HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-045 Appeal of Zoning Admin Appvl of Dubney-Puccio SDR
CITY OF DUBLIN
pLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: March 3, 1986
Agenda Statement/Staff Report
Planning Commission
Planning Staff ,~
Appeal of the z~~~ Admini,trator" a roval of
P~ 85-045 _ Dubnev 10) - Puccio (A) - Site
Development Review.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT:
PA 85-045 _ Dubne 0 - Puccio (A) - Site
Development Review for the proposed construction
of a two-story (13,935+ groSS sq. ft. - 10,250+
net sq. ft.) office building at the northeast -
corner of Hansen Drive and Dublin Boulevard.
APPLICANT AND
REPRESENTATIVE:
E.F. Joseph Puccio
Architect and Planner
8515 Alana Road
Castro Valley, CA 94546
PROPERTY OWNERS:
Mr. and Mrs. 01eg M. Dubney
21985 Redwood Road
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Northeast corner of Hansen Drive and Dublin
Boulevard
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
941-0113-005-2
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Commercial/Industrial - Retail Office
EXISTING ZONING AND
LAND USE:
Site is currently vacant with the majority of
the frontage improvements for both Hansen Drive
and Dublin Boulevard in place (sidewalks along
Dublin Boulevard will need to be installed).
The subject property is zoned C-O, Administra-
tive Office District.
SURROUNDING ZONING AND
LAND USE:
North _ P-D, Planned Development District -
Ponderosa Village Single Family Development
East _ C-O, Administrative Office District -
Bay Tree Office Complex
South _ M-1-B-40, Light Industrial Combining
District _ Hexce1 Corporation Facility
West _ P-D, Planned Development District - Swim
Club Facility
September 10, 1980: A Conditional Use Permit
(C-3861) was approved by the Zoning
Administrator to allow construction of a non-
illuminated, 4' x 6' Subdivision Directional
Sign.
ZONING HISTORY:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
1], I
June 29, 1978: A Site Development Review
(S-648) was approved by the Zoning Administrator
to allow construction of a 10,500+ square foot
net two-story office building (with 43 parking
spaces, a 10' Hansen Drive setback and a 20'
Dublin Boulevard setback). This approval was
not exercised within the prescribed time frame
and expired on June 29, 1980.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
An office use is listed as a permitted use in the C-O, Administrative
Office District (Section 8-46.1).
Section 8-95.0 of the Zoning Ordinance states that Site Development
Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development;
recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and
investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of
uses or erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the
specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter or which are
not properly related to their sites, surrounding traffic circulation, or their
environmental setting. Where the use proposed, the adjacent land uses,
environmental significance or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation,
is found to so require, the Planning Director may establish more stringent
regulations than those otherwise specified for the District.
Section 8-95.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that at the conclusion of
the Site Development Review investigation, the Planning Director shall
determine from reports and data submitted whether the Use and Structures
proposed will meet the requirements and intent of this Chapter, and upon
making an affirmative finding, shall approve said application. If from the
information submitted the Planning Director finds that compliance with the
requirements on this Chapter, and the intent set forth herein, would not be
secured, he shall disapprove, or approve subject to such conditions, changes
or additions as will assure compliance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City proposes to adopt a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance which
finds the proposed project will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION:
Public Notice of the March 3, 1986, hearing was
published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent
property owners, and posted in public buildings.
ANALYSIS:
On December 17, 1985, the Zoning Administrator approved a Site
Development Review application for the proposed two-story office building.
Complications with either the handling of the mailout and/or the actual
delivery of the Appealable Action Letter (AAL) during the holidays resulted in
leaving an inadequate review period for the applicant or owner to review the
Conditions of Approval outlined in the AAL.
As a result of the timing of the receipt of the AAL and the implications
of the changes to the site plan layout called for within that document, an
Amended Appealable Action Letter was subsequently issued by Staff on
January 7, 1986.
Concern about four unresolved items with the Amended AAL prompted the
property owner to file an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action. As
detailed in the appeal letter received on January 16, 1986 (see Background
Attachment _ 4), the following four items were considered by the owner as
unresolved:
1. Justification for the amount of time taken to process the site
development plans.
2. Design of the proposed screen wall between parking areas and
Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive.
-2-
3. Selection of trees to be used for the project.
4. Location of street electroliers.
On February 24, 1986, the applicant/architect submitted an expanded set
of site development plans which reflected minor adjustments to the site plan
that had been previously agreed to by Staff (i.e., design and layout of trash
enclosure area, adjustment to parking area at southeast corner of the
building, design change to masonary wall along the north property line, etc.),
design specifications for the screen walls, and a modified landscape plan. On
that same date, the applicant/architect met with the City Engineer and
attempted to resolve the location of two electroliers along Hansen Drive.
A meeting between Staff and the applicant/architect on February 27,
1986, to review and discuss the latest plan revisions culminated in the
submittal by the property owner of a request to withdraw the appeal submitted
on January 16, 1986 (see Background Attachment -5).
The process of an appeal of an action by the Zoning Administrator cannot
be terminated by the appellant's withdrawal of his appeal. Additionally, the
submittal of a written appeal, the scope of review by the Appeal Board (i.e.,
the Planning Commission) is not limited to the itemized points prompting the
appeal, but rather may cover the full scope of the project proposal.
In acknowledgement of the above, the following items are brought to the
attention of the Commission as being key items considered by Staff through the
review process of the subject Site Development Review request.
1. Building setback from Hansen Drive.
2. Architectural design of proposed office building.
3. Floor area ratio of proposed project.
should
feet.
Review
In regards to the first item, the building setback from
be noted that the required minimum setback from Hansen
This minimum was actually reflected on the unexercised
request approved by the County in 1978 (see Background
Hansen Drive, it
Drive is ten
Site Development
Attachment - 8).
Staff's concerns on this matter revolve around the nature and layout of
the residential area immediately adjoining the project site to the north where
a uniform 20-foot setback for all residential structures along Hansen Drive is
observed. The Site Development Review process allows the Zoning Administrator
to impose more stringent regulations than those otherwise specified within the
Zoning Ordinance when the proposed use, the adjacent land uses, environmental
limitations, topography or traffic circulation is found to so require.
In response to presubmittal discussion with Staff, the applicant's
initial submittal detailed setbacks of 14'8"+ and 18'8" along the 100'+
building elevation proposed for Hansen Drive.
The Appealable Action Letters issued on this project called for an
increase in the setback from Hansen Drive, specifically calling for use of 16'
and 20' setbacks to secure a minimum average 18' setback.
The revised plans submitted by the architect which reflect this minimum
average setback are considered acceptable to Staff.
The structure's proposed architectural design, which can be best
described as Early American Colonial, is considered by Staff to be compatible
with the design of the adjoining residential structures and the adjoining Bay
Tree office complex. While the architectural design utilized for the building
need not be a duplicate of other surrounding structures, it is considered
desirable and appropriate to insure that the design utilized be compatible.
The net floor area ratio yield for this project structure (10,250 square
feet net over the 0.63+ acre site) has been calculated to have a 37.2ifo floor
area coverage.
-3-
Floor area coverage of projects are controlled by the height of the
structure(s), the configuration of the site (as related to efficiency of the
building design and parking layout), the proposed use of the site (as related
to the corresponding parking requirements) and the amount of landscaping
required.
The two-story height of the proposed structure is considered compatible
with existing adjoining land uses. (The Bay Tree complex is two stories in
height and the two adjoining single family residences are two stories in
height and sit on pads slightly elevated above the subject property.) The
site and configuration of the property and the proposed building footprint
yields a comparatively efficient parking lot design, as the bulk of the
proposed drive aisles can be double loaded with parking spaces. The amount of
parking proposed is consistent with the City's parking requirement for office
uses (i.e., one space @ 250 net square feet).
The proposed landscaping plan is considered by Staff to provide adequate
and functional landscape areas along the north and east property boundaries
and will provide generous frontage landscaping along Dublin Boulevard and
Hansen Drive.
Based on the above observations, the 37.2+% floor area ratio is
considered appropriate for the subject property and can be supported by Staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the Commission hear a
Staff briefing and then accept the owner's withdrawal of the January 16, 1986,
appeal letter and reaffirm the Zoning Administrator action of January 7, 1986,
conditionally approving the request as outlined in Exhibit B of this Report.
If the Planning Commission does not concur with the withdrawal of the
appeal, Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission proceed with the
public hearing as follows:
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 two draft Resolutions.
A) A Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
B) A Resolution regarding the Site Development Review
application.
ACTION:
Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the Planning
Commission adopt the attached Resolutions (Exhibit A approving the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 85-045
and Exhibit B approving the Site Development Review application,
PA 85-045).
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A
Resolution approving the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for PA 85-045.
Exhibit B
Resolution approving Site Development Review application,
PA 85-045.
Exhibit C
Site Development Review submittals.
Exhibit D
Staff Study - Landscape Plan (December, 1985) and Staff
Study - Site Plan (January, 6, 1986).
-4-
Background Attachments: 1
Location Maps.
2 Site Photographs.
3 Applicant's written statement (letter
dated received May 28, 1985).
4 Owner's appeal letter (dated received
January 16, 1986).
5 Owner's letter requesting withdrawal of
the January 16, 1986, appeal letter
(dated received January 27, 1986).
6 City Engineering Comments dated July 12,
1985.
7 DSRSD - Fire Department letter of July 5,
1985.
8 Conditions of Approval, S-648, and
Exhibit B - Staff Study Site Plan.
9 Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance for PA 85-045, dated
August 7, 1985.
10 - Resolution No. ZA 13-85, adopting a
Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance for PA 85-045.
-5-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCERNING PA 85-045 DUBNEY (0) - PUCCIO (A)
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NORTHWEST CORNER OF HANSEN DRIVE
AND DULBIN BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), as amended together with the State's guidelines for
implementation of the Califonria Environmental Quality Act and
City environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impact and that enviornmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance has been prepared for PA 85-045 by the Dublin
Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered
it at a public hearing on March 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission determined that
the project, PA 85-045, will not have any signficant
environmental impacts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission finds that the 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 3rd day of March,
1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
FXHIBIT 11_
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENYING THE APPEAL OF MR. AND MRS. OLEG M. DUBNEY CONCERNING PA 85-045
DUBNEY (0) - PUCCIO (A) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - AND REAFFIRMING THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR ACTION OF JANUARY 7, 1986, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE REQUEST
TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ([ SQUARE FOOT) OFFICE BUILDING AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF HANSEN DRIVE AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, E.F. Joseph Puccio, Architect and Planner, on behalf of
Mr. and Mrs. Oleg M. Dubney, filed a Site Development Review application
requesting approval to construct a two-story (10,250~ square foot net) office
building on a 0.65+ acre vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Hansen Drive
and Dublin Boulevard, more specifically described as APN 941-0113-005-2; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by
the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance was circulated to adjoining property owners for review and
comment and was published in The Herald; and
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
was considered and adopted by the Zoning Administrator (Resolution No.
ZA 13-85) with his determination that the project would not have a significant
environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator approved the request subject to
Conditions outlined in an Amended Appealable Action letter dated January 7,
1986 (which superceded the initial Appealable Action Letter dated December 17,
1985), and subject to an appeal period extending to January 17, 1986; and
WHEREAS. Oleg M. Dubney, CPA Dubney Accountancy Corporation, on
behalf of his wife and himself, filed a written appeal on January 16, 1986,
indicating concern of the length of time taken to process the request, the
design directives outlined within the Conditions regarding the proposed screen
walls along Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive, the requirements regarding
landscape key trees, and the location of required street electrolier; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said
appeal on March 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provlslons of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance has been adopted (Planning
Commission Resolution No. ) for this project as it will have no
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the appeal was published
in The Herald, posted in public buildings, and mailed to property owners
within 300 feet of the project in accordance with local and State law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Zoning Administrator's decision of January 7, 1986, conditionally approving
the request be upheld; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
-1-
EXHIBITJ3_ ..-
FINDINGS:
1.
The proposed office complex is required by the public need
the base of available office space located in the City and
diversity and strength of Dublin's Commercial base.
to expand
to add the
2. The proposed uses will be properly related to other land uses, and
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity.
3. The uses will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be
met.
4. The uses will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses for
performance standards established for the District in which it is to be
located.
5. All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8 Site Development Review,
of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with.
6. Consistent with Section 8-95.0, this project will promote orderly,
attractive and harmonious development, recognize environmental
limitations on development; stablize land values and investments; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or
erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the
specific intent clauses or performance standards set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance and which are not consistent with their environmental setting.
7. The approval of the project as conditioned is in the best interest of
the public health, safety and general welfare.
8. General site considerations, including site layout, orientation and the
location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking.
setbacks, height, public safety and similar elements have been designed
to provide a desirable environment for the development.
9. General, architectural considerations including the character, scale and
quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and
other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior
appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing and similiar elements have
been incorporated into the project in order to insure compatibility of
this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent
buildings and uses.
10. General project landscaping and consideration including the locations,
type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions
for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and
similiar elements, have been considered to insure visual relief to
complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive
environment to the public.
11. The project is consistent with the policies contained in the City's
General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby
deny the appeal and upholds the Zoning Administrator action of January 7,
1986, approving said Site Development Review application as shown by materials
labeled Exhibit C and Attachment 3, on file with the Dublin Planning
Department, subject to the following Conditions:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with
prior to issuance of building or grading permits and shall be sub;ect to
Planning Department review and approval.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1 Development shall generally conform with the plans prepared by E. F.
Joseph Puccio, Architect and Planner, consisting of ten sheets and dated
received by the City Planning Department, June 7, 1985, as modified to
generally reflect the Site Plan modifications depicted in the Staff
Study dated January 6, 1986, and these conditions of approval. As
denoted by the Staff Study, the building shall be shifted east 2' ~ to
-2-
achieve a mlnlmum average setback of 18'-0". Collectively, these
materials shall serve as Exhibit "A" for this project and shall be
maintained on file with the Planning Department. This approval shall be
valid until January 17, 1987. This approval period may be extended one
additional year by the City Planning Director upon his determination
that the Conditions of Approval outlined in this document continue to
remain adequate to assure development consistent with the aforestated
Findings of Approval. If construction has not commenced by that time,
this approval shall be null and void.
2 Development shall comply with the City of Dublin-Site Development Review
Standard Conditions and the City of Dublin-Police Services Standard
Commercial Building Security Recommendations (attached as Attachment A
and Attachment B).
ARCHAEOLOGY
3 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.
ARCHITECTURAL
4 Exterior materials shall be generally consistent with those shown on the
plans submitted with the application, dated received by the Planning
Department on June 7, 1985. A final color and materials pallette shall
be prepared by the developer for review and approval by the Planning
Director. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and other
mechanical equipment, whether on the structure, on the ground, or
elsewhere, shall be effectively screened from view with materials
architecturally compatible with the main structure. HVAC screen and
colors shall be designed to utilize materials , forms and colors, as
feasible, compatible with the architecture of the building. Exterior
building lighting and area lighting of parking spaces to be developed
under the structure shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director.
5 The design elevations of the proposed parking screen structures shall be
designed to use materials and a design similar to those proposed for the
masonary wall or principal structure and to allow visibility of cars
backing out of parking spaces adjoining the screen walls.
6 The wing walls at the northwestern and northeastern corners of the
building shall be shortened by five ~ feet to provide better visibility
of the backout manuevers of cars parked in the two respective, adjoining
parking spaces.
7 Prior to release of occupancy all the following shall be accomplished:
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved drainage
and grading plans.
b. Grading of the subject property must conform with the
recommendations of the soils engineer to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
c. The following shall have been submitted to the City Engineer:
I) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer including original ground surface elevations, as-
graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage, and
locations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities.
II) A complete record, including location and elevation of all
field density tests, and a summary of all field and
laboratory tests.
III) A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project
Geologist that all work was done in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the soil and geologic
investigation reports and the approved plans.
-3-
DRAINAGE
8 Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or other
approved dissipating devices.
9 All portions of the site shall be drained to the streets. Proposed
grades at the rear corner of the site shall be revised.
10 Where storm water flows against a curb, a curb with gutter shall be
used.
11 Minimum slopes in concrete gutters shall be 0.5%.
12 This site is within Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District Zone 7, Special Drainage Area 7-1 and is subject to the
conditions of District Ordinance No. 53. Any applicable conditions of
said ordinance will be imposed at the time of issuance of building
permits.
DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
13 Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The
developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project
dirt, mud, and materials during the construction period. Developer
shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City
of Dublin. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction
activities, shall be watered, or other dust-pallative measures used, to
prevent dust, as conditions warrant. Construction activity shall be
limited to the period of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
unless written approval for extended hours and/or days of construction
is secured from the City Engineer. Temporary construction fencing shall
be installed if directed by the City Engineer or Building Official.
EASEMENTS
14 The developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry
from the adjacent property owners for any improvements, including
grading, required outside of the proposed development. Copies of the
easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in written form and be
furnished to the City Engineer.
EROSION
15 Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to securing
building permits, detailed construction grading plan and a drainage,
water quality, and erosion and sedimentation control plan, for
construction and post-construction period, prepared by the Project Civil
Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
FIRE
16 Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall supply
written confirmation that the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon
Services District Fire Department have been or will be met. The Fire
Department's letter of July 5, 1985, indicates that the building must be
sprinklered in accordance with NFPA Pamphlet 13.
GRADING
17 The developer, or his representative, shall comply with the grading
ordinance which requires a grading permit for over 150 cubic yards of
graded material.
18 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,
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.
-4-
19 Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading
plans and the Soil Engineering recommendations as established by the
Soil and Foundation Study prepared for this project ( Report,
Supplementary Soil Investigation, Proposed Office Building, Dublin Blvd.
and Hansen Drive, as prepared by GEl and dated February 25, 1985).
Grading 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 soils and/or geologic
investigation reports covering this site and the approved plans and
specifications.
20 Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil investigation report, or
where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained
in the original soil investigation, a revised soils report shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
21 Deficiencies in existing frontage improvements shall be corrected as
required by the City Engineer. These include offset curb and gutter,
substandard gutter shape, and offset sidewalk.
22 On Dublin Blvd., the new sidewalk shall be next to the curb and match
the' sidewalk to the east.
23 Pavement widening shall be provided as necessary on Dublin Blvd.
24 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.
25 The developer, or his representative, shall obtain an encroachment
permit for work in the right-of-way.
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLANS
26 A detailed revised Landscape and Irrigation Plan, along with a cost
estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Director. Landscape and Irrigation
Plans shall be signed by a licensed landscape architect.
27 The project's tree planting program and the shrub planting along the
north and east property lines shall be modified to generally conform to
the Landscape Staff Study dated December, 1985, to provide a more
substantial planting screen for the adjoining residences and to utilize
a plant pallet which is more compatible with the plant type, size and
location of the existing, adjoining landscaping of the Bay Tree project
(see Attachment C). Final selection of plant materials shall be
determined in conjunction with the City's review of the revised
Landscape and Irrigation Plan.
28 The design and placement of service areas, trash enclosures, and
utility boxes shall be compatible with the site's overall design and
landscaping and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director as part of the Landscape and Irrigation Plan. The trash
enclosure location shall be modified to generally conform with the
location shown on the Staff Study dated December, 1985. An alternate
site and layout may be utilized if determined acceptable to the local
disposal service and the Planning Director. The enclosure shall have a
minimum dimension of 8' x 10' (depth x width) and be designed with a
concrete base and extended concrete apron.
29 The developer/owner shall sign and submit a copy of the City of Dublin
Landscape Maintenance Agreement (attached as Attachment D).
LIGHTING
30 Light standards shall be utilized along the north and east property
lines to provide security lighting. The bases of parking lot light
standards shall have a "finished" architectural treatment (exposed
aggregate or equivalent) subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director. Light standard details, prepared by a civil engineer or a
-5-
qualified lighting designer, including photometrics that indicate
footcandle distribution, shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties or on
Dublin Boulevard or Hansen Drive. Lighting used after business hours
shall be minimized to provide for security needs only.
PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
31 The developer shall provide a parking and striping plan showing stall
sizes and small car, handicap and guest and employee parking areas (if
proposed) and their related signing. A double stripe pattern shall be
used for all parking spaces. The amount of parking provided and the
basis of the calculations as they relate to the City's Parking
Ordinance, shall appear on the site plans submitted for building permit
review.
32 Minimum slope on A.C. parking lot shall be 1%, maximum slope shall be
5%.
33 The parking and driveway surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving.
The project's Soils Engineer's structural pavement design shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The developer
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 developer's soils engineer shall determine a
preliminary structural design of the road bed. After rough grading has
been completed, the developer shall have soil tests performed to
determine the final design of the road bed.
34 Developer shall be responsible for installation of street light
standards and luminaries of the number design, spacing, and locations as
approved by the City Engineer.
35 Street trees, of at least a IS-gallon size, shall be planted along both
street frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting
plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning
Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks shall be
provided with root shields.
36 Minimum clear width for parking spaces located beneath the structure
shall be 9'-3".
SIGNAGE:
37 All signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director prior to installation.
38 One freestanding sign may be developed for this project. The
freestanding sign shall observe a minimum setback of five feet (while
also observing the appropriate "sight-distance" setback if located in
proximity to a proposed driveway connection or at the intersection of
Dublin Blvd. and Hansen Drive) and shall not exceed a maximum height of
eight feet or a maximum area of fifty square feet.
39 A tenant sign program shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Director in conjunction with the application of
building permits for the structure or for the first tenant improvements.
The tenants' obligation to conform with the approved tenant sign program
shall be incorporated into the individual tenant lease agreements as a
binding tenant requirement. Tenant signs shall either be of one uniform
length or shall have the length tied proportionately to the width of the
respective tenant lease spaces. No wall mounted sign, or portion
thereof, shall exceed a height above finished grade in excess of
fourteen feet.
STORAGE AND EXTERIOR ACTIVITIES:
40 Uncovered and unscreened outside storage is expressly prohibited. All
demonstrations, displays, services and other activities shall be
conducted entirely within the proposed~structure. Any areas proposed
for development as screened storage areas shall be subject to review 2nd
-6-
approval by the Planning Director as regards to their design, location,
building material and use. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be
permitted outside the enclosed structure.
TENANT OCCUPANCY REVIEW:
41 All tenants occupying the subject building shall be subject to review
and approval by the Planning Director to verify compatibility of said
uses with the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
TITLE:
42 A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties
having any recorded 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 drainage
and/or grading plans to the City Engineer.
UTILITIES:
43 Prior to the filing of the grading or building permits the developer
shall furnish the City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon
Services District stating that the District has agreed to furnish water
and sewer service to the development.
44 The location of any pad mounted transformers shall be subject to
approval by the Planning Director. Generally speaking, such
transformers shall not be located between the street and the front of
the proposed structure.
WELLS:
45 Known water wells without a documented intent of future use are to be
destroyed prior to any demolition or grading in accordance with a well
destruction permit obtained from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District.
MISCELLANEOUS:
46 The materials uses for pedestrian walkways throughout the site shall be
of a uniform design and shall be subject to review and approval of the
Planning Director. Those portions of walkways adjoining parking areas
shall be raised 6" above the parking/drive aisle surface. Handicap
access depressions shall be provided for as required by Title 24.
47 A masonry, or prefabricated concrete wall shall be installed along the
project's north boundary. The exact location of this wall may vary
according to the arrangements made between the developer and the two
respective adjoining residential property owners. The fence may be
located either at the property line or at the present fence line
location (upon securing the necessary easements and right of entry).
Design specifications for the wall (six foot minimum height above
rearyard pads of adjoining residential lots with an architectural
pattern on both sides of the wall) shall be submitted for review and
approval at the time building elevations are submitted. Where located
at the property line and adjoining an area with a higher grade, the wall
shall be designed to retain a minimum of two feet of back-fill material.
The necessary back-fill material to level the grade behind the wall
shall be supplied by the developer at the request of the respective,
impacted adjoining residential property owners.
48 The front page of the building plans shall identify site development
data including: zoning district, address, assessor parcel number, lot
size, gross and net floor areas by story, parking calculations, amount
of landscaping, floor area ratio, and additional pertinent development
data.
-7-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-8-
,/
-'--
,-
'({l
.,.,
5' ,Sfr..\. A ''S6'o.l'EHTlNlllrH''PbPE"~7Y L-INF$ i!,l~Ih1E SfI,evS
C ~ -. ~M~tJF 5a-,ft.'~N# ~~, 'f~YUSAtIl
- .....L.. ,,-' . ITi4
- ,':,' If:.'.: I~," ~ ~. . '. .... ~ .
,./':;.1 ...,.~, . ....';;;i!; ..:.'" . --~::;... ,".' ',':', .,~, ~- ,...., :''(l'' --~';~'.III
' .J'" " ., '...~ -- ' ,- ., -- ..,. ".,.. , '.' ,.. I
~ ':p".... ':":"'. . .i;'... :.:"., ;. ( '. . .... . " .:! .,.' . .":,':..,' .~_ ~ "; J
'I!f. :. ,...: I':"""::'~o ",':. " . "', ,', . "", :'-,:,. ',':, '", "!I"..;51
lli' " , ."1,, ',. " ,',' , , '. , ~
. ~I~"":"'~ '=ic.'.; ';ii." "it.. i#"'. 5(., (or-- 7?- "8{,;,~rl.-lb,c. ir.~' j/lf.;ii~~':' ' """"'Ill
IHW~.~ . .~. '.1., " . ',': ".!' .. ... ' :'" ,.,.,~ '. I
il:l: :tll . Ii 'j..,,'.',.,',.,':,.:.:'. .,;.;~~~~>', ',,' ~.',' . ".. : '. ,.';" 1':'/':,. :..,;.~,~: ,.,~.: I
:1~1<lj I'~' ,~ '. " '1'" ,;, : . . "','L' :."., . /", , . /I., II.!-'r~'. :u.(i] , I t 1!.;4J"'i I
'1;i,<:I' , "/ .",',. .' '.,... , .. .v' ,~"'Q.\ ..,~, I~
'::II~~ II ~'-"!: :?AC~~~~'<} ':: .' .' ',..DRIv'eWAljl=, '(J,i :' i ' 'J ',~ ;?,I;'
j~11 j 7 .. ...;:. . . ::V:;!i<l~
, ! I f= =~ -1=.0: -~I== .' ,!<,. i I
"1'1 ' , " . :T. " , ., L 'e::'~ I
1XiIT , .l ' ,,' ,":':, ":"';,' , ';' ",'I , 1'/" '
: 11'!~':;;' o'ft ,~~f- tie: :Zzf if. Zl~ tof \~~' ~~; < < 1 'j/-'>~':" - :t:; I ; fr I J
L ' ,rl:'1 '. ' ' " , "'. .:i ,,',' ,( , ." IU, I. IV
;,.:: ;.';':'::,,:.. . ' ...,-..' ,;. :;,\,"-:,." .'~" 'I'.J:'F..-'o' ",;' ,:' ;~:.; :',1 ;:' ':, ,I :::. : h- 1
:' 1 "~ '~" ~,..,~$:~;~;:..~.;;~'~,~E~;,:.; '",; {: .",..; ,',:',] i~~( ...'., I
1\1 & '\ i~!.4wifi1~;Jt 1eAf?l(v'I~;=R.1I:;~':: 11;',/1'::/ ~ i.
~ ! ~r} 1tt:!E3 't'1A-'1re-ti~5 ~()~fr .. ' C. ',) fi......"~'m ':'., "':':. ;'f' , l
t..1 fl.', rt/ ~ ; ~'c::rY~vs IGt~JlIG\~\ . .',u:,':-.~I~(::J-.< "'Ii ,~, l"h~~,',:::: i
f4 ~ j ~ '~~~">n1:dAa/fN~S' ~ ~j,.I.y..:\~ ..;;,i";'::~'-~:,~~:!,~, . p ", I :J'C' \ ..: II
j] 31 ~ '" J ~l:. , ~,Lror '7\. . J.,1t W1.#O..,: ;.~'lC .:,!;, :--:--' , -~, '. r .' '. .
I 'J ::l ;r. ~~. " ,.." " ,.' " , . , '. :', r. .' , ',' ' i'"
~ " \...,:-.'" ...:::L;:.:.'::",..;. :,.i ',:.-.;'.' '...'..:;.,o':..;:_,:,;;W:.. I,... . 'It" I
'i'~! . I~~~:';"::.':'.'f""~-"":-"":""': . 'I~ ".:" ...........:-:.....~r,...........:<-:;~.~(I: "l' ..' . ...t....~,;: I I
':'. \. I~' ~:'l. ,:'.F" , . ,.'. ......~. pose. D....'...'... : oz.;' ,:.' 'irl5l:. [is ":1;;,:;:'.:;;...."'....:,;-.;' :"'.":.' r'B..FI..'-":'" )
l..J \..'-' '-":.."::'~: .-:.~ . .:..:>.'~-:':~ - O~S1O.R~.:'" ~:.' . ~"i._.~i:>. :;..~. r:~'. f!~l!;.:~~1ri~~~~i;':::-::::;'7_:., ~..'. ., ~
'ffi';,1'-. -~: , "O~_EUILD.t:J9~ ~'\.~ ;, 'I:?';....:'-"....:<..i:i':'.'~'.. ,', :.-wt;..'.:".. " i.oJ
t ~I. I'>=- ~o.-..J.," " 't.... ~. ..... ~'\ I... . ,,;",...,",1.'. .....,..... J1.h'a. .... . ~
:': ~'~"..:_' I ~ ~ ':;;.:. ~'. '~. ',~aAl);;:.iL;::,:':;r~.:.:.,.. .', ~ 'tiC I?AUOIi""'ijil"'-:;i:i:;'T-;,:~~,~':l,:;.;::.;:.;:;\.!.(,~(.j,.\;{:' "
1:i=J: (t .'1. :......./HW'"' rl./rI~"I'JI.(,.' .~ !:;I/V}rV"!iI:ll;;r~~i.;v,;;;!:;,.,_:~,::,:t.H '.. ;
!.--~' I -" ~'!:~:,,':-c"JN(Jl!m.:-lell$ = ~ yo< ri~l ',I~ H~ "l/i~i':,':',:~:\::':''':;>:Yl!::~/' O' :'F . ; ~
;: ! {J, ~';":", . . i' ,., ~,,~,. I"~ ,':v v,'_'I' :., ',:', :,.'!I . ,
; M 1\1 ~~' - ~..s,.'~.f~7YL,IKtff ll:!v~ ::p "(1' ';,)"\N.. :'11, : i.. ,"
. f :: ~ \ t[, ~~<' L.: .,...".,j!/;....'~..... ~~)..\ " /1 f: ;'.:l:;:,,~..:,~.:::>;'::':i~ ~.' ~((~f....? D
r\..j", >- ~ ' llC7- vlY':~(~r-. ~ .,., , ,'J.,'. -..,..., 'O;>>'[J:
-= r \ -~:'lutNnlJir ' "~ :.i::;.:f '''~!):;:':;;\' "A' I.' ,1:,. ~I
. . '..' ~ ~'3' ' . ". ';' , ~~~,:i /0f _I,;<':"'~':':':':--:,' .:,:1 ;IZF". '::.
~.\;: ~" :,,;;.,.,tFtfllIlN'..'f(lr' P:"-;;~ ~. ~3C . I:" , , ,''', ',. ',;,'; ;..: ~ : '
t ... ~~~. ..'\' .,11> ; .. ,I' . ,r:; ,I " ..' " ~r " I
L_, ;~L- ""~ ~ ~r~ fA': f.H.6'I.J,,:~: AO~I 5 ,; '" ':'..::;;' /1.5. r"'! I :,': ':', " >::::"'LI !"/~~, ~ :~ I
. " \,1\ '-t J., " '. " !. ' ..' 1'1 .!, I
~l 'I"'~-<<~' ~. "~''''~ ~, !&:l .' . II; ", .': .. 'I;' J'" '. ~ I
\~.'-"-' ': \ \:. "---:::Vv .: <,I>: :-"~,-,,, ~, ~~iIi' ~ . ~j,,' /, H (;:!. I ',: ':, ::" : ,:: II; l'9r; "", ~ I
~,r" \ ' >)(7y=-r, ,/,,:'I ',-;,;,1/ ,,""1- pw.j , . - , " .', ".'1 ' . '. . " . :
'. ':i , \ \ :. -/~ It- "--^-A.. . I..J., ,..':,,J'. ,;;,1 J7J d,d".,ult Ilf" "'... ',., ':: ~ . 1 "- _ I.' ~ I '
.', \ "" ',.. ",." :,~ H~~;III ... . . ~,". ~
"',,\\I( :' " '~. ......-:-' . ,'.~,.. ..-: ....
-, '-- ';.\: -,_.. PI.. "., ,., ~' ~". ~,~. ~ '" . . ,.' . ~. I
,. ..... -........~ .., . \.... ~ ,..,~~: )l.AW>J,:. ~:. .' ,- ',., ;.":., ~ . I
..... ... ------.. .'. -- ':JI.. r '., 'I" ','.' , '..___.. ,'I '.
...--. .' I""'" ."......t:..=>ClZWO-. ,'" I
........--.;; . ',.. I '/, ",;' V-//-0". ;TniYWE~)~ , :. ~/'.. I J
....- "- - -_ . :. / _. ~~~. ~g~:~r_~ .. I " ..~.~ t~.. . J ,. ~ ..; ,~,
~ j "., ~ '''''-" ""," ~ '...."1,'. '."- :;,,. t -'....1"; '''~''';'''''o'''..~..,;;',,;,..; ':if '''-=-1 .
';Vb ~ . I . .. .,,;' I~~;."q:~ I;~~l'~". "":;':"':' .....~
'J};tbSdtPd-.P~~'_A,' :' ',' ". :.:j,\:'".,.e:L,'/:::;::..,'.<.'... '.. " .'
, -~ .
EXHIBIT D -
"::Gilit,$1Y,O'j ~h_,;.~o~,~LAN5
; ~.;<":'O . '~"~'~'~:P;*,;~'f~:~(~W~1~~rii;:~,'
o
"'::
^
\,
">~I..,._..~._.J_ _
. ~ ,---r-- --~~-~.
i
c' ~
~.,... ('
~.
v
" '
, '
\,j
I, \
;i(
\
\
j
f' ,L__,
\
\
"
,
,.
/"
.....~
.,\ '~.
\ . '- __~- '''.'OW; ,) >.
>- ..,.._, \' -1-"" _ .1". / ' / .~t.
./ ",,' ",. ,,' II \"~
/ " \, \ '\ :~I .\- ' I J _ " ,( .' \ \ \. \
./" . 'v-::-Fi'J -0;;-;-",." " f' / ...' r-... '--1..... \ \ i(
/' ' /.__ \ _, . I" ,_J ' I _._~ J"
/'lI' : L'" \ I ;, 'ii i I [ -r~-'
;f!.....\,ri I" 1_1'/_"; .
,. ...:,," \ \ L.' _, 1: -- J' \
.1 II '- \_ I ,-IC"'-"" ". ,'I
." ... _~"...",.. " l . \"
I ,) y \ /\" I ,,_.1 ~ 1'," .
, / , ' J \ I , ,,' ',I, ," ,,\ ,I , \
,'r-' 1'- ,i....7' --';\ \~\ ''"
1 ! \ ~...-'o:,-,- ,. ,;- ... .- \~.' . ....0\- \ ~,
,;'l~"'>/ \..0[,.,....,.....----1..-,-....,- ... .\~' ,- ~
. r"h O--~_\ -j\ ,:;:<\ \/ ,C, \ .~
'f-,1M. "/~..\~~~;~> /J-~.
.. T\'-"~ \ ,-,>y . '
. . .m'" ~).5' -'
')CttC-0L ~
.-=-~
\
il (
''''j -,
'oiL
t./~ '
r'
o
"
;'~'~
.\ \
. '
. L
"'ll. "
,,,.... ..~._.
'. '<
"
L--
,
r.
. \ \ .~c.' ."-~. '..
,?~-\-;:. \J""
-' -\~. \ ,
. ) .......,' \.tlI .
" --.;,.i>~ c1 ,,_..... ...-?'
-' ~..('" \. ,~~
,,>y\\'\ ,'..
1 \ \~-<:;~..-
~~_.F
;-...............-.. \, .....,
.....~----
.,',
)
:I
~:
.y=.".....
'-
-----,
......
'--'--~'
i
\
----\
\
~
---- .
\/~-
~\
\
---
-----
"----'\
\
\~
<\~:\...
.\
\
,
,
>-
"
,
,. ,
/._ l\ ~ \ \"
,.\ \
I II I
, \,'
. I,.
~---...... \ \ \ \ '"
_, ~ I \ \ '
'\ ~ ~ ,.. /""
\ 1\ I
" I
\ I,'
I I. I
----~ ~~-~w
.._._-----~~~-'", .\ \;----
, I\}---
I I"
i I 1\1
"\ } ~\ .
~ /' \~"',
. <,~~::/\ ~ \----
" ~ f\ \
~ ~ \ \
/
\. I
, ,,' ,'\\/ ,.
i.l:~ .
'"fr.......,
)"O~
14- ~5-tJ~S'
*:f :-
1
~ 941
,
OF A SUBDIVISION' OF PLOT A OF T( DOUGHERTY RANCH
. (POR. PLOT69)(Bk.l5Pg.l7ll' ", TR, 4236 115/38 . ,: . '
TRACT 2405(Bk.46Pg,73)
....
~
?.,
16
@
11 -....
i ' 1-
)/ 1.J
(/
~
o~c~
J#'4Y
'. ,
'.
/'
,
ZONING HISl'ORY
UNIT AFF'ECTEo PAA::EI:s
qc. 1\
)
6010
~Io
101
'5~
100'5
/086
1,3.,,+
,
I. - 5.(
',=tJ3
"I,,,
5 (P.I>)
118 (ew. "16'/"1'1
53 +0 111 (l',I:\)
1# gs-'t:J~S '
'. - . / ,~. .
,,', .-' ~...~. /..:~~.}-t~.t'
. '. ~ " L,,//?;.<;:, .
~ ~~'-i:r ~ ~. ~~.,---~._~~--~-_.- . .~ ~ .~---~- ~ ~ ~
~.:;~ ~ ~~-i.o
-::-l1~~ ~ \~ t~
("
G
('
ci
~ k ~
',..:::. ~ '->
~.~ -!!~
~~~~
~ \
~;~.~..> :
I
!
I
i
J- :..:...c
~" j
~ ./ l
~\
~~
\ % 'Z
~
. -
~G ~~
~. ~~~~-
-5-- -\U ~ Jl"5
-- \ ~"'::>
~ Q.c)
~ ~~ ~
-4' C> ~ ~~&
~ ~O\
~~l
----- ~ ~
. ~ f>t t-
~.".. ')
'''X .
...:
I'
+-
~'t:
.... -~-----t- ~
~~_.
~........ .
~ ~ ,')
::;;r.:t:: '
Q
..3~
t
,
I,
~
Ii:
Ii
~
~
~~ ~
~ -'~
-... b~
--~
~ - ~%~----
I
I
:
!
i
I
I
~..,'" ~
-..
,
,."
'I,.. .~
~\~-
.."....
" - .;,~
\
~ ~-b-i;
'~ls~
-
-
("
~.
DUBNEY ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
2198:5 REDWOOD ROAD
CASTRO VALLEY 94546
(41~) ~81-15700
May 28, 1985
Mr. Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
Ci ty of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
STATEMENT OF PROJECT
This project represents approximately 10,000 square
feet of professional office space. It is a two story building
located at the corner of Hansen Drive and Dublin Boulevard.
The structure is wood frame with wood siding and composition
shingle roof. The building will blend well with the
surrounding neighborhood and once it is constructed it will
add esthetic value to this area since this is the last
undeveloped lot. The subject property will have minimum
"ingress, egress" problems because it is located on a corner
that will provide for two separate entries and exits for
traffic flow.
In conclusion, after the project is completed it will
provide more revenue to the taxing authorities and it will
also provide net economic growth to the area in the form of
employment.
Yours very truly,
Dubney Accountancy Corporation
By
k IJ
CPA
ATTACHMENT 3
-,
l
r,
R .~.C E ( V E 0
JAM 16 1986
DUBNEY ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
DUBUN PlANNING
21985 REDWOOD ROAD
CASTRO VALLEY 94546
(4115) 1581-15700
January 16, 1986
City of Dublin
Planning Director
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong
Re: Site Development Review
PA 85-045
Dubney Office Building
Dear Mr. Tong:
We request that appealable action be established, as of
the above date, on Site Development Review PA 85-045. The
Site Development plans were prepared by our architect E.F.
Joseph Puccio after extensive discussions with planner Mr.
DeLucca. Mr. DeLuccas directives were followed by our
architect including but not limited to the following:
1. Increase of Dublin front yard set back from 20'-0'
to 23'-6".
2. Increase of side yard - westerly - Hansen Drive from
min. of 10'-0" to approximately 14'-6" with an addition of
4'-0" recesses in the west building wall to make an average
building set back of 16' -6".
3. Location of parking screen walls - 15' back from
Dublin Blvd. property line and 10' back from Hansen Drive
frontages as directed by Mr. DeLucca.
4. The enclosed trash yard with masonary walls and
trellis roof were located in the northeast corner as a result
with discussions with Mr. DeLucca.
5. The parking screen walls on the Dublin Blvd. and Hansen
Drive frontages were designed to be compatible with the masonry
screen wall across the north property line and the masonry
retaining wall along the east property line as well as the trash
yard enclosure.
,
,~ ".
- .
AITACHMENT if
~
(
\
-2 -
(
6. Our architect was told that the site development
review process would take approximately two months after the
environmental assessment fees were paid. The plans were
submitted June 7, 1985 and the environmental fees paid July
22, 1985. The site development review process is still incomplete
at this writing as there still are some items, in the staff
studies of December 17th and January 7th, that need to be
resolved.
7. Our architect has submitted a revised site development
plan dated January 13, 1986 which reflects most of the staff
studies recommendations.
8. The following items are still unresolved:
A. Justification for the over seven months
to process the site development plans.
B. Screen wall design at parking spaces on
Dublin Blvd. and Hansen Drive.
C. Some Landscape key trees.
D. Location of street electroliers if any
are required. There are two electroliers
already existing on the site frontages.
9. Our architect offered to meet with staff in October
when he called to determine the progress of the site development
review. After allowing three months from July 22nd. our
architect was never asked to meet with staff to discuss the
site development plan.
10. A tentative staff study draft was mailed to our
architect dated November 14th in which reference was made to
the site development plans without benefit of any marked
drawings. Our architect called this to the attention of staff
planner.
11. This appealable action letter is being submitted
because of the unresolved items at this writing.
This appealable action letter may be rescinded if andwhen
the items listed are resolved to our satisfaction and to our
architects satisfaction.
Yours very truly,
Mr. and Mrs. Oleg M. Dubney
:h I')
DUBNEY ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
,-.,'!-
DUBNEY ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
21985 REDWOOD ROAD
CASTRO VALLEY 94546
(4115) 1581-/5700
February 26, 1986
city of Dublin
Planning Director
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong
Re: Site Development Review
PA 85-045
Dubney Office Building
Dear Mr. Tong:
Mr. E.F. Joseph Puccio, our architect, has submitted
on February 24, 1986 two sets of revised Site Development
and architectural drawings for our proposed office building.
These drawings are in substantial compliance with the staff
study and report dated January 7, 1986. With your approval
of these drawings, we hereby withdraw the appealable action
as requested in our letter of January 16, 1986.
Yours very truly,
&
~
i)
Oleg M. ubney, CPA
Pres" dent
ATTACHMENT S
,..__,._:;~._~_: ~-~~~~1~;f~~~i~~~~~1~7~~:i{,.::~:~~~~tft;~~q(t~~f~~"~_{"E~~~~.;.:;<'--'
r r-f"
~ THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P,O, Box 2340
Dublin. CA 94566 (415) 829-3543
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 12, 1985
TO: KEVIN GAILEY, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM: DAVE MEISER, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RE: PA 85-045 DUBNEY - COMMENTS
1. _ On Dublin Boulevard, the new sidewalk shall be next to the
curb and match the sidewalk to the east which does not have
a planter strip between the curb and the sidewalk.
2..... Pavement widening shall be provided as needed on Dublin
Boulevard.
3. ~ Deficiencies in existing frontage improvements shall be
corrected as required by the City Engineer. These include
offset curb and gutter, substandard gutter slope and offset
sidewalk.
4 ~ All portions of the site shall be drained to the streets.
Proposed grades at the rear corner of the site shall be
revised.
5. - The developer or his representative shall comply with the
grading ordinance which requires a grading permit for over
150 cubic yards of graded material.
6. _ The developer or his representative shall obtain an
encroachment permit for work in the public right-of-way.
ATTACHMENT 6
r (
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION
9399 Fircrest Lane
San Ramon, California
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin. California 94568
Telephone:
829-2333
July 5, 1985
-~'1 S 1!11~ n V;,7 ~l~".., rR\!1iu,~,
, :,'; '0 ~ U J Lk i! n
"I' D "~"'- ill)
.JU!- - L' )~'~'';
eIT'( 0;-: C-U:JU~I
CUiL::E,-~(3- IN.3PECT;()~1 DEPT.
Mr. Kev i n Ga i ley
Dubl in Planning Department
P. O. Box 2340
Dub I in, CA 94568
RE: PA85-045
Dear Mr. Gai ley:
The bui Iding must be sprinklered in accordance
with NFPA Pamphlet 13.
Vecy tc,"Y ~
cec:te"
Fire Inspector
CA:cb
ATTACHMENT 7
-~..-----;;~.~~~. 0'
. ~~",~.,_.~.~-,-~~,".,:,..~,..-~._-~-.-.._~~._--~----~-. --- -.-. .~--.~---~.-..-------- ~- . --..-...
,,'.
CONDITIONS OF APPROY AL, S- lG4B
10 -ee AGcO^'IP';'l'::"iED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND OCCUPANCY
OF .'\~" STRUCTURE HEREBY AUTHORIZED
I1tlc;.?$~u.. SCD!:'fELOPED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN, STATEMENTS,
ANl/CCtJOtTlOt--6JNDICATED HEREON. NO STRUCTURES OR OTHER USES THAN
~,;e /,'JDI(A""iT::P ARE PERMITTED.
J....._
'2.
3
'~
5
6
"7
--I-
B
NOTE:
m:, I
t"'"1O ..lfc;l:cation for a Building Permit for any structure hereby authorized,
'5ecuwea.?! ~ncroachment Permit from the Director of Public Works to construct
":;~~i).d' P,g:~. <;:~bJ, g~er, and sidewalk along the ~ntire fron,tage of
..~lp,! !~, :_J 'Uk.... Vr)\ . Said P.C.c. Improvement~
70 :::re~tructed prior to Final Inspection of structures.
\I~
Storr:n, drainage facilities shall, be installed as I nd I '
spec:flc locatiOn, extent and sizes shall be subject to approval by the Directoi
of Public Works prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Slope the site to the street at a minimum slope of 0.3% based on curb elevati",,:
approved by the Director of Public Works.
Del neate all parking spaces with white paint.
Construct a 4 inch high concrete curb (minimum) to separate all paved parking
and passageway areas from landscaped areas. Curbs may be deleted where
sidewalk adjoins parking and passageway, provided the sidewalk is at least
4 inches higher than adjoining pavement.
Building Permit for structure hereon indicated shall be secured and construction
commence within two years subsequent to approval of this application or said
approval shall be void.
Prior to securing a Building Permit, submit a specific landscaping plan prepared
by a Landscape Architect to the Planning Department for review and approval.
Submitted plan shall be in conformance with the general landscaping proposals
indicated on this exhibit and include a mechanical irrigation plan. The site
shall be developed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan prior
(I. " ;cupancy.
All utility distribution facilities to and within the development shall be placed
underground. '
This map has been amended by the Alameda County Planning Department
to include requirements established as conditions of approval of this application.
Minor modifications of this plan may be authorized upon the receipt of a request
horn the applicant in writing for such modifications accompanied by drawings
sufficient to show the proposed changes.
8
-
3
in
=1'..0",,_ ' ~-.. -,~-- T '_~:1Q.d',C"
l2I IE ~ ~ [~@ I I ~ IT III - -1-- i
~~rif;:~/" Rtlf-l~M~" 'tTrt.j.\' z ~'rr: .'~~~:
~1j\M5i ",~ J.:OO::n~~~' ~~\l:~ 5
.~ h "" ~ -' -"'" - .", - "" - ',", II l!."'':'' "" - - or'~ ·
~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~J~~~~ ~ t:l
, 'i<-<>"*I~~o-:-- -- ,_l.__ ____ ________l.____ L..________ ---- ---~-- ~~
;"~~~~G.- .\ ~"=,_c" !I ~";:G
: ~ nwU"UlZl'wrn+"3'O'~co.sr ~v=..oJl1\lE.;~ - ..
. ...."f~ ''''''' pll'E"1>'W..,.,.-oF'~ ,&/9'~lDLf\ '-";
L~~.~, - .'--------' \ .",!o".,- .,~.../ I ~ ~ Vv~(( Ir~. . u ~
.....~ ~ . ~ ) -''':It? ~1'\1EIlt:..1~~/ V
""Wol2'-- ---- ----.--=--~.:'~~~-----,--'-' " {\ ,~ \;>r~- --~-
15 ~+ "1~2' M~} ~~\j \j~ ,~/~' ~:SI~2;! ''',:5:~':~~':}~~ ~
-Q!. ,1 _ 'd'f. 1, ~ ;tv. f-.~' , 0 ',~;;;:
Zl" ,;" ~..., III t' YI ;:t . (1~'lill,
, I -.' I/" 9;?:'J\t9~" I : ~ . ':: ~~:'i'
,'"'- l-I1i'1'~ I~'; It' 'ij;; 'I- ~ ~r' ~,T' ~" ~
.' _, , \ 1~'lUPICAL """r"OA""'''C: 1 (\I '" -'
.. . . ,'~" . ~~~WI GxG'X.'1!IGo" ~ fi2l
. ~&-~~) /:., ~ _. _ '~:~ C~G~~:-'-'"'' -\;:~~~///~/~:~\~.~,"'!.l '. !:-"ETE ,"",psi jl ~" ~ A;I ~ ~ ~~V I.
W ~%\.'f.J ~~~$.@. v///////////.""<''' . = I ~ YJ~ .-
~(~l-<. . .~: (j?! r I ~ ~~y
I ^- )' .....,.'. ..\'::;-1 B I I ~ ~
_ ~/,'" ~ ?ff' a.:.i i i . ~ r-;
'\ .. ~I::,.,..j---'. 1 ' I l'< IiIL
:/~ . ~!yl;;H". I I ~ '~'2=..
'~'~<' ~~i:'h I !~, ,~~
/, I m~' .---~~,.~~'= :i':<".~._'-..,,}.if.. ".' ;~' jll t :(i~~~;,';'.' I ~""~..
J TW_O~~&~~CE '.' "."
't~. "BOI01IN~ ~?2:E;C[ 'kD./ - . I . ! 10:, J; :.,-;;
. l:: ~. -..-1'1- ~~'..~ ..~I.,":'7a:=:==:' ~ " ...:::: -,(-1-,1'
. :&{L':~; %~ ;,r'5;~!:~f~= i ~ ~ :r~
,,'~" .~~ ,~1, . I J 'I; t';--J ;~~
r~~' ::') 1--------.:] : a ~ ~~
. ;oj , ' , . !j I ~
. :;')1 " ~'!\: -----;11 ~ ' : ~t 1:.~ ~
, '. 'f;JA~" ~:j )/ I~! ~ I '"t ~~ ij,
..;,~ ~"),, :: :..--... r-hl
; . --, . ~ <) r=====3 I " I I Rf; .
., .;:'t~' -~_)'.< 10 I llL I.~ ~'Jil
''';1. , . ..,._.~~,"" ( I q~1 .I~ ~
., ' ~' ;. ;' ! "I, , ,..m
:'~. ri'l';-'I'r====3'j t I~" T ~;""
'~ ,~, ..~ ., , I I hi I ~ :- -1""1
;~, ~~~)'>' ~ ,,_, ,...,.. ',,-,_,'4 5 , .:, c..:
q: -~ ~
~~", ~ ): ',' . ve '..'7<9' ~'f;" I ' ,'0
.,-'-' . ~.. ~, :; - ~ --
,~-~. / ).= :n/PU:.1.A 1 '''6 ~...
~':." (.i ,.., ~WClOO --""
, : ' ~ ' " , lID JJ ~ OW CI
~":-- ' ~: -.;.:..:~~ :J '--a
""-,,--:~ ' . /'1
. '...
. ._~. 4'
-TL1C'tt:t -J,
1:4~~
,
~~
'~'"
"
_J.
e-
;-u!
. e-
ll!!
~
.
~~
8~
ol"
3:"
n
lJe
~3:
.~~
eg
~8:\
z't
e
--=-
~
./~
~
'''"
~
~8 .
I' 0
~~
"'",
h
"
.....,
~t.;
a~
~8
~"
o~
v!!-
, ~~
_'"
iil1i.
~-
~
,
"
-;;t
,<:
k
K W'$~
,- '
.
.. .
z
t:1"
~J':; ~.'
~
" -.
=-=~
.,/
..... .
.... ;'~
, 0.; ..
%~ ~:. o~<,~
O'T-'CU) . "';O>~,,?
rstA":'..-9'o;r". ~
tJ&;1=f". v
~)j';"'-
. '",,",
....':, -
-
- -
,.' .'
. p/12~1>
~., 'TUfb.L 0
.DEl...ETl
,,"--c' ~ -.u
'C-: -;'"
~.. .,.
"i
.'~..:. .. p ','
- .'
....-
~IMlT.OF_. . _ .&)::.....-
EX.1:m",:~ _~~:.. , _":::0
......'
..:..:.. DUBLlbL...c
-
-._BOUL EVAIZ.D
:JJEW_'ouac.a.ETE.:mIIlEW:;'_-..:.:,:..: - _/.
~PQOACH'.wnH'Ap2~. 11...12. ,.,
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
August 7, 1985
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR:
PA 85-045 Dubney (Owner) Puccio (Applicant)
Site Development Review.
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION:
APPLICANT
& REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
DESCRIPTION:
FINDINGS:
INITIAL STUDY:
Northeast corner Hansen Drive and Dublin
Blvd. APN 941-0113-005-2
E. F. Joseph Puccio
Architect & Planner
8515 Alana Road
Castro Valley, California 94546
Oleg M. Dubney
21985 Redwood Road
Castro Valley, California 94546
Construction of a two-story (10,250 sq. ft.)
office building on a 0.7+ acre parcel
The project will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
The Initial Study is attached with a brief
discussion of the following environmental
components.
I. Construction dust and noise
2. Traffic Impacts
3. Visual/security impacts on existing
adjoining single family residential
uses
4. Soils and Foundation Report
MITIGATION MEASURES: Project impacts associated with
construction dust and noise can be addressed by conditions of
approval for the project. Traffic impacts/concerns should be
addressed through application of conditions requiring; 1)
installation of any additional required frontage improvements 2)
contribution towards offsite traffic improvements as deemed
appropriate and necessary by the City Engineer. Project
improvements along the north perimeter of the site (landscaping
and installation of heavy wooden or masonary fence) should be of
a nature to mitigate potential visual and security impacts
related to this project. A Site-specific Soils and Foundation
Report should be required in conjunction with the issuance of
building permits to assure existing soil problems (high shrink-
swell potential, etc.) are addressed.
DP 83-11
ATTACHMENT q
(-
(
Report should be required in conjunction with the issuance of
building permits to assure existing soil problems (high shrink-
swell potential, etc.) are addressed.
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
of Dublin Planning Staff (415) 829-4916.
SIGNATURE, ~ ~ .
Kevin J. Gai y,
Senior Planner
DATE:
7-/7-8S-
.J I. I'" I. ~
," .":",
. ,r..
, ,
CITY OF DUBLIN
,
I
EN\.IJRONil'.lJENTAL ASSESSr'JlENT
(Pur:uont to Public Resourc~s Code Section 21000 et sec.)
PA No. 8,--tJ'IS"
I
FO;:;lM I {f\11ERlM
Based on the proiect information submitted in Section 1 -General Doto, the Planning Staff
will use Section 3, Initiol Study, to determine whether a Negative Declar~tion or on
Environmenta t Impcct Report is required. " .
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF
.' .....
Irr 1S'--O'l5'
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Fed-uel exptc~ctions of all answers except "noli are re-.
.. .t' d L . . ,
qUlreC on c. a.cne Silee,s.
. .' J
". . I
cx:;MPCNS\TT IMPACIS sc.u.LE OF IH~i1.cr
,. NO QUALIFIED T'.::.S "t;"NlCNQ;-;N
},'O I , .
. I CLl I 15
" . IE-< I' tH
" " " ~ B ~ E-o
" 01. 10 t:S
., .' : ~181~IS
.. .
, . ' .
1"'-" ,
1.0~ : I I \
/ I I I
1.1 Hydl"ologic aalonce '.Vitl con\Ituc,;on of Ihc ptoject 01 rCf" the hydrQ- V- ! ! !
IO'Jic bolonc.C' 7
1.2 Ground WaleI'" Will Ihf: proted oUed the quofiry 01" '1Vdnriry of .-1 ( oje'"d' IVC 7f' -tit)
9routld .....orer lupr' ie\?
1.J' Depth to 'IIofrJr TQblo Will th" rote at ....orcr ..,,;,hJro-o1 c.ho"t;e the c!-:pfh -/,/ I \ l
or 9ro"icf'lI of rho: _ller fable 7 1
1.~ Ora;~'Je and Cl:anf'l,,1 Faun Will co""ruction imped-: the nct\,lral droif'ICqe paltern v" I I I
01" caUl. ~lreration of stream cho,.."el forr.\? 1 ' t 1
1.5 Sed:m.,,..ration \-/ill ~and,u<:rion i.... a" arco relult i" F"Otor Kdimcnl 7v \ : \
tf'l(lu,", inro auioe."' --""1" bodi",1
1.6 Flnodin'J Will thcre b. d,l.. of Ion of liCe or ?ropcrry d..,e r" 1 \ I
I,.. 11.....00-1;",,'1 I
A-5
.
, ;
,
ill"lFO.'1ENT .D!PlICTS SCAU:. OF IL'1PAcr
NO QUF-Lm YES tJNt,Na~"N
., ~O . I
I~ I J~
I I H
c: ~ c:lE-<
. Q(~I01:S
t11QI~IS
..<.,:':',-,
\.7 WalQr Qv.J"'iry Ooct d'rinkit'lJ wofr.' l.Up?ry roil to mc"t )torc: and ./ : T I
rcdf:(ol llondatd,?
Will s.e-OlJ" bet ir1Q.~.e1'JOroly Q:'cor.\",c~:)red and 7" I T :
trcore-d? I
Will recei",inCJ".,...otct\ (nil 10 mc-r.' 10:'"\1, ,t.-:"c and II l I I
fcderol1tol1dotd11 I
W;ll ground wote' luFfcf conrcrninotiol"l by v.,ru:e , T I
'. : ),u'p':3;-l, inttu'IiOl\ of ~It or pollute.d ...arCI (rom V J I I
.. 1 I t
adioc:ent 'w'Ofcr bodie) or (rom another r.nn~..,,,i~rc:f .
oQ.,ire,? . ! ! !
.---
2.0 AI~ , t t I
I I I ,
. Air Poltuli041 . Will there be go:neRJlion and tiitpcnior. t"Jr r:)lIufont1 I t I .
2.1
by prolcc:t fctote-d odi...iHC'J or iO\ {'J:-o",t(~r.- i~' tr': t~:e 1\(~1'crE #~
praieet whic.." Vial C,J'o:ecd s:ol'e ~: r=:~i .....-:0 0::-
" quality 1tor.datd,,?
2.2 WinJ Alterotion Will drudure o:d rll!f",in'imp~de p:-c..-ciJir,:: ."in-l \ i I I \
no- co~.ninlJ chonn.eling or...,ng c:ertoi~ r.orri::!:)~..,r
eb1olrvction ot wi"d mO,",l::T'entl? I 1 I
, 1
3.0 EA~TH \ I I I
- / I J I
3.1 SI,,!," S",b;l;,y Are rhere porential dong-:" rcra'ed tn :bp~ r~il'.Jre\? ! I
3.2 Foundation 'Support Will rhere be: riJc. t., tiie or p!"op~r~ .J::-::J"..I':~ at I (f(~af# 3)
el(cenive d..:fotr.'oQrion of l'T'C:eriat,?
3.3 CJn<\OlidatiOl'1 Will there be ri,l< l'O Ijie or propcr:-/ ~e'::ow.e ef y/ \ I I I I I
: c:xce1.1i'..e C0f110:id:rrion or (oundari"")r t:V't,,'iol\? . , ,
" 3A Subsidcnco h th::re ri,k of ,,-.alar ground 1\.lc)1id,~t1.':.r. "u:'1( jotc.; 11'1 1 1 I 1
wirh the ?toie:cr? I . .
3.S Sciunic Activiry Is there ri'K 0; dO;:"loOge or Ion re1.,lrillg Frr:~ ~orth- vi \ I I ,\ I
quo:':c octivity? , 1 ,
3.6 LiqueFo~,ion Will the prnjecr C":1'.",~ r)t be l"!)I'pa1c.:J ~n liC;\J::~a:::t;on 0 I I I I
ot )(Jih in slc?~, or vndr,;r (ouncia:i"':'l\ "2 I ,
3.7 Erodioility Win thcre ~~ \.~1tantiol 10\1 or Ylil ~O~ ~:) c.....,- /1 .1 I I l I
lIruerion procti'c:"t? , I
3.9 Permeability Will the ?ermcaoi1:ty of :.:);11 anQC:Qt~! "".:!-: rh~ / 1 I I
proiect pU:1cnt odver~ condirions lelo,:oJe te d.;:- I I I .
velopmenr of w<C"lh 7 , 1 I
3.9 Uni~\J'G' feOtvrcs Will any unique seotoDicnl. features on darnaJed / I I I I
or de\tTo)".ed by p:,oject (lcriviti~s? I I I
3.10 Minerol R.JOUrce\. Are thcrllt geoiogic deposit\ at p.,ren,i,,1 f":.,..::r-.erc;nl .I I T 1 \
value dose to the Frn:~c,7 I
. . .
~.O PlANTS AND ANIMALS . I t t
./ I t t
~.1 Plant and Animal Spec;e~ A,a there rate M endangered 1pecic\. p:-r.,:::nr? / ! I I
Ato there 'Pedes pre.:..:nt w~icn Gre P'1.ti'c'Jrarly V I : I. -, I
:susc~ptiole to impacl' rra", hun'>Qn oc.ti."il'y? I I - -
,
Is there vf03cta,ion pt~1~nr, the tou of w!'id~ will 7 ! ! !
.. deny ro-:xl ot h..,bjta' to impotfo~' ....ild:i~e ~?eci,,:~7
Arc rh~rc nui...:Jnce :pc-:ie1 a( plor.r or n,im::, ((It v" i I T
which condi,ions will oe improved hy rfoe p~oiccr? ; , . ;
~.2 Ve~etatiyo Community TYrll=l Ate Ihere any unusuol populotion, of pln"h rh." moy ./ / I ! !
be o( \c:ient ific infere:. "2 ,
Are Iherll V1:'Si=totiYII cotnt:'1unity ryres w:';r.h o~c V' ! ! ~ I
portic'J:orly ,u':c:c?~iblo fo impoct rrr.:n l~v~:"l ec~iyiry"? ,
Au: rh:t!: rr~iol" tree, or moinr VC';lt':tn,i,." rh:!r ....iTt J/ ! ! !
" t-.o:: e~,,'c:Y'lr nHr:r.'"..( h'l fh~ r"oil'"cr "?
t.l"r. the:,: V-:'J-:~o:i..'r. r":'Imrruni,y ry:,,~,: r.....-:""~. ,I-r, r..,~, V I I 1 I
ot .....n:cn ...rilt deny ~~-:i..,r ho'Jilo. rr. j..:-.....:Jt'.: ,,:;:"i1;i~ I I l
1jH:cic1. ,.., to 0 ~u~..r.-::"tli,.,1 nvm',~- f')~ 1':7.' or.~~ =:'I:~1{~'. -- ---
4.3 0;" "1"I;'y Is thcre tubsro:'l;iC"1 d:yc......;''1 in ,h..~ n-~'.""l'\: .....,r.:~."::.1 I I I
01 reflected in the nVn'lht':" and 'Ypt'" ..,! ilt.,." :: nr:i:T'~1 vi I I I
,pecics p~eu'nt or th.... thrc:,:-din'l.:n~int":r.1 nrr,:",:,,:,,"'rr.-n: I I 1
or plont :.pec:ics prc1cnt"? I I I
I 1 1
1 I 1
I 1 I
I 1 I
I I I
I I I
, . ,
"4
,.
.'
A-6
r'
.,'
"
CCl\!FCNENT
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES
5.1 Educational Foc:if,ticJ
5.2 Comm-erc.iol facilities
5.3 L1~urd W.... 0'9"",1
5..1 Sol;d W..,. 0;9"",1
5.5 W.ler Supply
5.6 SIOf'm Worer Oraindge
5.7 Police
5.3 Fin
5.. 9 RCO:l"eotion
5.10 Cultural Facilities
6.0 fjUNS?O?TATlCN
.'
6. ~ T'Qn~t:'o,ion facilities
6.2 . Circvlation CDnflic.t:s
6..J Rood SaFety and Design
7.0 HEALTH
7.1 Odon
7.2 CtowdituJ Gnd Oen,iry
7.3 Nuhonc:C's
7.~ S',uc~lJI'ol So(~ry
B.O NOISE
-
B.l No;"" Lc..,..r.
B.2 '{;hra' io....,
I
D-lPACIS
Will projcct..d cnrollmenh odvc:ncly aFfect ,he ex-
rsting 0' p~op.31cd (ocilj,icl in terms of \pacing (ot
on acti....ities, ["dud in? daS1I'oom1, recreational
atC"~", and staHing nceds?
\VilI rha project impqd th. p'JPif/tcochcr ratio 10
0\ to impede the lc.o,"~n9 proceu 7
I, the 1c,",001 loca,~J such thn' it prescnh a hordJ,ip
for 0 poction or ,he enroUm.nt in terms of trovel lim_,
didoncc, or y:J(ety hoz:ard\ 7 '
Wilt there be on inadequate supply of ond cu:c:.en '0
commercial Ca.c:ililiC'J. tor .he projecr?
Art: proYiJ.ion1 (or :JoO'WO':Jl! c:.cpaeity inodequate ror
rhe nceds o( the projdcl .....ithout exclleding qvolity
1torvJordJ.7
Witl th: }1roject bo e"po:l-ed to nuisances and odo"
anociored with wa\tewoter h'carment pIont\?
t~ theta ina.;.equoto proyision (or di"?O"ot of "otid
.....osten generated by "le prCl'jec:.t 7
Is there inode:quotc quonti:y or C\voJity of ......oter
wp:ply to meet the needs of rb: Froiec:-?
'Hilt J.torm woter d'raino3C! Cd jt\ocie-quote to prlJy.,nt
dOwT\\lream r100drng and to meet Federal Stafd and
lo~1 do~ords7
'NiB rfw projecl" addilional population, Facilities,
()(' o:her fc-Otvres. gcnCl"ote an in.cre<nc in police service
~ create a polic::e h:J::ord7
Will the project', odd ir iona I population, FocilitieJ.,
rY oth.et" (cONte, genC"f'ote an incte<ae in fits ,e,.."ices
01' creote a rite hOl:ord'?
Will the proiecl he...e inode<;vore facilities to meet
rho recrearional needs of the residenh. 7
\'Iill c".Jlturol facilities be unavoiloole fa the protect
residents 1
Ar. the traffic demand" 01\ odtoccnl rood, c~rent(y
aiOf' above copoc;ty? If n:)t, .....i1I the praffle ;cn":'
crated by the proie.:t cays. the adjocent rood~ ro
r~c:.h or exceed COpoClty?
Au.. the other tran'5pOl'toliOo"l facilities ....hich )ct'Ve th.
proiect fnade-qvoto 10 accommodote fhe pratec:t'~
'rove I demands 7
\ViIt de,ig'" of rh~ prujed or conditions in the svrrovnd'.
ing orc<l i"ae<l1C accidents due l't:t circurotion coninc".
-"'ill proiect ro:sidcnts. and USl!'(S be eJltpoud to incr~sed
occident risks dun 10 rood...,.oy aod street design .~ lock
of l'Taffir. conlrOrs?
)
WIll the proiecr be ~x?o1;d to or genorard any inlen""
odOC"s?
\'/ill Ihe rC1idenh and users be e..p':ucd fo ctowdinq or
hi9}, dcn-:ity in ,heir phy,icoll;...;,,':J en...ironment7
V/il1 tho proiect be C'xpo,cd 10 or gcnerale roctotS rhar
r.ray be con,idt"ted 01 nu;\Cncel '?
Will dC1ilJ" and propo,ed c:o,,1Irvction tec:hniq~' roit
to mcel slotd and local buildinlJ code17
Witt the praj"cr be CJllpoYtrl fn ...r ~enel'olC' odYC't\..,
no;,... lc..,,..1s7
Wilt the pr..,\cd bo e)tpo~,-ri to .,:"n,o,i...", ""noyifuJ 10
nU"'Oru 1
SO'\LE OF IHPAcr
NO Qtu\LIFIED
~l()
YES
UNKNO'iN
, .
/
~
r . I Z
I~ I 10
1,:::1 IE=:
5151515
~ISI2Ig
-,-,"""',:::-
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I !
I I I
I 1 I
I I I
1 I J
I I I
I I I I
( ! I
/((+trnl1f 5)
I
I
/
~
,/' I
!
I
I
l
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I'
t
I
I
I
I
,
!
l
I
I
t
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
1
,
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
\ I
I I
I I
I I I
J I I
I I J
0"'4=-1,/ - "'Gj
I f yyl77I. 7r
r/ . I J I I I
! I I .
1 ,
/twA~lt:#~ \
" I I.' ! .
V I I
! I J
. j
I I
/ I I I
I I .!
V' \ \ l I
1/'/ I I I I
I I I
,/ l I 1 I
I I
I ,
I
I I I
I I I J
vr~/J:'f'q?e ~~ 7)
I ! I
I I I
I I I
I I I
; ! !.
. ,
'.'
"
cnlffi'lB'IT
9.0 (O~\MUNITY CHM~
9 ~ 1 Com",uniry Or~ni:tarion
9.2 Ho<nogenehy Dnd O;v<eUtty
"
9..~ Community Sro~ility and
Phy,icol Condition,
10.0 VISUAL QUALITY
10..1 Vie.....'
10.2 Shado,",
11.0 HISTORIC AND CUL1t1.l.).L
RE 50l$aS
11..1 Hiltoric and Cultural
~csourc:e:l
11.2 Aro:::ho~o!09icat Sites
.. and $truc:h....es
12.0 EN<'itGY
12..1 Encfgy ~.eoqvircn'le"h
12..2 Con~etvation Mc::nurc'l
lJ.O LAND USE
IJ.1 Sire JoI.o::.~rds
1J.2 fhl'1ic:.ol Threat.
IJ..J Senilcry lon-iri11
1'3..(. Watdw<JY"
(
IHP JI.cIS
'.
.~ OF 1H['1\0
NO QUi\LIFIill
~-o
Will rhe project di\l'upt on co..i"tin'J v:1 01
otgo"f:z:nfioru or Drnvp' ",ilhi" t"~ c.o:"..""u"iry7
Will rho proiec' chon~c the' charader ~( tho .:
community in ten"' ot dillribulion 0' concentration
ot income, ethnic, h~ulin9, or age gloup? .
Will Ihe project bo (u,po\,:d loJ or g.enerote on
Qr~ ot poor stability onJ phy,ic:ol conditio'''?
Will residents 0.( the s\1frovndinl) arco h~ ad.,,;etscly
aHeeted by view~ of aC" rtom the project?
Vim the project re'liCo!'nt1. he odvcnely affected hy
..,ic"N'l or 0' (rom the )UrraUf"dinlJ n,co? ~ .
Will the: project be oexpo\cd to or generate c)Ccc:niv~
)o~do~ ?
\Vill 1M proj=d involve the destruction Of' oher-
ation or 0 hi"toric re1Out'C~"?
Will the proted resuh in i'SOl~r;on of a h;st'Oric
rc~urc= frC'''" it:!. surroundin9 cn...ilonmcl"'?
Will thl.: protecr intro~""CC phy\icol.. vi\vol,. cudlole:
~ a~mo-:;F;,eric. eletT1c.nr~ ,hn, ore flot in ~~rcc'e' wirh
o hilloric reSl')vrce 01' i:s :.cni,"\CJ7
Witt the project iOVQlve Iho: dC'~truc:ion or alteration
or on arc!'oco1o"Jico:ll rc-:.nvrcc-7
Will the proj-:ct rc"...,1t in i,...,lorion aE at'll orc:.ho~I09ic:ol
rc)OVtce 1
WiIi rh!:' "r('lje:cr in~fO'i'JC'= pnysicol, ..,i1.UCI, audible
Of' aln"101?heric: clements rhot o,e not in chorader wilh
an orehaco1olJicol te'50vw-ce ~ i,1. seffing:
Ata th~r~ potential probte<t'l1. _:lh tha' SUf'pfy or
energy required rot' toe project 7
Will the ~:'\,,:r9Y 'c<1.u;rC'rTIcnfs ~xc~cd the copo.:ily
of ~e s':'fvice utility company?
will the,. be 0 net inc,r;<nc: in .ner!JY ",eJ rot the
p,.aied co",~.,rc::f to the no prot~ct oltc,n']tive(
0001 rhe rr.:Jicct planning 0"'; cbs,~" fai: to inc1ud.
ovoibhfc enerT( con=.,cr....,tian ",~(J.,urf!\?
0:;11 cQndit(ons o( tho site, pr?po,ed 1ile dc:vetopm~nt,
or luuou.,d'ing area c'.a:~rc: p.:)ren:iolly hCJ:ordou1 si.u-
o,ian,,?
Viti! the proiect QC" rh:: wrroundir\tJ QI~ create 0 rll:~1in<J
or imscurily and phy'fc.ol threat Q:TIC)"-J the resitl."h
nnd us:" 7
\Vil! :h: p,oject h~ ,,:xpo,~d to ,rlv-:fulnl d"'f"nl.;c.
noiu:.. air.. or ?J,(oct: nr.rt t:~o"n.( .....,rer pollution
~ "ther nui"'ln.:r:: ou.,ciore J ~;,h 0 S(1,,:lo'1 landfill-:
W;:t ,I,.,: projed aHec:.f on ellis,;n'J wefcr-o'! ,hloll';"
Eilling.. dredCJin'J.. drain;,,'J.. cul"urtin'J.. .."1~I~c di,-
ch.,,'lC''l,. Iou or vi,u-)I qva1iry or orh.~r land u-:.a
pr~cfi..;,=,:I. 7
,
!
A-a
.
tll'
I
/
.//
V
. .
.~
v
V
,/ /
~/
,/
,/
.~
./
/
vi
/
/
YES
UNKNO \'(01
I I '7
I~ I 15
o::lc:;:lo::l~
s::)\wIOI~
81812,g
....,..:.,..:.,>
I r \ .
I I I
l ! !
I I I
III
I I I
! ! 1
I .-r l
I I 1
I I I .,
/l~/t7F rlt?) .
'I I I
I I
! ! '! \
I I I
I I J
I I (
I I I
! ! !
1 ! ! !
\ L I I I
\ ~V:srC-lm<fq )
. I r \ : I
I \ I i I
I I I
, I ,
I I I
I \ I
\ I 1
II ; I
, ,
1 I I
v/1:1
v',( f"1
I
1 .
I
I;'
. I! ! !
v1~iZ'~1f //J
-I T I
I I 1
! ! !
I
I
!
I
\
I
I
I
!
I
+TF'~j\
I ,,-~
I .
1 I
I .1
1.'\
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
, !
\
\
I
\
\
I
.
:....' .,'\ J....
':' I
r-
.
. 'DlPACIS SCALE
ro-IFCNfitI' OF L\lPl\cr
. NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNa~"N
NO I . T
1 g:: I 16
I~ I I~
~ 0::
olw1o,:)
- ~~2~~!~
i . I I T
I
: I I I
. ... --
,- I, I I
! !, !
i I i
, I --.
. -,
... -, - - .-. - _h' - -. --- -..--. ..... -'\ 1
" ,.
: ,
, , I
I
T I r
" I ! ! I
.... T oi i
Olhot EnyitOO"lmental Componentr. . - I
.. ~ '. .
I I
I I - .
. I -;
I
I I T
j,
! I !
.
I I I
i
\
i
;
. .
C.MANDA TORY FINDIN GS OF 51 GNIFIo,NCE
(1) Does the project hove the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, subs~o:1rially reduce
the habitat of 0 fish or wildlife species, couse 0
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
susraining levels, threaten to eI iminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of 0 rare or' end-angered plant or animal
or el iminate importa:1t examples of the major periods
. or California history C'r prehistory? , '
, '.
, (2)
)."
Does the project hove the potential to achieve short-
,term, to the disadvantage of .long-term, environmental
,goals?
(3) Doe~ the project have impacts which are individually
,limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small, hut
where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is sign ificcnt.)
(4) Doe~ the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantia! advers~ effects on human
beings, either directly ar indirectly? ,I
A-9:
CUAL-n::IED
NO NO .~ tiN',Q-:0'I~T
.
/
I .
.
. .
.
/0
V _' 0
.
1(710 '17c !k;Jrz:fJ
/ fl}f! ~7S)
/
V
- "
('
D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga'e t:1e significant effects
identified, if any: $e'er el?Wv-u
E. DETERMfN..\ nON - On the basis of this ,initial evaluation:
~~ City of DlAb t i 10'\ finds that there will not be any' sign ificont effect. The par-
ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation :neasures incorporated into
the design of the project pro'/id,~ ~hCl r.:Jctualbasis for the finding. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS ~;:QUIRED.
o
The City of Vub\ ir\ finds that the proposed project MAY have a significcnt effed
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
Signa'ture and date:
Name and title:
v~ .~1s;::;_
i<EJ)1f\.J .:T. _
ffi I - 8 !J---
YtVlo? fi,;tfNiVt?7'L
Project impacts associated with construction dust and noise can
be addressed by Conditions of Approval. For this project traffic
impacts/concerns should be addressed through application of
conditions requiring; 1) installation of frontage as' needed for
Hansen Drive and/or ,Dublin Boulevard, 2) contribution: towards
offsite traffic improvements as deemed appiopriate and necessary
by the City Engineer. Project improvements along the north
perimeter of the site (landscaping and installation of heavy
wooden or masonary w~ll) should be of a nature to mitigate
potential visual and security impacts related to this pr'oject'. A
Site-specific Soils and Foundation Rep9rt should be required to
assures existing soil problems (high ~hrink-swell potential,
etc.) are addressed.
I .
. d' 1 ',' I St d -h' , " I d
**NOT::: V/here a project is revise In re~pcns~ to an nlolal U Y so ' ,), p\),.~:1.1a a verse
ff . a- m'l t'lga 'cd to a ooin t where no sign ificl1nt environmental effec~s wou Id occur, a
e eel S . e I. - I .
revised Initial S~ud,/ will be prepared and a Ncga~ive DedaraHon will oe re.:r.J~red iu'ead of
an EIR.
~ -
A_ln
,
i
APPENDIX A
1. SECTION
1.2 (Ground Water):
Development will increase amount of
impervious surfaces located on the
subject property and will lead to
introduction of urban pollutants
(runoffs from parking areas
carrying oil/gas etc.) which
collectively may impact quality of
ground water. Appropriate
mitigation is tied to the
development of the project's storm
drainage system.
2. SECTION
2.1 (Air Pollution):
Impact of the project to area wide
air quality would be undetectable.
Construction dust should be
controlled by the project
conditions.
3. SECTION
3.1 (Foundation Support): Recommendations dealing with
site preparation, grading, on-site
materials, compaction requirements,
surface drainage, structural
foundation, erosion control, and
with the need to have consultation
with a Soil Engineer and/or an
Engineering Geologist on the site
during site grading and/or
subsurface drainage, should be
addressed in a project specific
Soils and Foundation Study.
4. SECTION
5.3 (Liquid Waste Disposal): Availability of sewage permits
through DSRSD is unknown at this
time.
5. SECTION
6.1 and 6.2 (Transportation Facilities
Circulation Conflicts): Installation of frontage
improvements necessary along Hansen
Drive and/or Dublin Boulevard
should be tied into the subject
application. Analysis of whether a
contribution to off-site road
improvements along Dublin Boulevard
(as required on recent entitlements
- 1 -
granted in the area) should be
performed by the City Engineer
during the course of the project
analysis.
6. SECTION
8.1 (Noise Levels):
Project construction noise should
be mitigated by noise control
measures written into contract
specifications and imposed through
project conditions.
7. SECTION
10.1
(Views):
A continuous heavy wooden or
masonary perimeter wall and
planting of heavy landscaping
adjoining the existing single
family residential units to the
north should be required. Structure
lighting and area lighting should
be minimized so as not to cause
glare unto adjoining properties.
8. SECTION
11.2 (Archaeological Sites
and Structures): No archaeological or historical
sites are known to exist on the
project site.
9. SECTION
12,1 and 12.2 (Energy Requirements
and Conservation Measures):
Comsuption of energy resources and
continuation of area wide
dependence on auto-oriented, high
energy use would exist. Some
mitigation is achievable through
requiring energy efficient project
design.
10. SECTION
13.2 (physical Threat): Development of project may
introduce feelings of insecurity
,and/or physical threat among
residents of adjoining single
family units whose rear yards back
up to the site.
-2-
(-
/,,,
RESOLUTION NO. ZA 13-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCERNING PA 85-045 DUBNEY {OWNER)/PUCCIO (APPLICANT)
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, as
amended, together with the State's Administrative Guidelines for
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects
be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, A Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance was prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance was subject to a noticed public review
period (Notice of preparation) from August 7, 1985, to August 24,
1985; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did review the Draft
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the
referenced response received to the Notice of Preparation; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator determined that the
project PA 85-045 will not have any significant environmental
impacts;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Zoning
Administrator finds that the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in
accordance with State and Local Environmental Law and Guidelines
and that it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December
1985.
ATTACHMENT I 0
. '~""', .c.... ~." .,- '__""'."":*