the regional
open space in Dougherty Hills. A linkage of the bikeway to the
west part of the park and Villages VI and VII shall also be
provided for by this plan.
H. 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.
I. 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.
-9-
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 vehicular areas shall be screened with patio fences or
appropriate landscaping 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. At-grade patios for the multiple family residential units shall be
individually fenced and shall be supplied with soil preparation to
accommodate future planting. 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 respective Site Develpment Review submittal.
31. The developer's Engineer shall develop the expected truck length and
turning radius 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.
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
(assuming two-foot overhang for both types of spaces).
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.
-10-
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 at any portion of this development are
specifically disallowed unless architectural treatment, traffic and
emergency access impacts are addressed and 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 potential design changes called for in Village I (concerning the
pursuit of a secondary access point, the adjustment to internal
circulation patterns and parking counts, and the impacts to the area
resulting from an enlargement and reconfiguration of the adjoining
commercial area) shall be reviewed through the Site Development Review
application for that Village. The applicant shall pursue a second
vehicular connection to serve the units in Village I to improve internal
circulation and to allow a diminishment of the distance between the more
remote units and their respective assigned parking. The developer shall
diligently pursue the necessary approvals to develop access from the
south of Village I, through the existing Arroyo Vista Housing Authority
project. Failure to secure this preferred secondary access shall not
release the applicant from pursuing provision of a secondary access to
Village I. In lieu of this access from the south, the applicant shall
investigate the feasibility of providing a second access along the
Amador Valley Boulevard frontage. Revisions to the site plan layout for
Village I shall be made to reduce the distances between available
parking and the more remote dwelling units. The amount of parking
provided shall be adjusted to match the standard being observed
elsewhere across the project (129-space suggested standard for 60-units)
or a more restrictive standard to acknowledge that development of 3-
bedroom units may result in a greater need for parking than the other
multiple family residential villages.
-11-
SOILS, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
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 I
extent feasible. '
-12-
M. Full-time soils inspection by the Soils Engineer representative
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 us~d 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 south of Amador Valley Boulevard and
50 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. 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 north of Amador Valley Boulevard may be widened to four lanes
in phases to correspond with the connection of project access
roads to Dougherty Road, or may be constructed along the total
frontage along with the first unit developed. (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.
-13-
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.
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, repairing and
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 width off street bicycle system from Dougherty Road
to the west side of the entrance to Villages I and II. From that point,
the bicycle and pedestrian systems shall be separate, as detailed in PD
Condition #65-C.
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 County 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 - C~JLATIVE IMPACTS
52. The developer shall increase the size of Dougherty Road from the
existing two lane configuration north of Amador Valley Boulevard which
would accommodate project traffic to a completely new, full four-lane
configuration with a 3-foot painted median (or alternate improvements as
approved by the City Engineer). Street lights shall be placed along the
west side of the road.
-14-
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.
54. The developer shall widen Amador Valley Boulevard to four lanes from the
entrance from Villages I and II to Dougherty Road. This project shall
be completed prior to occupancy of any,of the units in the development.
In addition, the median fronting this project shall be landscaped and
double headed street lights shall be placed in this median.
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 for possible future traffic
signals.
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
Villages VI and VII.
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.
61. Access from the Reserve Training Center just south of Amador Valley
Boulevard shall be relocated to be directly opposite Amador Valley
Boulevard, and signal heads and phases shall be provided for this
movement (subject to Army approval).
VISUAL RESOURCES
62. 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).
63. 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.
64. 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.
-15-
65. 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. Where grade differentials between the project
area and the Dougherty Road frontage strip dictate, the sound-
architectural wall may be located approximately at grade with the
frontage strip (i.e., not located atop a berm). The width of the
frontage strip may be reduced to less than 19 feet where bus
turnouts will be required.
b) Four-foot minimum landscape strips on both sides of the sidewalk
shall be utilized (as measured from the 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 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.
66. The following design criteria shall be reflected in the Site Development
Review submittals for Villages I and II for the Amador Valley Boulevard
frontage strips adjoining the proposed perimeter fences or walls:
a) Total minimum width of the strips, as measured from face-of-curb
to the fences or wall, shall be 16 feet, and shall be widened to
19 feet wherever feasible.
b) Three-foot minimum landscape strips on both sides of the sidewalk
shall be utilized (as measured from the face-of-curb to the front
edge of the sidewalk and between the rear edge of sidewalk and the
face of the perimeter fence or wall).
c) The pedestrian/bikeway path shall be a mlnlmum width of eight feet
and shall meander both horizontally and vertically through the
fontage strips that remain between the two minimum landscape
strips established above. The pedestrian/bikeway path shall
extend from Dougherty Road to the west side of the entrance to
Villages I and II. From that point, the sidewalk shall be five
feet in width on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard and
bicycle lanes shall be striped in the street. On the south side
of Amador Valley Boulevard, the sidewalk shall be constructed to
conform with the planned sidewalk for the undeveloped phase of the
Heritage Commons project.
d) The fence or wall shall extend along the Village II frontage up to
the outside of the flood control channel.
67. The sound-architectural wall along the Village II frontage shall extend
westerly along the Amador Valley Boulevard frontage for the minimum
distance necessary to provide the required sound attenuation for
proposed Building Group 26. The sound-architectural wall along the
perimeter of Village I shall extend from the Dougherty Road frontage
around the south and west side of the proposed convenience store parcel,
terminating at a point giving adequate separation from the Amador Valley
Boulevard right-of-way to provide visibility along the street and into
the parking area for the proposed convenience store site.
-16-
. _,- -'-.__~ .'::~ ;..~,.. "n
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.
Areas not accepted for dedication shall be placed, into a private
Homeowners' Association.
69. Single family homes in Villages VI and 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.
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 Villages VI and VII, 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 Villages VI and VII.
Approximately one tree at 350 square feet of slope area shall be
planted, or an alternate standard approved through the respective Site
Development Review submittals. 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. The Dougherty Road frontage width of the proposed commercial site
(proposed Lot #153) shall be increased to provide for an approximate
doubling of the on-site parking to be developed. This change shall be
generally consistent with the revised site plan received for the
commercial site and Village I, dated received February 25, 1986 (see
Background Attachment #16). To accommodate the increase in the size of
the commercial parcel, changes shall be made to the layout of building
groups in the adjoining sections of Village I. The driveway to the
commercial site along Amador Valley Boulevard shall be moved westerly to
provide a wider separation between said driveway and the intersection of
Dougherty Road and 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 store. The findings of the Study shall be utilized in the
determination of the required minimum size of the commercial site. All
overhead utilities fronting the project on Dougherty Road shall be
undergrounded.
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 for
single family residential lots proposed in Village VI shall not exceed a
maximum deviation of five feet from the pad elevations indicated on the
Revised Tentative Map and Development Plan, dated received December 12,
1985.
-17-
77. If occupancy within an individual Village is to occur in phases, all
physical improvements shall be required to be in place prior to
occupancy except for' items specifically excluded in a Village
Construction-Phased Occupancy Plan approved by the Planning Department.
No individual unit shall be occupied until the adjoining area is
finished, safe, accessible, provided with all reasonable expected
services and amenities, and completely separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Any-approved Village Construction-
Phased Occupancy Plan shall have sufficient cash deposits or ,other
assurances to guarantee that the project and all associated improvements
shall be installed in a timely and satisfactory manner. At the request
of the Planning Director, written acknowledgements of continuing
construction activity shall be secured-from the property owners and any
and all occupants or tenants for the portions of the Village to be
occupied, and shall be filed with the Planning Department. Said
acknowledgements for a subdivision shall be part of the settlement
documents between the developer and buyer.
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 shall certify that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with the plans and 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.
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. A reserve
deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs
of roof replacement where replacement will be required prior to 10
years.
-18-
B. A report by a professional Engineer attesting, to the extent
reasonably feasible, 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 that paint throughout
the project is in good condition and that the building exteriors
should not require repainting for at least five years. A reserve
deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs
for the repainting of the units where repainting will be required
prior to a 5-year period.
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 the initial
buyers provided with a one-year's parts and warranty guarantee on all
applicances.
83. The developer shall provide guarantees that a mlnlmum of 10% of the
multi-family units in the project shall be maintained as rental units
for a period of five years. The document providing said agreement shall
be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Such 10% shall
be calculated, utilizing the number of units in Villages I, II, III, IV
and V as a base (868 proposed units for a commitment of 87 units to the
rental pool). Commencing with the date of issuance of an occupancy
permit on the 87th multi-family unit within Villages I through V, the
developer shall guarantee that a minimum of 87 units shall be available
for rent at all times within the above Villages until the Condition has
been satisifed. This Condition may be met individually within anyone
Village, or collectively over all the affected Villages. Developer
agrees that until the Condition has been satisfied, there shall be no
conversion of codominium units for sale within Village V.
84. Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the
single family residential lots in Villages VI and VII 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 generally maintaining the 20-foot
average.
2. Side Yards - A. One story units
- 5-foot minimum flat and useable each side
- 12-foot minimum street side sideyard
B. Two story units
-5-foot minimum flat and useable each side
-15-foot minimum street side sideyard
3. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and useable.
4. Pad Areas - 45' x 95' minimum, with the 45' width measured from front
setback line through to the rear of the lot.
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.
The majority of the two-story units shall observe an additional front
yard setback requirement whereby the building face of the second story
shall observe a setback of an additional five feet ~ from the building
face of the garage. Two-story units shall generally avoid use of shed-
-19-
type roof designs, but rather shall generally utilize roof designs which
serve to mitigate possible visual impacts resulting from the height and
proximity of two-story units.
85. To assure that adequate diversity of building architecture across the
project as a whole will be provided, individual Villages, or groupings
of contiguous Villages (i.e., Villages II and III as a grouping, and
Villages IV and V as a grouping) shall be designed in a manner to allow
them 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.). Detailed design review of project
architecture shall be made at the time of submittal of the respective
Site Development Review applications for each proposed Village.
86. The minimum distances between buildings and building appurtenances in
the multi-family Villages shall comply with the following criteria:
The term "building wall" shall refer to the exterior side of building
walls containing heated space (with the exception of the enclosed entry
in the "E" type building).
A. 20 feet between all building walls, with deviation fro the mlnlmum
separation subject to review and approval by the Planning Director
through the Site Development Review process, to consider case-by-
case reductions to 15 feet when:
1. The living room windows are separated by a mlnlmum distance
of 40 feet measured perpendicularly from the sliding glass
door.
2. Living room to bedrooms are separated by 30 feet (measured
perpendicularly from the sliding glass door).
B. Building/roadway separations, 15 feet minimum, except building
setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and the
first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads from the intersection
with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Boulevard where a 20-foot
minimum setback (measured from the rear face of the sound
architectural wall or perimeter fence along Dougherty Road or
Amador Valley Boulevard ) shall be observed. The 20-foot minimum
setback along the loop roads shall be from the face of curb or
back of sidewalk, whichever is applicable.
C. Patio/deck and deck/building wall separations - 15-foot minimum.
D. Building walls and parking area separations - 10-foot minimum with
a minimum of five feet of the width landscaped for screening or
parking.
E. Building appurtenances to building appurtenance separations
(including patios) - 10-foot minimum separation. Stairway
landings may be closer than 10 feet where privacy is not
compromised as approved by the Planning Director through the Site
Development Review process.
87. The two easterly cross streets in Village VI shall be terminated in
cul-de-sacs. The applicant's engineer shall investigate the feasibility
of incorporating two additional cul-de-sacs, with emergency breakthrough
vehicular access inter-connection between the two cul-de-sacs, along the
most westerly proposed through street in Village VI (and subject to
Staff review of the Site Development Review for Village VI).
88. The minimum width of the creek-side pedestrian walkway strip shall be 14
feet (measured from face-of-curb to the flood control maintenance fence)
for a minimum of 50% of the strip's frontage along Villages II through
V. Subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, this width
may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet for the remainder of the
-20-
referenced frontage. The pedestrian walkway strip shall include a 6-
foot minimum width concrete walkway which, wherever feasible, shall
meander within the creek-side walkway strip. The walkway shall also
maintain a four-foot landscaped setback from the curb and the flood
control fence where the width of the strip so allows.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-21-
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, 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 determined that a change in the
proposed residential density of Village VII, from Multiple Family Residential,
12.75 dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre, to Single Family Residential,
5.8Qt dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre, was necessary and appropriate
to meet the General Plan Policy Guidelines that calls for the avoidance of
economic segregation by City sector, and specifically calls for some of the
units approved in the subject property to be single family residential-
detached; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
previously adopted for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests (Planning
Commission Resolution No. ); 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, as modified, is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinances.
2. Tentative Map 5511, as modified, is consistent with the City's
General Plan as they apply to the subject property.
3. Tentative Map 5511 will not result in the creation of significant
environmental impacts.
-1-
~,' V".,. ~.,'l) ~,;,;.,'.,1l,.
. '1.' 6~' ~ ,
. J~ '~[J" ".
'" .. ,.,.. "
:""-' .,;...-"':.. 5 --~_, ;~
,..,." ".< if., > iii"
G
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.
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. The developer may request and secure a grading permit and commence
construction of creek improvements in advance of completion of
improvement drawings for site development work outside of the creek
corridor (subject to the provision of security agreements to ensure
completion of grading and erosion control requirements, as deemed
appropriate by the City Engineer).
4. Prior to release by the City Council of the performance and labor and
materials securities:
-2-
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improve-
ment Plans and Specifications.
b. All required landscaping along public streets shall be installed
and established.
c. An as-built landscaping plan for landscaping along public streets
prepared by a Landscape Architect, together with a declaration
that the landscape installation is in conformance with the
approved plans.
d. 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 facilitieso
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 Geologist or Soils Engineer
that all work was done in accordance with the recommen-
dations contained in the soil and geologic investigation
reports and specifications, and that continuous monitoring
was performed by a representative of the Soils Engineer.
4) A declaration by the project Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor
that the finished graded building pads are within + 0.1 feet
in elevation of those shown on the grading plan (or to any
approved modified grades).
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.
-3-
g. Parking of recreational vehicles or boats shall be prohibited,
except in designated recreational vehicle parking spaces.
h. The C.C. & R. 's shall prohibit the use of guest parking areas by
project residents.
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 agreement (subject to review and approval by the City
Attorney) which assures provision of the vehiclular/ pedestrian/bicycle
cross access, where such access facilities are common to more than one
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.
-4-
',_ 1",,,,,,,~..' ,.....,,:'~;"_...-.~."W; ~'.-:';:""-:- --"""-:''''c'~~'' ,,,,',-,' ~
,. r .'
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.
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 review 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 State
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 reviewed by, the City
Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public
-5-
'~~<_"'''''.'_'v'.7'''' -
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,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City and affected agencies
having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the
Improvement 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 9, 747
acres (0.009 acres/dwelling unit X 1,083 units). Final calculations
shall be made by the City Engineer 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 and
Dougherty Road 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 or building in accordance with the City policies
and existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided
within public utility easements, sized to meet utility company
standards, or in public streets.
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.
-6-
35. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on
the map, that is known to exist, is proposed or is located during the
course of field operations, must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or
maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection
ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted at 443-9300 for additional
information.
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 or
street areas accessible by District equipment.
c. Dedication of sewer lines.
d; Location and design of the water system values.
MISCELLANEOUS
37. Copies of the project plans, indicating all lots, 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 or curbs
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.
46. Prior to filing of a condominium plan on Villages I, II, III, IV or V,
or offering a condominium unit for sale, the developer shall have
completed the following:
-7-
A. Recordation of the master tract final map subdividing the
individual Villages into separate parcels.
B. Completion and acceptance by the City of all public streets
serving the Village to be offered for sale.
C. Completion and final acceptance as complete by the City of all
construction within the Village to be offered for sale, including
buildings, streets, parking and landscaping.
47. Should the developer wish to file a master Tract Map separating the
Villages, all off site work shall be guaranteed and constructed as part
of the agreement for this Tract. In addition, all streets necessary to
keep from land-docking any parcel shall be offered for dedication and
the construction guaranteed by the Subdivision Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-8-
-Z(1S( Sf>
~
"'-
February 25, 1986
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN GENERATED BY MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROJECTS
IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
Introductory Remarks:
The folleM'ing information was based largely upon conversations with the
resident managers and with the property managers of the complexes
listed. The information listed for the Amador Lakes Apartments was
derived from actual records as of a specific date and, therefore, w=
were able to obtain an ac=ate breakdcwn for each age group. tobst of
the other complexes listed did not have breakcl.cwns by each specific age
group. although we believe the overall numbers are still meaningful.
Though the canplexes contacted did not have a specific breakdown by age
group, most stated that a substantial percentage (25% to 50%) of the
total rrumber of children in the complex were preschool age. y"e have
attached a summary of our findings.
The Springs ApartJnents has approx.i1nate1y 45 children which the Resident
Manager estimated to be approx.i1nately one-third preschool, one-third
elementary, and one-third juru.or high and high school. The number of
children per unit in The Springs is approx.i1nate1y three times "C..'1e
overall rate for other multifamily projects in our survey. We believe
that this may be due to the fact that The Springs allows four occupants
per tv.o-bedroom unit versus three occupants per tv.o-bedroom unit which
is the standard requirement for most multifamily projects. In
addition, The Springs has been operated under the HUD 221 (d)4 Prcgram
which controls the rents which can be charged by a project. Currently,
the rents at The Springs are $600 per month for a one-bedroom and $695
per month for a tw:)-bedroom, which is approximately $100 per month
beleM' the rents at either Cedar Pointe or Amador Lakes.
--I
ATTACHMENT-ll
s::
OJ
~
'd
rl
'M rl U1 U1 01 U1 t--o cry cry t--o CO 01 ill CO
6 U1 C'I -.jI rl rl cry -.jI cry
rl
III
-IJ
0
E-<
ill
-IJ
'M U1 co ill ill C'I -.jI C\I co -.jI ill co '<:I' 0
s:: U1 -.jI t--o rl m C\I 0 -.jI 01 ill 0 co ill
::J L() N rl -.jI rl N rl t--o rl rl
rl
III ,-"
-IJ
0
E-<
0
'M 0
B -.jI -.jI
(IJ
E
8
...
~ -.jI N t--o
(') rl
<lJ
<IJ
...
E5
8 U1 -.jI co 0 ill -.jI t--o co <l' '<l' to 0 co
~ OJ C'I co ill m rl C'I <l' U1 r1 '-0 -.jI cry
al cry rl rl rl 01
.0
~
8 0 -<:j' co ill ill C\I t[) 0 0 t[) -<:j' C'l
... ill C\I <Xl L() 01 01 t--o "" rl N <l' N
'8 rl rl N u,j rl
.0
~
0
.
'g QJ ]
rl ~
.0
<IJ l-f ~ <IJ
:> 0 ... ;., ;;;
'M ~ ...
l-f <IJ 8 -IJ
0 ~ <IJ 3 s::
s:: ~ ;;; 'M ! ... 0 l-f
0 ~ l-f 'M 0 -IJ 0
'rl ~ s:: (.'J & 0 g
-IJ (3 0 'rl <IJ !
<1: ... (IJ '" ~ t--o 'd
'M 0 ~ l-f 4! ['--0 5 rl
... ~ t--o (f) 0 l-f
0 ;z; s:: 1-<<1: rl 'd fJl
(/J 'M s:: -IJ 00 .... rl U1 rl
~ t[) rl 'M ~ <IJ 3 0 t[) -<:j' <,}
0 8, rl ::r: l'J <D <D OJ (n
rl 8 N 3 0 ~ OJ
-IJ <Xl 8(3 0 0 U to - L().q.; (',
0 cry m m (/J <IJ m<1: .).J (lJ rlO ("j
QJ . ['--0 N<1: .(3 -<:j' 'M ):l rlO fJl-<<: t7l ('-J
ill <IJ . rlO ~~ ~ U1 &0 (1j ['--0
0 ~(3 -IJ (/J ai'Z' rl <1: rl<1: +-' (1j
H s:: E> rl 0 . s:: - rlO s:: ... ]~
0. 'M :> 'M 11 'M QJ ~t; o 0 ~ OJ 'M 'M (1j
0 'M 80 ::r:rl rl . ')jJ-IJ ;i :> Orl
0. l-f ~[ 'M I'll -IJ ~ ~ +-' 0.0
1-< s:: 0. ... :>~ '8 ~ ..c: s:: ~ s::
o 'M ~ (IJ .c <IJ ~] ~~ '~I
]~ O-IJ ] @ .g 0 ~~ ~rl
~ n:l 8 rl rl QJ ~~ ) 8
rl . o ... ~o:: ~&l ",
0 &l~ i:Q(IJ O(IJ O(IJ 0'"' 0_
@
.a
r-1
'rl (') -.jt OJ l!} C'l 0 rl
a C'l rl l!} 0
-.jt
r-1
C1l
+-'
0
8
III
+-'
'rl C'l -.jt -.jt ~ to co rl
:5 r-1 ~ lO lO OJ lO C'l
rl (') r-1 rl C'l '<l' t"o
-
rl ,~ -.jt
C1l
+-'
0
8
0
'rl co 0 to 0 0 co
:a (') -.jt rl '<l' l!} N
C'l
UJ
E
8
H
dl ~ to (')
p::) 01 (') ..-j
r-1
Cll
Cll
E
8
8
j 0 C'l ~ C'l to lO -.jt
N l!} r-< l!} 0 C'l en
r-1 01 N rl
N
~
E
0
0
H '<l' N -.jt N to to 1_0 co
~ liJ liJ t"o t"o lO liJ 0 0
r-1 ..-j '"
('\1 II
Cll
B +-'
@
.
l-<
'g q ;>.
rl
..-j H c: ...;
!Xl q ~ ~
c
0 ii ~ H 4--l
g +-' ~ (J .....
~ 'rl H +-'
'rl . U q ;>. ~,
.j-J ..... 'g Cll ~
~ H 0 C rl
'rl rl Cll 'rl 0 rl
H p::) .j-J :> ~ ~ l-<
U ~ 'rl a
8 rl U
W rl f:4 m l!}
1! ~ t'< (JJ m
0 l!) I 0 co rl
+-' l!} m~ liJ 0 tJ l!} 0 C1l .a
0 rl o~ (') (') C'l +-'
Cll t"oU r-1U liJ -tJ 0 rl
c:C3 t'< 8 :8
0 r--. - -~ ~:4 ~
H Ij) -ii ~ii ~~ u
p., rl -
(J Cll Cll 'rl 8<3 l-< H H 4--l
r-1 :>u (J <U (J 0
~~ 8 H l5 ~ j] cp., fu' l-<
Cll o 0 j
,~ @ ~~ ~~ ~'2 ..-j
..-j
...:1m mf:4 mf:4 UJ~ m~ ~ '"
r
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE
TENTATIVE MAP - CONDITION #46
M:irch 12, 1986
Prior to filing of a condominium plan on Villages 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, or
offering a condominium unit for sale, the developer shall have
completed the following:
A.
Recordation of L~ master tract final map subdividing the
individual villages into separate parcels.
C.
Completion and acceptance by the City of all public streets
serving the villaae to be offered for sale.
- / (t~ (7.,,~pl~
Completion and final acceptance{by the City of all construction
within the village to be offered for sale, including buildings,
streets, parking and larrlscaping.
B.
ATTACHMENT -11-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
211 MAIN STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 - 1905
March 6, 1986
RECEIVED
!AAR 111986:
Environmental Branch
DUBLIN PLANNING
To: L. Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance -
Villages at Alamo Creek
Your request for comments from this office was received on February 10,
1986 by your notice dated January 31, 1986.
The proposed construction project may require Department of the Army
Authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A copy of our pamphlet
"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program, A Guide for Applicants", has been
forwarded to the applicant with a copy of this notice. For additional
information please contact our Regulatory Functions Branch at 415-974-0418.
Any impacts on wetlands, threatened or endangered species, other valuable
fish and wildlife resources, or on cultural resources are among the important
environmental considerations for all Corps permit applicants.
Questions concerning this
Maggie Hooper at 415-974-0440.
process.
environmental review can be referred to
Thank you for including us in your review
/tu'lf}~ fh I)~----"
~v Roderick A. Chisholm, II
Environmental Branch
Planning/Engineering Division
Copy Furnished:
Ron Nahas, 20638 Patio Drive, Castro Valley, CA 94546
! '
.~~.,:~.,: ."":'
ATTACHMENT - )3
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
PLEASANTON
SACRAMENTO
FRESNO
CONCORD
March 12, 1986
Mr. Kevin Gailey
Planning Department
City of Dublin
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
I: ," ,: I' ;/ C D
'.', ." "_." ~ t '-.. ~
IvlAR 1 }~ '\986,
DUBUN PLANNING
Reference:
Villages at Alamo Creek
Responses to Traffic Comments
Dear Mr. Gailey:
This is to present the response of TJKM to comments on the traffic study for the
Villages at Alamo Creek project received from the City of San Ramon, the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans. The responses to the traffic issues raised in these letters
are indicated below. The eight responses refer to numbered paragraphs in the
attached letters.
City of San Ramon - Letter Dated October 24, 1985
1. Comment - Potential impacts on Alcosta Boulevard at the Alcosta/I,680
interchange will not be potentially negligible as indicated.
Response, The project is expected to generate 622 a.m. peak hour residential
base trips and 768 p.m. peak hour residential base trips. Approximately five
percent of these trips or 31, and 38 peak hour trips, respectively, are
anticipated to use the Alcosta/I,680 interchange. During the a.m. peak, this
will add 31 trips to the 2,824 vehicles currently using the interchange ramps.
This amounts to a 1.1 percent increase. In the p.m. peak hour, the 38 added
trips also represents a 1.1 percent increase to the existing 3,491 trips. These
increases are deemed to be negligible.
City of San Ramon - Letter Dated February 12, 1986
2. Similar to earlier comment. "No trip distribution assumptions are
presented ... to substantiate ... negligible impact on ... the Alcosta/I,680
in terchange."
Response - See response to Item #1.
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214 / Pleasanton, California 94566 . (415) 463-0611
.._:; ~t" 7'
ATTACHMENT--l y
Mr. Kevin Gailey
,2,
March 12, 1986
City of Pleasanton - Letter Dated February 28, 1986
3. Comment - Level of Service F conditions will exist on the eastbound ramp of
the Hopyard-Dougherty /1-580 interchange.
Response, Using the triple right-turn mitigation measures and the new
standard traffic assumptions recently approved by the City of Pleasanton, the
peak hour level of service designated at the eastbound off,ramp improved to
Level of Service D. This information was only recently adopted by the City
of Pleasanton so it was not included in the Villages at Alamo Creek traff:s
study.
4. Comment - This project should contribute to needed roadway improvemen;:3
to improve traffic circulation throughout the Tri, Valley area.
Response' The traffic study developed recommendations to mitigate impacts
from developments not only outside the City of Dublin but also outside of
the County of Alameda. The cumulative projects, located in Contra Costa
County and in the City of San Ramon, apparently were not required to have
mitigation measures within their own county. However, the developer of the
Villages at Alamo Creek project has agreed to mitigation measures in the
form of street widening along Dougherty Road which exceed those identified
by the traffic study as required. Therefore, it appears that the City of
Dublin and the developer have indeed addressed the issue of needed roadway
improvements on a regional scale.
Caltrans - Letter Dated February 26, 1986
5. Comment - Corroborate negligible impacts at Alcosta interchange. Describe
modeling method regarding proposed San Ramon Valley developments around
Crow Canyon Road.
Response - See response # 1. In addition, the County of Contra Costa, the
City of San Ramon, and the Town of Danville have initiated a
comprehensive analysis of the Crow Canyon Road corridor extension which
utilizes Caltrans approved modeling methodology.
6. Comment, Traffic volumes should be shown in diagrammatic form for the
intersections at the Hopyard,Dougherty /1,580 and Alcosta/I-680 interchanges,
Response ' Inf orma tion for the Hopyard,Dougherty /1,580 interchange is
available and will be forwarded to Caltrans. Since traffic increases at the
Alcosta interchange only amount to 1.1 percent during both the a.m. and p.m.
peak periods, no V /C ratio calculations are included.
7. Comment' V IC ratios on Table I of Appendix B and Table III do not agree.
Response, The corrected tables will be furnished to Caltrans.
-" ~If
Mr. Kevin Gailey
-3,
March 12, 1986
8. Comment - Is there a mistake in the data for Intersection 8 on Table III, on
page 397
Response - There is no mistake. As described in the text, the scenario with
the build-out cumulative is a long-term scenario and includes reduced traffic
at the Hopyard Road interchange due to the planned and funded
Stoneridge/I,680 interchange. This interchange will attract existing traffic
from the Hopyard Road interchange.
We believe that these responses adequately address all concerns of a traffic nature
that have been raised.
V&i5"'L;(
Chris D. Kinzel ?k-
psw
Attachments
15722
" '. .. -. . .. .-~'
ft~~f;:r?~i~C?7: ::~e~~T~t;~~~fT~t~1~~1/;:~);'-~~~N~?~r.:t :>....,'. ,.,~75~ .::~ c~',,~ .-,~;~,:,.~' "
, ~
,,--. ,r--
( I
(;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 ofthelnitial Study which we feel should be given
OOditional emphasis w~uld appear to warrant preparation of an_EIR.'T~ese areas areas follows:
. ~..~; ":: r'-, : .-;" -:: .
. - ""-". .::::~ -~ . ,';~ '- . . ... ". .
1). Traffic: given the'magnitude of the project, projected extremely low service levels at
Dougherty Road and 1-580, 6t Dublin Boulevard and Village Perkwey and the exclusion
from the STIP of additional 1-680 freewEry' 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 Ivd./Stegecoach Rd./Alcosta Blvd, ,'b) Dougherty Valley Rd./Old Ranch Rd./Alccsta
Blvd" c) Am8dor ValleY Blvd./ Village Par~way/Alcosta Blvd, .
/,",.'l)~ ^
(
""....,...,.
Therefore, during periods when other points to on/off ramps of 1-680 are operating
below service level "D" 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 p Jan and residential land use mix as one method of mitigating potential
REC
OCT 2,9 19t1~
nUBUN PLANNING
:,~:;'\~:~;::;'---~(<)'?~,;:' :: -'
.. ..,.- . .'- . ,- .' ....~., ~
*j.....-.., .
. '" ..:'.~;'~\".,';~-,~.';'~:' :,:~~.:..;"'::.:-::.~'~' . "."
. -.... . ,....-. . :.-
. ',' (
, .
Kevin Gaily
October 24 I 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 precedentialand thus, cumulative, effect tha
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
Dub 1 in General or Specific Plans, we encoursge an exp loration 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 villeges 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 we encourage visible and obvious intrusions of open space
within these higher density areas linki,ng 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.
P-s 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 mede 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 impects 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 preparro eddressing these points.
'i), 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.
.. .< ~;, . " ;.-'1 .... L'o. .'-.:. ': . ,.~
i "'.,'_:~.,
~'7:?{7S;~"~::~:~\;'jr~t~1?f:~~Jt;~.~}y~~~:;Fr""'~"_:' ',' .'" ~
(
Kevin Gaily
October 24. 1985
Page 3
F inelly, in order to eid in the eveJul'ltion of potentieJ impocts end respective m itigetion
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,
;:;~
Brian Foucht
Associete P Janner
BF/mc ,017
,,--
. :,....
;,---- "..'
City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 866-1400
, ,. ""
:p~ t 'C 'F. \ ,
fEB 1'6 \S'Oo
p~\)'JN FLANN\N0
FchrlJfJry I?, 1986
City of Dub 1 in
Planning Commission
P ,0. Box 23'~O
Dub lln, G\ 94568
Re: PA85- 041. i end ,7. - Planned Development
Rafenelli end Nahl3S
De5, Com m issior.ers:
This office has no comment on the proposed project, other than our earlier comments, especially
reg:Jrdlng truffle, From the deta presented, we are uneble to evaluate claims that there will be
negligible impect on San Ramon street traffic volumes, For example, no trip distribution
assumptions ere presented in the ctcuments to substantiate the claim of "negligible" impoct or.
Alcosta Boulevard or the AJcoste/I-680 interchenr;;e, We would ~t a final determination of !1e
environmental significznce> if this imorm"lion is prOYi~ Bnd indiC3tes the level of impcc~
~ - '
~_ntlclpaTed In your initIal s~ ...' ."
Finally plans show minimal setback along the City's boundary line end, in one case, grc.riing is
shovm off site within the City of San Ramon. It is our request that all grcding be shown within
Dublin City limits, and that an appropriate landscaped setback be esteblished along the north
property boundary - 30' or ~ of landscaped setbcck would be appropriate.
Sincerely, ' . .
;5d~r
Brian Foucht
Asscciate Planner
BF/me
.08'1
@
/J,
....' -:-
:!TY OFFICES
200 OLD BERNAL AVE,
:ITY COUNCIL
34HlOO1
:ITY MANAGER
347-6006
:ITY ATTORNEY
847-8003
'INANCE
647-0033
'ERSONNEL
647-8012
'LANNING
847-0023
,NGINEERING
847~1
3UILDING INSPECTION
847-0015
:OMMUNITY SERVICES
347~160
fiElD SERVICES
5335 SUNOL BLVD,
PARKS
347-0056
SANITARY SEWER
847~061
STREETS
84 7-a066
WATER
347~on
fiRE !
4444 RAILRO:'lc~""VE,
847~n4t1(VC \...n0'
\JlJ ~1<),L/ J.1-
PO LICE \l ~
4833 BERNAL AVE.
847-<3127 ~ P
t ~ f
r.,11,l f '0'
V :-V/ A
/..... -1" .,.i:'\ .
>~.. .
..
. --_.-~ ---- ---.---
CITY OF PlEASANTON
P.O, BOX 520 . PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802
February 28, 1986
Mr. Larry L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVED
MAR 3 ,1986:
DUBLIN PLANNING
Dear Larry:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the draft mitigated
negative declaration for the Villages at Alamo Creek.
The city of Pleasanton has several concerns regarding
the project1s impact on traffic at the intersection of
Dougherty Road and 1-580. In order to justify a
negative declaration, these impacts, both direct and
cumulative, must be mitigated. Mitigation measures
appear to be feasible to eliminate both cumulative and
direct impacts, but we are concerned that not all
feasible mi~igation measures necessary to eliminate
adverse impacts have been included in the project.
According to the environmental assessment, the project,
in addition to existing traffic and other approved
developments, will generate Level of Service D on the
westbound ramp and as high as Level of Service F on the
eastbound ramp of the Hopyard-Dougherty/I-580
intersection. These Levels of Service represent a
significant increase in existing traffic levels. In
addition, long-range traffic projections conducted by
a traffic consulting firm, TJKM, have shown the need
for an arterial roadway connecting the proposed
Hacienda Drive/I-5S0 intersection to Dougherty Road
near the location of the proposed project. This
mitigation relies on the construction of the Hacienda
Drive/I-5S0 interchange. The City of Pleasanton would
like to see the developers of the project contribute to
the mitigation of increased traffic at these critical
intersections.
,
,
~;,-/
As you know, the City of Pleasanton has establish~d the
North Pleasanton Improvement District which will result
in significant improvements to the Dougherty/I-5S0
interchange, Dougherty Road between 1-580 and Dublin
B~ulevard, and the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange.
......
Because of the contribution of the Village's project to
the need for these improvements, the City of Pleasanton
would like to suggest that the project applicants
contribute on a pro rata basis to the finding of these
improvements. I suggest that a mitigation measure be
agreed to by the Developer, and made a condition of
approval which would subject this project to
participate on a pro rata basis for the Hopyard
Road/I-58D interchange improvements, including the
Dougherty Road improvements, and the Hacienda
Drive/I-580 interchange, including the street extension
between Hacienda Drive and Dougherty Road.
I believe that large projects such as this should
contribute to needed roadway improvements to improve
traffic circulation throughout the Tri-Valley area. TG
imply, as your draft mitigated negative declaration
does, that such a large project has no cumulative
traffic impact, or that that impact need not be
mitigated, is surely contrary to good planning sense
and, possibly, to the requirements of CEQA.
I look forward to working with your staff to corne to an
agreeable solution which will enable the City of Dublin
to accommodate traffic generated by this and other
projects in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity of responding to the
negative declaration.
sincerely yours,
A "'2V~.'
,;;r.-~ - /
Brian W. swift
Director of Planning and
community Development
cldublin
"
,,.~~
.;':r,j.:::-'-"-.'~'" ~-'. _':-'L ~'J_..,._"":"'.'>'_~-.-":J~"
.. .~,.-.,... . .
STATE OF CAlIFORNIA--oFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
~~."
~
.......-
r.iarch 3, 1986
Kev; n Ga i1 ey
Dublin City
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
The Village at Alamo Creek
SCH# 85091009
Dear Mr. Ga; 1 ey:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named proposed Negative
Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is
closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed.
Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Cle~ringhouse has checked
which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to
ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in
order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight-digit
State Clearinghouse nRmber should be used so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or
other public agency shall only ma~e substantive comments on a project which
are ,'-lthin the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities
which that agency r~st carry out or a~provA. (A32583, Ch. 1514, Statso
1984.)
These comments are fOr'tlarded for your use in adopting your Negative
Declaration. If you need more infonn~tion or clarification, we suggest you
contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience.
Please contact Pamela Milligan at 916/445-0613 if you 0Ave a~y questions
regarcling the environnental review process. '
Sincerely,
~// 2-.07'" /'-
~~;ff: L--/z(!/_________..:~...c:-J-.f'C---
John B. Ohanian
Chief Deputy Director
Office of Pla~1ng and Research
cc: Resources Agency
Enclosures
,,~!
~,
~:....-:~e (;( r"'!~~.7.~..-_i:2
I'.
.:~ ~ ;',1 ,.'
:'\-'\emorandum
To
Pamela Milligan
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
C~: February 26, 1986
Fik;: A 1 a 580 PM 19" 86
SCH-85091009
AL 580097
From DEPAiHMENT OF TRAl'\!S?CiUATlON - 4
Subject: Negative Declaration for the Villages at Alamo Creek
Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced project and forwards
the following comments:
1. The statement on page 30 t~at traffic impacts on the 1-680/
Alcosta interchange wil1 be negligible should be corroborated
with projected traffic volumes. Mention should be made on
what modeling method will be used to distribute and project
trips generated by proposed developments in the San Ramon
Valley around Crow Canyon Road.
,
2. The traffic volumes on which the V/C ratl~s shown on Table 3
are based should be shown in diagramatic forms for the ramps
intersections with surface roads at the I-580/Dougherty/
Hopyard and I-680/Alcosta lnterchanges and for all three
scenarios.
3. Four of the 24 pairs of V/C ratios for "Existing + Project"
condition shown on Table 1 of Appendix B and on Table 3 do
not agree. The discrepancy should be corrected or explained.
4. Is there a mistake in the data for intersection #8 on Table 3
page 39? The V/C numbers show that "Exist + Project + All
approved Cumulative" (E+P+AC) has a more severe impact on
the intersection than "Exist + project + Buildout Cumulative
(E+P+BC) during the AM peak hour. Shouldn't E+P+BC be higher
than E+P+AC?
Should you have any questions regarding these comments,
contact Peter Estacio of my staff at (415)557-2483.
~~l:j;fr/~
WALLACE J. ,RO}HBA,RT
District CEQA Coordinator
V
please
I~ ~@@UW@ fO'.
FEB 2 71986 IJ!.
SUltO O~M"~"fihi'\"se
~~---c-vw.
~;;, /'.:,: '-~cy
fi::'l
\:~1 j
. "-cj
....."":f':.....
iT/"\
:, '..,'...')'
,,"'.:
~=n
i -:r
'. -j
".L./
/\i'~' \
'.,'(""\
.,"'"
Response to Comments
The Villages at Alamo Creek
City of Dubli n
Wagstaff and Brady
March 12, 1986
Page 1
RESPONSES TO AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE NOTICE OF
PREPARATION OF AN EIR OR ON THE EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY FOR
THE VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK
Written comments submitted by the following agencies on the Notice of
Preparation of an EIR or on the Expanded I nitial Study in letter or
memorandum form within the review period are responded to in this
'memorandum:
I. Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Milton Feldstein, Air
Pollution Control Officer, October 7, 1985.
2. Contra Costa County Community Development Department; James
Cutler, Chief, Comprehensive Planning, October 22, 1985.
3. Amador-Pleasanton Public School District; Buster R. McCurtain,
Assistant Superi ntendent, Busi ness Services, February 5, 1986.
4. State of California Department of Fish and Game; Brian Hunter,
Regional Manager, Region 3, February 24, 1986.
. ~--v. '"... ..,.
ATTACHMENT - :; 5
. .' '~-'.;~.-.
Response to Comments
The Villages at Alamo Creek
City of Dubli n
Wagstaff and Brady
March 12, 1986
Page 2
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
A. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Comment I. The District recommends that the DEIR contai n a candid
qualitative and quantitative description of the project's air quality
impacts. The agency describes pollutants of concern as carbon monoxid2,
reactive organic compounds, and particulates, and recommends a procedu,'o
for analyzing the air quality impacts of the project, and for identi fyi ng
mitigation measures.
Response I. The Expanded Initial Study analyzes air quality impact
accordi ng to procedures recommended by the District, i ncludi ng
predictions of carbon monoxide concentrations related to federal and S ;0;'8
standards, and regional impacts resulting from emissions of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and suspended particulates,
Mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts are identified, and
include roadway improvements, trip reduction mechanisms, and particulate
control. The applicant will be responsible for implementing these
measures.
Comment 2. The District recommends that the air quality analysis
address cumulative impacts of other approved or proposed developmen; in
the project area.
Response 2. The Expanded I nitial Study has not addressed the cumulcii'l2
air quality impacts of other development. The city anticipates abouf 300
to 320 new housing units citywide within the next three years, and no
other major development projects within the city in the vicinity of ,he
Villages project.
B. CONTRA COST A COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Comment I. The County identified the following issues for discussion In
the environmental assessment:
I) the question of public safety; specifically the location or a residen-
tial project adjacent to a military installation, which may result in
dangers to children;
2) the availability of sewer services to serve the project;
3) the issue of increased noise levels; specifically the ability of the
project to meet interior noise standards, the effect on use of
Response to Comments
The Villages at Alamo Creek
City of Dublin
Wagstaff and Brady
March 12, 1986
Page 3
outdoor recreational facilities and general liveability, and the
military's responsibility for implementing noise mitigation measures;
and
4) cumulative traffic impacts which are not mitigated by roadway
improvements for this project.
Response I. The Expanded Initial Study addresses issue 112 in Chapter )()
Municipal Services and Facilities, Section B, Sewer Service, pages 52-5Lf}
and has concluded that although sewer service capacity is limited within
the Dublin-San Ramon Service District, the District does not anticipate
difficulty in serving the project. Issue 113 is addressed in Chapter IX,
Noise, page 45-49. Impact conclusions are that the annual CNEL will be
below the city of Dublin's outdoor noise criteria (CNEL of 60 dB) for
residential development; however, it is likely that there will be occasi::Jns
when complaints may be received by the city and by the Army during
periods of high activity at Camp Parks, when maximum noise levels will
reach 70 dBA. It is recommended that prospective purchasers or resi-
dents of the proposed project should be supplied with a written document
indicating that sound levels of up to 70 dBA may be generated.
Interior noise criteria are expected to be met. Sound-rated windows
(Sound Transmission Class 27) for all multi-family dwelling units will
reduce traffic noise impacts and to meet Title 24 multi-family housing
requirements.
The U. S. Army has indicated a willingness to coordinate with the ciry In
mitigating identified noise impacts. This issue is addressed in Section C,
Mitigation, page 49 of the Expanded Initial Study.
Issue III was not addressed in the Expanded Initial Study, as it was
considered not to be a significant issue. Camp Parks is inaccessible ro
the public, and enclosed by a security fence around its perimeter. it wi,:
also be separated from the proposed project by a bermed and landscaped
buffer along the east side of Dougherty Road.
Issue 114 is addressed in Chapter VII, Traffic and Circulation, pages 29-
28. Measures for mitigation of cumulative impacts are identi fied on page
37 and 38.
C. AMADOR-PLEASANT ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Comment I. The School District expresses concern regarding the negGi'ive
impact of the proposed project on Dublin High School, when combined
with the possible future need for redirection of City of Pleasanton
students to Dublin High School. The District states that it has
experienced larger student yield in moderately-priced housi ng units rhan
higher priced housi ng units.
Response to Comments
The Villages at Alamo Creek
City of Dublin
Wagstaff and Brady
March 12, 1986
Page 4
Response I. The City has estimated that between 300 and 320' new
housing units, in addition to the proposed project, will be built out within
the next three year period, and that land is not available for other major
new residential projects within the present city limits of Dublin.
In order to determine more accurately the' generation rate of school age
children for multi-family rental housing, an informal survey was con-
ducted of representative projects in the Bay Area. The results indicate
that average generation rate is .08 children per household.
The followi ng table shows the project name and location, number of
bedrooms, and children of each project surveyed. The telephone survey
was conducted on February 25, 1986. The survey does not provide
breakdowns by age group, although a substantial percentage (25 percent
to 50 percent) are thought by resident managers to be pre-school age
children. The Amador Lakes project did have breakdowns of children by
age group, as shown on page 52 of the Expanded Initial Study. The
generation rate for high school students for the Amador Lakes project is
.02 students per unit.
Based on this survey, it can be concluded that the generation rate of .08
is higher than the generation rate for high school students only. If it is
assumed that half of this generation rate represents high school students,
the multi-family units in the proposed project would generate a maximum
of 41 students (1019 units x generation rate of .04 students per multi-
family housing unit). This number, combined with 146 students from the
single-family housing (146 units x generation rate of I student/single-
family housing unit) would produce a maximum number of high school
students of 187.
If a more moderate generation rate for high school students of .02
students per multi-family housi ng unit were used, the maximum number o-f
students generated by the project would be 20 for the multi-family units,
combined with 146 for the single-family units, for a total of 166 units.
The range of 166 to 186 high school students would represent from 18
percent to 20 percent of the remaining capacity of the Dublin High
School.
D. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Comment I. The Department of Fish and Game has determi ned that, as CI
result of the substantial loss of riparian habitat, this project will result
in significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if this
proposal is implemented as proposed, and that a focussed DEIR should be
prepared.
, .. .'.. .'
"."... ..'....~~ ~ .-.;-,-.....,.~.,.,;;;;'...-&Io'-.;~.,'
ii~
-<.r>3:<U1:<000'O*
- 0 ;ru :::r - - -......,
8:J o'~' n' 0 ~ (") ~ ~
"0 ;';r~:::r~'" ~~t1l
(l) ........ (") V) V;' _ 3 0: 0 (.f)
OD::r oC"'~'"O
3 ..., :J 0 -+ C :; ('D... ~.
o 0 V):T ~ _.:J 0 :J
:J g- CT ~ 0 0"'0 :J ~
-+ 0 t1l V) 0 3 t'tl t1l
::r ii ~ ~ 0" 2 _...., ~ :t>
0- I 0 :J -0 '< C :::r-o
t1l 0-..., 0 0. 0 :J::;' 0
-t1ltO-o 0:>'"0 _.0.....,
oo..(b(b~ ...,- -+
~ ..., a....., 0.. ~ ~. _. rP 3
o 0 t'tl =:I-t'tl
-+00""-+-'-00 Cb:J
::r3","<(bt'tl(b_-;3-
co 0....0 ..., en =r co en
.., 0 0 c ~. _ _. (t\ :J ::r
~~~:J~~:Jtf)C;-~
-+ 00..30-+-0""
V)~.(b.....1 ::r"'''<o
0"\ (t) ..., "... D"" (t) -.... -0
0'-00 :J(ll =:10-0
-+In;+;'-+~~~:J 0
(b""O t'tlog..,_.o.x
;: ~ () I"" 3 ~ V) g 3'
~3~C3c-:<.gctl~
o...,o~:::l -O;'ro
n2.~ N-:;:-;O ~~
~;;r~~3 < =:~.~.z;-
o.......:<,.-....c (bV) 3 In
.., 0 .E:; ~ ~ 3 0-'
...... _ J:""-...... -+ C ()
"'U =r ........coro:J::r
o 0 ro ""'0 0 In '< - -. -.
-. .., 3 -+ "< ~ 0:
~:;~o=:::ro--+ ...,
co <: ..0 '"< ..., ro ::r::r Cb
<1 2.;; ~ CL .., ~..?
oo-V)3""O cCb::r
..., co 0 0 0 (b ro ~
)> 0.. -+ :f <-. 0 -+ 0 -+
...... =r (1l 0 -+ -.:J -.
3 0 ----I -, n c 0 3 0.. 3
oO:::rn-+u-+Cb 0
g-...3 (1l ::r~ g :::rVl ~r;
.., t/')n -+ro_~CL
~ "'tJ 0 _l/'l_::r
r:::r...,:J::J OCllVl-
~ o' ;. ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 n 0
Cll:rl.QOo.."" <:ro-
Vl VI-a.. _<bgCll
. Vi' 0 : ~ ~ 6 c; 0
.g~~g~-= g-
~-<.r>...,- ~~~;s.
o 0"\ ro ---l 0.. Cll -+ (tl
~. is 2. ~ (; tn (ll :J g
3"'Oln 0-0 O'c ro
o ro 3 ~..., 3 ~
;;-, c~ ~~
~ ::.Vl.... ~
g'~Q
c '-0 C
~-:-CT
::r::::-
U'l ::':
00'"
:J ;; ~
'TJ::>
~<O
o '"
::>
n )>
V;' <
n '"
0::>
- C
n'"
)>
-.J
U'>
N
'-'
o
N
W
U"l '0 n
CO::r
::> N",
~ :E ~
< '<
9..;DI
(tl Cb _.
- 3 =
n -.
)>~
o
::>
'-0
N
.10-
W
.10-
.10-
N
N
.10-
W
'-'
U1-OJ
C N-'
::> w~
::> on
::r
~ I:<
o '" 0
-::>0
Cbo..o..
- Cb
n~
)>0
::>
o
~
<
Cb
'-0
0'
'-0
0'0
'-0
N
U'>
.')"
'TJ-.JOJ
o OCb
'" Wo
r; n (')
~o::r
n<;n
:;:3~
:<~ro
ng
)>
0----1
c ::r
or'"
-, U1
.?~
n ;'
)><0
'"
*
)>
<
'"
::>
c
'"
N
U'>
0'0
00
00
0'0
o
00
00
.lO-
cr-.
-.J
cr-.
'-0
.lO-
U'>
on
c '"
or 0..
=:0
.? ~
"0
no
)> ;'
-
'"
000)>
a-s:~
- 0..
? zg
nrr
)>00
^^
'" Cb
'"
0"0
'" ~
'" 0
~~.
_.n
-
o
::>
o
<
'"
OJO
'" ::>
~Cb
o
o
3
llJ----I
Cb :<
~o
o
o
3
OJ----I
'" ::r
o..~
~ Cb
o Cb
o
3
U1
C
0..
o
C----I
:? S.
-0
'" -
n----l
::r0
=':0
0.._
~
Cb
::>
N
-P-
cr-.
o
N
-1--
W
'-0
U'>
N
.10-
00
U1
U'>
U'>
N
U'>
U1
,~..-,,!..~:<.,
.,,-.JV>
0-";0
'" -.J"
;(f)Q..
'~()
n-O
_.- <
- OJ ro
'::'0
n~
:l>~
o
~
0.
.~
"
;1- .~
o
V>"'C')
o ,p- ~
" -ro
0" :E ~
o
n~'D
- 0
o OJ-,
~ C "
o ~ _
~g
:l>
:l>
<
ro
"
C
ro
OJ"''''
ro ,p- ~
_-ro
3 "
o Or>
:JQ:::r
.- <
n-,
no=
:l>CO
"lD
::-ro
'0(
V>"'."
C Ln 0
::l <..n-.
" ~
'o(V>
0. 0
o ." 0
-0"
ro _.VI
. ~ ::;:
noro
:l>o'"
,,-
'"
;v
o
o
0.
'DLnO
c;:::o~
0'"
~C):,o
" 0 0
--0.
o 0. 0
" ro
"
n;v
:l>o
o
0.
:l>
<
ro
"
C
ro
~:::()
Cb -..J~
3 -.J 0
o -.J"
" C') 0'
~~.-
n~~
:l>ro~
~ ~
OJ"
o '"
C
ro
<
o
~
0.
O'D
ro ~
'" 0
Q (D'
_,r>
-
o
"
OJO
Ln ro "
V> Ln N ..,. N ..,. f';-ro
N ..,. N ,p- Ln 0 0
0
0
3
v>-r
c <..n-'
" 0"
~ mg
< "
~;v~
ro Cb '"
. 3 ib
n;' :J
:l>'8-
o
"
O-.JC')
C w~
CT N ro
_WCb
-" "
_:1 ~ ~
o 0
n~o
:l>:<o.
o
~
0.
<
Cb
OJ--l
N Cb :<
Ln N W ,p- '" Ln -'" E:;-o
N 0 co 0 '" ,p- -'" co
0
0
3
o
~
<
Cb
-.J
N
OJ--l
Cb or
o.~
~ Cb
o Cb
o
3
V>
..,. W ..,. C
0 co 0 0.
0
W
..,.
-1---
N
..,.
N
'"
o
W
co
co
,p-
W
'"
o
co
'"
-.J
'"
0'
,p-
co
'0
,p-
-.J
..,.
co
W
C--l
~.~
-0
'" -
n--l
~~
-0
E:;--
Cb
"
in_
Z -I n"-'< :;;:wu> ::;:lnU> 'l-U> O'D
c 0 _.OD ,,,In::T OW::T OC>::T '" ~
3 -I _ 00_ " C> 0 _ C> 0 ~ In 0 ~ 0
'::' --.J- 0(/)0 ,,'0. _lno. n,€;'
CT )> In''' C )> 0 '" 0 ~.()
'" r n< '< ::T" - n" .., ~~
~ U> ~~CJ
)>00 n-'O n~
0 =ro ~ 0 ~ -- - () 0
- '^" '" .., ~-o - '" 0
'" '" "'()'^ -:,::. ..., < "
() '< " - '" '" ~
::T nJl=' FO n'"
0 n_,
~ )>~ n~' )>-
f;- '^
'" )>~ '<
'" '" 0
" " OJ
0
-0 0 < c
'" ~ '" '"
~ < <
3 '" 0
'"
c 0.
-
-
0
~,
'<
c "-' OJO
" Iv '" "
0 In 0--. --.J ~ f;-'"
0--. '" '" N
" 0
0
'=> 3
?"
!" OJ-I
N N '" "
'"' N 0 In --.J f;-o
-'" '" 0' N -'"
0
0
3
W
W
0--.
N
-'"
N
N In
00 0
U>
-
-'" c
0 '" 0.
0
P C-I
--.J -'" N
N 0--. '"' 0--. 0--. ~. ~
00 0--. -'" -'"
-0
V> -
-'"
o
In
o
N
In
'"'
OJ-I
'" ::T
o.~
~ '"
0'"
o
3
n-l
~~
-0
f;--
'"
"
Response to Comments
The Vi II ages at A I amo Creek
City of Dubli n
Wagstaff and Brady
March 12, 1986
Page 8
Response I. The Revised Draft Report on Botanical and Wildlife
Resources of the Proposed Alamo Creek Villaqes Project Area, Dublin,
California, prepared by Phillip Leitner and Barbara Malloch Leitner, June
12, 1985 was used as a basis for the description of biological resources
and projected impacts in the Expanded Initial Study. The report des-
cribed the riparian habitat as follows: "In a regional perspective...the
riparian strip along this section of Alamo Creek is a somewhat degraded
example of this habitat type...ln a number of areas the trees are scat-
tered and do not form a conti nuous canopy cover along the creek.
Downcutti ng by the creek in historic times has undermi ned the banks and
resulted in the loss of trees. There is little shrub understory and little
tree regeneration, probably because of browsing by livestock over many
years. As a result, wildlife diversity and abundance are not as high as
would be found in better-developed riparian forest. A number of typical
riparian forest wildlife species are apparently not present. The riparian
fauna here is generally made up of the most common and widespread
species, especially those that are most tolerant of human disturbance."
(Expanded Initial Study, pages 23 and 24)
The report identified the loss of riparian habitat through creek
realignment and grading as a significant impact which could be mitigated
by replacement of the habitat through intensive revegetation of
indigenous species along the creek banks. (Mitigation measure 2.c.I-9,
Expanded Initial Study, pages 27 and 28) recommends a revegetation
effort on all reconstructed channel banks, with specific requirementsfo
foster habitat replacement.
In order to fully mitigate the loss of riparian habitat, which is most
concentrated at the edges of the creek bottom near the water, it would
be necessary to plant shrubs with high wildlife value on the lower
channel slopes (Mitigation measure 2. c. 2) within the flood control
channel, an area within the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Flood
Control District. Lists of appropriate plant species to be used in this
revegetation program are included in the report referenced above. The
Flood Control District requires that all revegetation programs also meed
District maintenance requirements. Mitigation measure 2.c.8 requires
that the revegetation plan be approved by the Flood Control District.
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 Aramburu
(Secretary)
NAPA COUNTY
Harold I. Moskowlte
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Harry G. Britt
Carol Ruth Silver
(Chairperson)
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Gus J. Nlcolopulos
K Jacqueline Speier
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Rod Dlridon
Ralph P Doetsch, Sr
Roberta H. Hughan
Susanne Wilson
SOLANO COUNTY
Osby DavIs
SONOMA COUNTY
Helen B. Rudee
RECEIVED
OCT 111985'
['
(--"
~(-:;.-, hf."i
,)
-.
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 Director
Dear Mr. Tong:
We have received the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR
for the Villages at Alamo Creek. The proposed project would
consist of 1,165 dwelling units and a convenience food store on a
100-acre site located west of Dougherty Road between Amador
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. Ai
All pollutants which may be emitted from the project itself or tr
from project-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
construction activities.
We suggest the following process for analyzing the air
quality impacts of the project:
)2-
~
-
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 from the
project and due to project-generated traffic.
3. Consider mitigation measures to reduce the air quality
impacts of the project. Useful references are "Local
Government Guide to Project Mitigation and Other
Improvement Measures for Air Quality," BAAQMD, 1983
Draft; "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments,
Section V," California Air Resources Board, 1983; and
DUBLIN PLANNING
939 ELLIS STREET. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 . (415) 771-6000
RECEIVED
,OCT 11 1985
0'-
(
City of Dublin
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
concentrations of carbon monoxide, 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 I-hour and 8-hour averaging times. For
projects attracting over 3000 vehicles per day, we
recommend the model CALINE3 to estimate motor 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 to add
the appropriate background concentration to the estimated
locally generated concentration and to explain the source
or 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 approved or proposed in the
vicinity of the project, we recommend that the air quality
analysis also evaluate cumulative development impacts on air
quality.
Current data from District air monitoring stations are
enclosed. If we can be of assistance, please contact Jean
Roggenkamp, the Planner in our office.
Sincerely,
'llL C?;Y&/~
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
DUBLIN PLANNING M F : c e
Enclosure
;-
Community Development Department
Contra
Costa
County
Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Community Development
County Administration Building, North Wing
P,O. Box 951
Martinez, California 94553-0095
~
~
'/I
RECEIVED
OCT 28 1985
Phone:372-2035
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 ErR on the Villages
of Alamo Creek project. r certainly concur that a project of this size and scale require the
preparation of a full-blown ErR.
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. r presume that they will be appropriately summarized in the
Draft ErR.
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 ErR should explore is the availability of sewer services to serve
this project. As r 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.
~
,.. .~.
^-
13.1-
./ --
v~
f;'
:..--
/-
/
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.
~
i
......:.,L
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
, ~~~~ ~/. ~~
/ James W. Cutler
Chief, Comprehensive Planning
AAD:JWC/mcl+d
I
"':"'" - .-.<'~">,.. '.<~'.<'
'. -,. .
(~
Amador-Pleasanton Public Schools
123 Main Street · P1easanton. CA 94566-7388
(415) 462-5500
,"'
t..:1
!, I t. ~
?k 6S'-C4-!
V \ l ( CJ--:6Q..~
February 5, 1986
RECEIVED
FEB~! 1986,
DUBLIN 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.
CJ-
~
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
r~esult from the new growth.
(/Pleasemail to us your long term growth management projects in order that we may
( make a final impact statement relative to your project.
\~
Sincerely,
30ARDS OF TRUSTEES
AMADOR
Juanita Haugen, President BRM/bl
Jack Kendall, Clerk
J, Jack Bras
Frank Oamerval
David Melander
PLEASANTON
Ronald Ott, Ph.D., President
Clark Gunson, Clerk
Nancy Hawtrey
Dr. Bruce Merrill
Earnsstlne Schneider
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Bill J. James
Amldor v.ney Joint Union High Schooll?lltrict . PI....nton Joint SChool DI.lnc'
State of California
(~
('
The Resources Agency
Memorandum
RECEIVED
FEB 27 1986:
To
1. Project Coordinator
Resources Agency
DUBLIN PLANNING Date:
February 24, 1986
2. Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Development Services
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Department of Fish and Game
Telephone: ATSS (
(
From
Subject: SCH 85091009 Draft (EIR) Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Initial Study of Villages at Alamo Creek,
Alameda County
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
and the Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo
Creek and we have the following Comments:
This proposal would place 1165 residential units on 135 acres
of grazing lands bisected by Alamo Creek which drains into
Alameda Creek. The study states that 65 percent of the
existing riparian corridor along Alamo Creek will be
modified. The current 7300 feet of watercourse will be
reduced through straightening and filling to 5200 feet, over
one half of the existing riparian habitat on the site will be
destroyed and at least 35 percent of the mature riparian
trees will be eliminated. Mitigation measures described in
the Initial Study could off-set some project impacts on
riparian woodland but a substantial net loss of riparian
habitat would result. Riparian habitat is a severely
depleted and threatened wildlife habitat in the Amador Valley
and further losses of this kind are unacceptable.
'o~
~
As the state agency entrusted with the protection of fish and
wildlife resources we have determined that this project will
result in significant environmental effects which cannot be
avoided if this proposal is implemented as proposed.
Therefore the preparation of a focused DEIR will be
necessary. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is
inadequate and should not be certified nor should this
project be approved as proposed.
Our personnel are available to assist the City Staff in
defining the scope of a focused DEIR.
.,.,;I! ..
.-, -.-":,-, ''';'':;,;.-.;.-,-,
, 'c..',,""..J'';
,'-.<.-
(~~
1. Project Coordinator -2-
Resources Agency
2. Kevin Gailey
If you have any questions, please contact Paul Kelly,
wildlife Biologist, at (415) 376-8892; or Theodore Wooster,
Environmental Service Supervisor, at (707) 944-2011.
~~
--..
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
." ~t'
.....~ .....;~"'~,
RECEIVED
r~AR 1 3 1986:
DUBLIN PLANNING
CONDITION #86
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF PD MAP
The minimum distan~es between buildings and building appurtenances in
the multifamily villages shall comply with the following criteria:
The term "building wall" shall refer to the exterior side of building
walls containing heated space (with the exception of the enclosed entry
in the "E" type building).
A. 20 feet between all building walls, with deviation from 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 15 feet when:
1. The living room windCMS are separated by a minimum distance
of 40 feet measured perpendicularly from the sliding glass door.
.2. Living room to bedroans are separated by 30 feet (measured
perpendicularly from the sliding glass door).
B. Building/roadway separations, 15 feet minimum, except
building setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard,
and the first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads from the
intersection with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Boulevard where
a 20 foot minimum setback (measured from the rear face of the
sound architectural wall or perimeter fence along Dougherty Road
or Amador Valley Boulevard) shall be obse:rved. The 20 foot
minimum setback along the loop roads shall be from the face of
curb or back of sidewalk, whichever is applicable."
C. Patio/deck and deck/building wall separations - 15 foot minimum.
D. Building walls and parking area separations - 10 foot minimum
with a minimum five feet of the width landscaped for screening of
parking.
E. Building appurtenances to building appurtenance separations
(including patios) - 10 foot minimum separation. Stairway
landings may be closer than 10 feet where privacy is not
compromised as approved by the Planning Director.
<...i>._.._;c;....._,
ATTACHMENT - 2- b
Development Services
P,O, Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
r'"
,
CITY OF DUBLIN
Planning/Zoning 829-4916
Building & Safety 829,0822
Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
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 or
the City, con;isting 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-
ATTACHMENT -;) 1
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 31, 1986, documents
the steps necessary to assure that the subject project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment (the Responses to Comments
documents dated March 12, 1986, and prepared by the firms of'TJKM and
Wagstaff and Brady, and incorporated by reference into the Expanded
Intitial Study).
INITIAL STUDY: The Expanded Initial Study dated January 31, 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-
CHART I
PART A - EXISTING PLAN PROPOSAL FOR VILLAGE VI
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA)
= 25.14 acres*
Approximate Area Devoted to Roadways
5.53 acres (22%)
Average Lot Size
[(25.14 acres - 5.53 acres) X 43,560 sf/acre] . 146 lots
5,850 sf/lot
(0.134 acres)
Gross Residential Density
= 5.8 du/GRA
Approximate Area Devoted to Slopes with Height in
Excess of 5'
3.93 acres (15.6%)
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(25.14 acres - 5.53 acres - 3.93 acres)
X 43,560 sf/acre] 7 146 lots
= 4,680 sf/lot
Typcal Level Pad Depth
95'
Typical Level Pad Width
= 50'
Average Level Pad Area
= 4,750 sf
*This includes the slopes proposed to be included within the westernmost lots
and the slopes at the eastern and northeast edge of Village VI extending down
to the proposed flood control maintenance roadway.
PART B - EXTRAPOLATION OF VILLAGE VI DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA TO
CALCULATE POTENTIAL THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL YIELD FOR
VILLAGE VII IF DEVELOPED AS A COMPARABLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA)
11.84 acres-:l-
Area Assigned for Roadways
2.60 acres (22%)
Potential Lot Yield
[(11.84 acres - 2.60 acres) X 43,560 sf/acre]
-;- 5,850 sf/lot
69 lots
Gross Residential Density
= 5.8 du/GRA
Approximate Area Devoted to Slopes with a
Height in Excess of 5'
1.85 acres (15.6%)
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(11.84 acres - 2.60 acres - 1.85 acres) X 43,560 sf/acre)
X 43,560 sf/acr~ ~ 69 lots = 4,665 sf/lot
*This includes the cut slopes up to the "daylight" light at the western
boundary and the slopes falling off the south and southeastern sides of the
parcel extending down to the flood control maintenance roadway.
r" ",' l'," ',''(,..,;;.,''', ?';,' .",.. ;) 9
'':!J - ~~I!B" . ,11
1j.,., . "t5' = '
. 4, : ~, 10"
-, .,.. -^, ,;~ II.... ___, .__~._.._______...
C H ART I I
PART A - PONDEROSA - SUBDIVISION 4236
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA)
16.91 acres
Approximate Area Devoted to Roadways
3.62 acres (21.4%)
Average Lot Size
[(16.91 acres - 3.62 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] . 95 lots
6,095 sf/lot
(0.140 acres)
Gross Residential Density = 5.6 du/GRA
Typical Level Lot Depth 115'
Typical Level Lot Width 45'
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(16.91 acres - 3.62 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] - 95 lots 6,095 sf/lot
PART B - EXTRAPOLATION OF PONDEROSA - SUBDIVISION 4236 DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL YIELD FOR COMBINED GRA
FOR VILLAGES VI AND VII IF DEVELOPED AS A COMPARABLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
1. Potential yield based on adjusted Gross Residential Density:
36.98 acres (Combined GRA for Villages VI and VII)
X 5.60 du/GRA
207 + lots
2. Potential yield based on adjusted typical pod size:
23.07 acres (Combined level acreage for Villages VI and VII)
0.140 acres (Approximate average level pad size in Ponderosa Project)
165 + lots
'~'~~y
",>
/
, \0\
112
---
~'
"JJ. t-.
O"Jpel!lJSA .
f' f~..tec:r . ...
5u8r>I.t,.t/ttN 'f~~ b
r <.l,
,," i J~'~~ ...."'\. \ I~ ~
'.2 ~)..:..l 4. ~
. " ~ .. , ';' ~ "",,
.. /.'5) I ." ~{:, (' ',,' \
I '1.:...)., '... ~ . 10- 1 ..oil ~.~ ~ 'If>l.
'~ \~ I ',;2bj L fi'~, ) :>, "k.t"
r \: { \' ,~ \~'
., \ t (i (,r~ . "'""'"__
" ,"', .l-i;' -'
#-"".., ~ :-
?' . -.
,,,,1
, '/~~::' ~
I
>~ t '{t~
,:-0 "
I
'" I '."
I J'-1
{'i"\ I
,
:r7. (>outJf>M." Dr
1r~1r 1J~tl>-rfJ
{JtLl ui"l((; ~
fes, OI1N71fLl\t~
(tr th)
''-\
\,
~f:O\
.~
~@
r_-'"""."
---(".$~-
),
"
~
\
~
~
"r;:.,
~v
I:
Ii-
(D
"".1"1
R
'" ~ 'N
~
C!) I"
I D
.
0 S
,11 ~
'I
~I
~F:\
..v
,
,~
~~@
\
-,~:J
"S\lD ~ ~Q:.t;:~
,_"'VUI"i<:-.l'3!
~
.
'.
;-
64
~~~O.s-
,,~O.J.~
I
tf
C H ART I I I
PART A - PENN DRIVE AREA - SUBDIVISION 2773
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) = 15.67 acres
Approximate Area Devoted to Roadways 3.83 acres (24.4%)
Average Lot Size
[ (15.67 acres - 3.83 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] 82 lots 6,290 sf/lot
(0.144 acres)
Gross Residential Density = 5.23 du/GRA
Typical Level Lot Depth 90'
Typical Level Lot Width = 60'
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(15.67 acres - 3.83 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] - 82 lots = 6,290 sf/lot
.
PART B - EXTRAPOLATION OF PENN DRIVE AREA - SUBDIVISION 2773 DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL YIELD FOR COMBINED GRA
FOR VILLAGES VI AND VII IF DEVELOPED AS A COMPARABLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
1. Potential yield based on adjusted Gross Residential Density:
36.98 acres (Combined GRA for Villages VI and VII)
X 5.23 du/GRA
193 + lots
2. Potential yield based on adjusted typical pod size:
23.07 acres (Combined level acreage for Villages VI and VII)
0.144 acres (Approximate average level pad size in Ponderosa Project)
160 + lots
(' c. 'J,oc!- -3 /1 '/~ J
March 3, 1986
Palomares Homeowners Assn.
P.O. Box 2714
Castro Valley, CA 94546
(415) 881-5728
Pete Snyder
Mayor
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
REceIVED
MAR 1 0 1986
DUBLIN PLANNING
Dear Mr. Snyder,
It has come to our attention that an area wide planning
review committee has been formed to study and recommend future
land uses for the Tri-Valley area. We, the members of the
Palomares Homeowners Association have a direct and vested
interest in the future development of the Tri-Valley area.
For this reason, we would like to be represented on the
committee in some capacity. Ideally we would like one,of our
members as one of the citizens at large or as representing a
special interest group. We realize that a number of seats are
limited, so if we cannot fill one of those positions directly, we
would like to provide input into who or what organization would
best represent our interests.
We look forward to discussing this matter further and we
wish you the best fortune in your efforts.
Sin~rely, .
;J)p/)~O ?j. tJa/,/LtA<"/t;~
Dennis W. Warrington .~-~~-'
President
DWW/vr
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Cc .: r' c.
3//YlgC
'.
RIDGELAND ALLIANCE
P.O. IIOX Z'C. :ll.8LIN. CA~IFOAta" 9.'61-02'8 fIHON€: 1."1838-961'
Pete Snyder
Mayor of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVED
MAR 10 1986
DUBLIN PLANNING
March 3, 1986
RE: APPOINTMENT ON TRI-VALLEY CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE.
Dear Mayor Snyder,
We respectfully request a representative from the Ridgeland
Alliance be placed on the Tri-Valley Citizens Committee.
It is prudent to involve as many of the parties to insure a
smooth and balanced transition. Since the Cities and county are
represented already, there is practical need and a ethical
obligation to include a representative of the unincorporated
property owners association on the committee to maximize
participation at the earliest possible planning stages.
Thank you for your utmost consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
J~~
Lee'~i~mery
President
LM/nb
cc: Planning Commissioners
City Council Members
c c / c / .5 - ! 'I -) '"
AlAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
RECEIVED
MAR 7 1986:
March 5, 1986
DUBLIN PLANNING
The Tri-Valley Planning Commissioners (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon and Danville), met on February 27 to
discuss general plans and transportation programs in the Tri-Valley area. The
Commissioners determined that a 21 member Citizens' Advisory Committee would
be appointed by each Planning Commission in the area. The Committee will
consist of one Planning Commissioner and one citizen from each jurisdiction,
plus seven "at large" members; one each from seven cOl!!!I!'.!nity organization
categories.
Your organization is being contacted as a potential participant in this
effort for selection of the seven "at large" members. If you wish to recommend
a representative, you should provide the information asked for and mail the form
to:
Betty Croly
Assistant Planning Director
Alameda County Planning Department
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
881-6401
Tne Fact Sheet provides information relating to ,the plan review effort and
the General Timetable indicates the timing of meetings.
We expect many more applications than openings available, so many organ!:z:'.-'
tions and individuals indicating interest will not be appointed. The Planning
Commissioners thank all who consider participating in this effort.
If your organization is not interested in applying for membership, please
pass this on to any other organization which might want to participate.
Very truly yours;
W~ U.+rLyJ2
WHF/BC/jpb
Enclosures:
Fact Sheet
General Timetabl~
Application
cc: Chair, Planning Commission
Staff
Press
William H. Fraley
Planning Director
()
BC/jpb
Encl.
1544P
February 27, 1986
March 6, 1986
March 21, 1986
Week of March 24, 1986
Week of March 31, 1986
Week of April 14, 1986
Week of April 28, 1986
Week of May 12, 1986
Week of June 2, 1986
GENERAL TIMETABLE
Tri-Val1ey Planning Commisioners
determine details of Committee
structure.
Letter to organizations requesting
applications to be sent by Alamed2
County Planning Department.
Letters of interest returned to
Alameda County Planning Department.
Recommendations to Planning
Commissions.
Appointments made by Planning
Commissions.
First Committee meeting.
Second Committee meeting.
Third Committee meeting.
Committee disbanded after final
report submitted.
TRI-VALLEY
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
ORGANIZATION
.JURISDICTION 1/
DATE
ADDRESS OF ORGANIZATION
NAME OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER (work)
(home)
Personal qualifications or experience in community affairs that would :pTo'r:t\h
assistance in the study.
RETU&~ THIS FORM TO:
Betty Croly
Assistant Planning Director
Alameda County Planning Department
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
881-6401
CHECK TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
Environmental
Agriculture
Service, Health
l/JURISDICTION: Specify one:
Alameda County unincorporated
Contra Costa County unincorporated
Livermore
Pleasant on
Dublin
San Ramon
Danville
Community, Historical
Builder, Developer, Real Esv~ c,,)
Chamber of Commerce
Utility, Transportation
Mining, Flood Control
1545P
( f ,()c
j /--. j" (--;
.:). ') U
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS · LIVERMORE - AMADOR VALLEY
BOX 702 LIVERMORE, CA 94550 [415] 44)-VOTE
* MARCH, 1986 *
Presidents. Jocelyn Combs...846-19Q6/Lydia Lo -
...... ....
First Vice President. Lorraine Groeser....862-2:324
Membership. Jewell Sweet... .447-J461/Elly Cherb. ..447-8158
PRESIDENTS '
MESSAGE
Yet another storm is raging while this message
is being written. Our Board Members braved
the rain and the wind to attend the February
Board meeting. Bag lunch regulars also braved
~he February elements. This is a hardworking
crew I
During the month of March we will be working
on the Finance Drive and sponsoring an infor-
mational presentation on Pleasanton's Measure
B (voters' approval to increase Prop. 4
spending limit). Though February is a short
and sweet month, a lot happened. For those
of you who missed the National and Local
program planning meeting, Bay Area League
Day and Bag Lunch, please read inside for
the details. As for future activities,
please reward our hardworking Board. Members
with your presence at the functions.
Lila Erlandson, our new public relations
director, is using the local media' (print,
radio, and TV) to bring League activities to
everyone's attention. The Board is
appreciative of her efforts -- the more
people are aware of us the more effective
our League can be.
~~
I for one was a 11 ttle apprehensive about our
two-headed maiden (monster) below. Would two
presidents work? Would Lydia and I be speak-
ing by Christmas? Would we pull our League
together or apart? Would State and National
think we had lost our mind(s)?
Well...it's working. Lydia and I are talking-
at least three times a day. I believe we
are pulling more together than apart. (Some-
times things fall between the cracks and our
Board wonders what we are doing. So do we.
It's a learning process.) Best of all, how-
ever, we have been vindicated by the National
League (LWYUS). In fact we are on the cutting
edge of League structure and I quote.
"The (National) board recognizes that Leagues
are testing innovative ways of organizing
their boards to fit the needs of today's
League member who often cannot dedicate the
amount of time and effort to the League ex-
pected in the past. The National board
agreed that a free Duplicate President's
Mailing should speed communication between
copresidents, permitting them to act quickly
without having to share papers. It is also
hoped that this new system will result in
fewer things falling between the cracks (how
did they know??) since copresidents will
receive identical mailings." (February 1986
memo from LWVUS Membership and Development
Division)
WAHooll!
/~~~~-~-,~ ~~ 'S. G-,0
I' \/~~II U II .Y y 1/
\~ I.,r II
\~ ,- ~'--', y/
"':vI _ \,.~
~~ -:. " >'/
~~.::::~.:f.-~-:,/
-----
VALLEY VOTER * League of Women Voters * Livermore-Amador Valley * March, 1986 * Page 2
BAG LUNCH REPORT...... .February 12, 1986
Buster McCurtain, Asst. Supt. of Business
Administration of Pleasanton School District
was the guest speaker regarding lottery funds
and the schools.
Questions he said people ask about school
financing are. Where is my money going? and
Where does the money come from? Property
taxes supply only 20% while money from the
State and other sources makes up 80%.
Lottery money comes to schools on top of the
above revenues. There will be, this time,
$90.00 per student from lottery money; 34%
of lottery money goes to schools.
Mr. McCurtain advises his district to assume
the lottery money be s pent on a "one time
only" basis rather than on continuing expenses,
because lottery money can be less or more
each year, and is not necessarily an income
to be counted on.
Where should the money go? According to
Mr. McCurtain schools, especially high schools,
should be concentrating more effort on science
and math as university and technical demands
become more sophisticated; high schools are
lagging in preparing students either for
higher education or the "real" world. Efforts
should be made to lower class size in reading
and math areas.
How can League and League members help in
obtaining goals of reduced class size, better-
ment of teachers both in training, and
salaries? Mr. McCurtain's advice was to get
the state legislator involved locally.
Parents should become involved in the schools
to influence both the purse and the policy.
The state controls the purse. Local school
boards control policy.
Trish Kraus, convener
Jane Oliver, recorder.
PLEASE NOTE.
No material in this issue is to be
used without the express written permission
of the League's Board of Directors.
SPEAK UP...............................
The nominating committee consists of
Jewell Sweet, chair, Carol Lathrop,
Beth Von Holle, and Jan Brice.
The League needs a full slate of officers
for next year. Please speak up and let the
nominating committee know you. would like to
take a position on the Board next year.
Let us hear from youl Phone Jewell, 447-)461.
ABOUT OUR NEW MEMBERS.....................
Lisa Lieberman is new to us but not to League!
She comes to this area from Wisconsin and
Los Alamos where she was active in those
Leagues for many years. She and her husband
reside in Pleasanton now. She's been learning
the BART bus system and fal thf"ully attends
Bag Lunches out of interes t in ber new
community. ....................
Frances Wheelock started off her firs t year
of League by attending many of our activities.
She is a long-time resident of Livermore,
originally from Kansas. She is a graduate of
Kansas State University with a degree in Home
Economics and Humanities. After settling in
Livermore she taught at Green, Junction Avenue,
and Sonoma schools before retiring.
Retirement has not meant slowing down for Fran.
She is active in the Heritage Guild, Symphony
Guild, and Livermore Women's Club. She also
volunteers at Kaiser in Pleasanton and is a
volunteer literacy tutor. ,................
The Board is pleased to announce our new
Public Relations Chair - Lila Erlandson.
Lila hails from the Eas t Coast where she was
an active League member. She is an avid
tennis player, teaches at Golden Gate University
and is also studying for her CPA there.
Know someone interested in the League?
Call 44J-VOTE and give us their name and
phone number. Jewell and Elly, membership
co-chairs will do the rest.
V/U.J.Ef VOTER * League of Wome.. oters * Livermore-Amador Valle) "March, 1986 * Page 3
.............. ......................
Over one hundred Bay Area League members de-
scended upon Fort Mason on a rainy Monday to
review the past 25 years of LWV Bay Area and
In our legislative interviews this year to look into the future. The morning session
State League wishes local Leagues to lobby for featured Harriet Nathan, Dr. Eugene Lee, both
initiative legislation. Since Bill Baker wast · of Institute of Governmental Studies, U.c.
not in the District at all since the Legis- Berkeley; and Holly Hollingsworth, Metropolitan
lature resumed in January, local Leagues met Transportation Commission. The afternoon
with his Aide Maxine Stover on January 21. session featured Dianna McKenna, Supervisor,
Ms. Stover's response was to say that because Santa Clara County and President of !BAG,
of Mr. Baker's busy SChedule, he does not read Larry Orman, People for Open Space, and
most bills until they come before him. His Ellen Johnck, ~ Area Planning Coalition.
aides gather the literature on every bill, The morning speakers spoke from a historical
digest it, and brief him before the committee perspective which fOcused on the needs and
meeting. For this reason, he was not yet services of the Bay Area as a region. Although
ready to discuss initiative-reform bills. much has been done in the 25 years, the re-
gional issues have burgeoned. The politiCal,
economic and social forces have become de-
centralized. For the future, the Bay Area
League should continue to work with a vis l.on
of the Bay -Area as an interdependent region.
NATIONAL AND LOCAL PROGRAM PLANNING.......
On February 5, 1986 fourteen League members
participated in a lively national and local
program planning session. At its February
meeting the Board approved the recommendations
that came out of the planning meeting.
Recommendations on national program are as
follows I retain current positions on
Government, International Relations, and
Social Policy; approve prOposed drop of Urban
Policy position, withhold approval of re-
written Natural Resources position until we
are provided copies of the revised WOrding,
participate in a new national study of Human
Needs and in a nationwide survey of Drinking
Water Quality, and direct LWV-US to focus on
these four issues - HaZardous/NUClear Waste,
Deficit Reduction, Free Trade, and Arms
Control and Space Weapons.
League members will vote on these recommenda-
tions at our Annual Meeting in May. The
BOard will also recommend a local study of
Education in the Livermore-Amador Valley,
raise the possibility of a study of Air
Qual! ty in the Valley, and propose a few
changes in local positions.
Special thanks to Jo Harding for hosting
the planning meeting and potluck lunch.
INTERVIEW WITH BILL BAKER..................
Kay Allison, Chair
Legislative Action
LEGISLATIVE ACTION......ACID RAIN............
The Reagan administration's approach to the
problem of acid rain has been to direct panels
and federal agencies to study it. Recently
an envoy negotiated an agreement with Canada
to develop options for addressing the problem.
For years there has been widespread agreement
among scientists that acid rain is caused by
the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels,
prinCipally by power companies. The pollutants
released are sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
which fall to the earth as acid rain, snow,
or fog. The League SUpports a reduction in
Is ulfur dioxide emissions by 12 million tons.
This can be accomplished in two ways. One is
to clean or scrub the releases from power
plants before they go up the smOkestack,
another is to burn low-sulfur coal.
The League is waging a campaign to urge Congress
to pass acid rain legislation and is Supporting
efforts by Senator Stafford (R VT) and Rep-
resentative Waxman (D CA) to produce and Ilove
acid rain legislation.
If you feel strongly about this matter, write
your senator and representative to ask them
what they plan to do about acid rain.
Kay Allison
BAY AREA LEAGUE DAY - Feb. 3, 1986 ........
Lydia 10
VALLEY VOTER * League of Women Voters * Livermore-Amador Valley * March, 1986 * Page 4
BAG LUNCH AGENDA - March 12, 1986, SD! Debate..
We know, we know t your calendar says this
meeting will be lunch with your elected
officials but we have postponed that event
to April 9th.
On March 12th we will present a video of the
November 17, 1985 debate between Senator
John Kerry '(D MA) and Senator Malcolm Wallop
(R WY) on the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Following the Videotape there will be time
for discussion. SDI hits close to home with
the work progressing at LLNL. Where do you
stand?
Bring your lunch and a friend to Homes tead
Savings, 999 E. Stanley Blvd., Livermore, 12
noon, for the presentation.
EAST BAY RmIONAL PARK - PLEASANTON RIDGE...
The Livermore-Amador Valley League has been
and is supporting the East Bay Regional Park
District acquisition of land on Pleasanton
Ridge. (Refer to our Bark and Open Space
posi tlon.)
On March 25 at 7-30pm at Amador High School
Aud,itorium in Pleasanton the Park Distriot
will decide whether or not to create a park
on the Ridge.
Please attend. ShOW your support for this
acquisition. It will mean the difference
between having open space (including
facili ties) or oontinued development. Have
you noticed the two newly built ridgetop
homes ?
If you are unable to attend please write
the Park District to relate your conoerns.
The address is EBRPD, 11500 Skyline Blvd.,
Oakland, CA 94619.
EDITOR_ Nancy DeSautel-True, 455-9246
ASSOC. EDITOR. Jane Oliver
LABELS_ Sue Scott
TAX REFORM CLEARS HOUSE, BA'l'TLE LOOMS IN SENATE
League-endorsed tax-reform legislation cleared
the U.S. House of Representatives in the wan-
ing hours of Congress's December, 1985 session,
setting the stage for a major battle in the
Senate this Spring and Summer.
The House bill would_
-bring the corporate share of taxes closer
to where it was before the 1981 tax cuts,
-broaden the tax base by instituting a
minimum tax for corporations and the
very wealthy,
-take the poor off the tax rolls.
That's what the League has been fighting for
all along. But Senate passage is expected
to be more difficult. Please write your
Senators and tell them to support tax reform
along the lines of the House bill.
from. ..Report From the Hill, Feb., '86
FINANCE DRIVE TIMETABLE........ .Lydia 1.0
As co-president and director of the finance
drive, I need your help to make it successful.
Sue Davis and her husband Greg assisted us
in computerizing our finance drive records.
Our current goal is $4,000 plus operating
expenses. If you have names of prospective
advisors or prospective contributors, please
forward them to llIe at 462-6752. Another
opportunity to help with the finance drive
is to make follow-up phone calls. The schedule
follows, call me to volunteer, make my dayl
. Date
2/10-2/28
2/17-2/28
3/3-3/7
3/10-3/14
3/17-3/18
4/1-
4/1-
4/15 on -
Task
Contaot prospeotive advisors
Write finance & contributori'
letter
Print letter & envelopes
Address letters & label envelopes
Stuff & aail letters
Follow-up phone calls
Process contributions
Thank yous & We made itlparty.
VALLEY VOTER * League of Women Voters * Livermore-Amador Val]AV *
March, 1986 * Page 5
--,
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION TO ,- LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS - LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY
New
Renew
I'a unable to join now, but would like to contribute.
.
Please send aore information.
Circle Onel Ms. Mrs. Miss Mr. Dr. Other
.
Name
Print - Last Name
First
.
Street Address
Apt.1f
State Zip
Phone (home)
City
(work)
Dues are $30.00 annually. (Members joining mid-year, pro-rated $2.50/ month.) Any
Citizen, 18 years or older, is eligible for membership.
Check payable to I
Mail to I
League of Women Voters-Livermore-Amador Valley{LAV)
p.O. Box 102
Livermore, CA 94550
ANNOUNCEMENTS...................
Pleasanton's Me'!Sure Eo on Prop. 4 S:pendiiltS
Lim1t...........LWV-Livermore-Amador Valley
will be sponsoring an informational presen-
tation on the measure and public projects
on Thursday, March 20, 1130pm at the
Pleasant on Council Chambers, 200 Bernal,
Pleasanton, CA.
Alameda County Council......Leagues in
Alameda County will be interviewing County
Supervisors before the next County Council
meeting on March 18. Jocelyn Combs of our
League and Carolyn Uyemura of Fremont League
will interview Ed Campbell, Supervisor from
South County.
Nuclear Waste Primer..........LWVUSEF new
publication has already received rave
reviews! It is available to members for
$3.00 plus postage and tax, $5.95 to non-
members. Call 44J-VOTE to order them.
THE CHANGING CONDITION OF CHILDREN - Implica-
tions for Education.........................
The California Coalition for Fair School
Finance (sponsored by California's AAUW, LWV,
and Pl'A) presents its ninth annual conference
on March 21 from 9am-JIJOpm at the Holiday Inn,
Emeryville/Berkeley. Packet, lunch, and reg-
istration are $20. Send name and address
along with check to CCFSF, 525 Middlefield Rd.,
Suite 100, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
At our recent local program planning meeting
and board meeting our League agreed to present
Education in the Valley as our recommended
study for next year. This would include re-
stUdying Livermore and including Pleasanton,
Dublin, and Sunol. For anyone interested in
participating in such a stUdy or deciding if
we should undertake it, the CCFSF conference
would be a valuable tool.
Jocelyn Combs
EUREKA! GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT is
off the press!..........."A concise,
comprehensive soft cover reference book on the
structure, operation and financing of state and
local government in California, the Guide is
the only single volume that covers the entire
BpectrUlll of governments in the state ranging
fr~m the governor's office to the local fire
district." $8.95 {$6.15 LWV aembers)plus tax.
Call 44 J- VOTE to order.
,
League of Women Voters
Livermore-Amador Valley
Box 702, Livermore, CA
94550
NON-PROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
LIVERMORE, CA
PERMIT No. !14)
TIME DATED MATERIAL
Larry Tong
6500 Dublin Blvd
Dublin, CA.
94568
:Marcli
CAl.ENDAR
MARCH
Wednesday
5
7.)0-9.)0 Unit Study - Child Care, J. Casamajor's, 2018 Foxswal1ow Rd.,
P1easanton, 846-6069
9.}0-11.}0 Unit Study - Child Care, Y. Jacobson's, 1001 Murrieta,~(~
Livermore, !14 )-6469
Thursday
6
, Monday 10 Day Bay Area Transportation Workshop
Wednesday 12 Noon Bag Lunch, 999 E. Stanley Blvd., Livermore, Videotape of
SDI debate.
Monday 17 7.)Opm Board Meeting, J. Rozs nyai 's, 1104 Avenida De Las Palmas,
Livermore, !14)- J447 .
Thursday 20 7 .)Opm Informational Presentation--Pleasanton's Measure B on Prop. 4
Spending Limit - P1easanton C~uncil Chambers, 200 Bernal.
P1easanton.
Tuesday
25
7'JOpm
East Bay Regional Park District Meeting rea Pleasanton Ridge,
Amador High School Audi toriUII, Pleasanton.
Thursday
27 5.)Opm-7'JO Commission on the Status of Women, Reception with speaker.
The Honorable Peggy Hora, Municipal Court Judge,
Mills College Faculty Lounge, 5000 MacArthur Blvd.
Oakland, CA, $1-0 \ionation, call J. L'iBperance,874-5512
for more information.
......................................................................
.
'Z(LC,(5b
Ie #is. 3/3}sk
February 25, 1986
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN GENERATED BY MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROJECTS
IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
Introductory Remarks:
The follCMing infonnation was based largely upon conversations with the
resident managers and with the property managers of the canplexes
listed. The infonnation listed for the Amador Lakes Ar:artments was
derived fram actual records as of a specific date and, therefore, we
were able to obtain an ac=ate breakdCMl1 for each age group. t-bst of
the other canplexes listed did not have breakdowns b-i each specific age
group. although we believe the overall numbers are still meaningful.
Though the ccmplexes contacted did not have a specific breakdown by age
group. most stated that a substantial percentage (25% to 50%) of the
total rromber of children in the complex were preschool age. We have
attached a summary of our findings.
The Springs Ar:artments has approximately 45 children which the Resident
Manager estimated to be approximately one-third preschool, one-third
elementary, and one-third junior high and high school. The number of
children per unit in The Springs is approximately three times the
overall rate for other multifamily projects in our survey. We believe
that this may be due to the fact that The Springs allows four occupants
per u..o-bedroom unit versus three occupants per t\o.D-bedroom unit which
is the standard requirement for most multifamily projects. In
addition. The Springs has been operated under the HUD 221 (d)4 Program
which controls the rents which can be charged by a project. currently,
the rents at The Springs are $600 per month for a one-bedroom and $695
per month for a u..o-bedroom, which is approximately $100 per month
belCM the rents at either Cedar Pointe or Amador Lakes.
~
.a
rl
.., rl to to 01 to r-o ('t) ('t) r-o CO 01 \D CO
0 to <'I ~ rl rl ('t) ~ ('t)
rl
co
.....
f?-
en
.....
.., to co \D \D <'I ~ <'I co ~ \D co ~ 0
g to ~ r-o rl 01 <'I 0 ~ 01 \D 0 co \D
to <'I rl ~ rl <'I rl r-o rl rl
rl
co .-"
.....
f?-
a
,., 0
B ~ ~
C/J
EO
8
~ .qt <'I r-o
('t) rl
~
~
.
8 to .qt co 0 \D ~ r-o co .qt '<l' \D 0 co
~ (Jl <'I co \D 01 rl <'I ~ to rl \D '<l' ('t)
~ ('t) rl rl rl <'I
~
g 0 ~ co \D \D <'I to 0 0 to ~ <'I
j \D <'I co to 01 (Jl r-o '<l' rl <'I ~ <'I
rl rl <'I to rl
~
0
'g ~ ~
rl
. I:!l .
III ~ ~ Q)
:> Q ~ ~ ~
.., ~
~ Q) 8 . .....
Q ~ III ~ c
8 ~ ~ .., ] ~ 0 ~
~ ~ .., ..... Q
.., ~ 8 C) &l ~
..... c3 j Q) 1
c3 ~ Y.l ic3 r-o '0
'0-1 r-o ~ . rl
~ ~ r-o C/J 0 ~
u Z C rl
en ,., s:: ..... '<l' rl to rl
~ to rl ,., ~ 3: (1 to .qt +-'
0 8. rl ::r: , \D \D 01 C/J
rl 8 <'I 3: 0 t 01
..... co 8c3 0 0 U \D , , tO~ ('t)
~ ('t) 01. 01 Ul ~c3 +-' III rlU <'I
, , r-o N~ ,c3 .qt,., &c3 ~ ('t)
~ III , rlU co, ~ to r-o
0 t en ul~ rl , ci ~c3 t co
H c3 ~ rl '6
0< .., :> ,., H .., ill ~~ ~B ~~ ,., .., ~ ~.~
0 .., 8u ::r:rl rl :> ' Orl
p., ~ it '0-1 co+-, ~ ~ ~~ p.,u
H s:: 0. ~ ~ :>~ ~ ~ ~i ~~
j~ ~ C/J ~
U +-' .g ~rl
~ ~~ rl . 8~ ~~ &l ~Jl l5~ l58
UC/J UC/J
~
.a
rl
'rl ('t) '<l' 01 to <'I 0 rl
0 <'I rl to 0
~
rl
ell
.....
f?-
en
.....
'rl <'I '<l' ~ '<l' \D co rl
g rl '<l' \D \D 01 \D <'I
rl ('t) rl rl <'I ~ r-o
-
rl .-" ...
ell
+-'
a
E-i
a
'rl co 0 \D 0 0 co
B ('t) '<l' rl ~ to <'I
<'I
C/J
8
j '<l' \D ('t)
<'I ('t) rl
rl
~
~
8
j 0 <'I ~ <'I \D \D ...
<'I to r-o to 0 <'I 01
rl <'I <'I rl
-
<'I
~
8
H '<l' <'I ~ <'I \D \D \D co
~ to to r-o r-o \D to 0 0
rl rl <'I .
-
<'I II
8 +-'
~
.
H
'g Q ~
rl
rl ~ c: ~
5 I:!l Q ~
~ ~ H ~
8 +-' ~ C) or1
~ 'rl H +-'
'rl U Q p., ~ ~
+-' 'rl 'g ill
! H U C rl
'rl rl Q) 'rl 0 rl
H I:!l +-' :> ~ ~ H
U ~ 'rl 2t
~ rl U
W rl r:<. to
~~ f r-o !/l ~
0 to 0 co rl
+-' to to gc3 to 0 ell .a
u rl O~ ('t) <'I +-'
Q) r-ou rlU to ~ 0 rl
cic3 r-o -u E-i :a
0 r-o -~ t~ ~
~ Q) -~ &~ u
rl - ~t>
C) IIJ IIJ 'rl 8C3 l5 ~ H ~
11 ::>u C) 0
8 H j~ j~ cO< fu' H
IIJ o a i
~..... ~~ rl
~ ~
....:tC/J C/Jr:<. C/J~
CITY OFFICES
200 OLD BERNAL AVE.
CITY COUNCIL
847-8001
CITY MANAGER
847-<1008
CITY ATTORNEY
847.8003
FINANCE
847-8033
PERSONNEL
847-8012
PLANNING
847-8023
ENGINEERING
847-8041
BUILDING INSPECTION
847-8015
COMMUNITY SERVICES
847-8160
FJELD SERVICES
533S SUNOL BLVD.
PARKS
847-80S6
SANITARY SEWER
847-8061
STREETS
847-8066
WATER
847-8071
FIRE
4444 RAilROAD AVE.
847-8114
POLICE
4833 BERNAL AVE.
847-8127
?e: 1M3.
313 /S {;
CITY OF PLEASANTON
P.O. BOX 520 . PLEA5ANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802
February 28, 1986
Mr. Larry L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVED
MAR 3 .1986)
DUBLIN PLANNING
Dear Larry:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the draft mitigated
negative declaration for the Villages at Alamo Creek.
The city of Pleasanton has several concerns regarding
the project's impact on traffic at the intersection of
Dougherty Road and 1-580. In order to justify a
negative declaration, these impacts, both direct and
cumulative, must be mitigated. Mitigation measures
appear to be feasible to eliminate both cumulative and
direct impacts, but we are concerned that not all
feasible mitigation measures necessary to eliminate
adverse impacts have been included in the project.
According to the environmental assessment, the project,
in addition to existing traffic and other approved
developments, will generate Level of Service D on the
westbound ramp and as high as Level of Service F on the
eastbound ramp of the Hopyard-Dougherty/I-580
intersection. These Levels of Service represent a
significant increase in existing traffic levels. In
addition, long-range traffic projections conducted by
a traffic consulting firm, TJKM, have shown the need
for an arterial roadway connecting the proposed
Hacienda Drive/I-580 intersection to Dougherty Road
near the location of the proposed project. This
mitigation relies on the construction of the Hacienda
Drive/I-580 interchange. The City of Pleasanton would
like to see the developers of the project contribute to
the mitigation of increased traffic at these critical
intersections.
As you know, the city of Pleasanton has establish~d the
North Pleasanton Improvement District which will result
in significant improvements to the Dougherty/I-580
interchange, Dougherty Road between 1-580 and Dublin
Boulevard, and the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange.
Because of the contribution of the village's project to
the need for these improvements, the City of Pleasanton
would like to suggest that the project applicants
contribute on a pro rata basis to the finding of these
improvements. I suggest that a mitigation measure be
agreed to by the Developer, and made a condition of
approval which would subject this project to
participate on a pro rata basis for the Hopyard
Road/I-580 interchange improvements, including the
Dougherty Road improvements, and the Hacienda
Drive/I-S80 interchange, including the street extension
between Hacienda Drive and Dougherty Road.
I believe that large projects such as this should
contribute to needed roadway improvements to improve
traffic circulation throughout the Tri-Valley area. To
imply, as your draft mitigated negative declaration
does, that such a large project has no cumulative
traffic impact, or that that impact need not be
mitigated, is surely contrary to good planning sense
and, possibly, to the requirements of CEQA.
I look forward to working with your staff to come to an
agreeable solution which will enable the City of Dublin
to accommodate traffic generated by this and other
projects in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity of responding to the
negative declaration.
sincerely yours,
&_ G>-."- 1!t/ ~
Brian W. Swift
Director of Planning and
Community Development
cldublin