HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-041.1 & .2 Vlgs at Alamo Creek 3/3/86
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 3, 1986
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Planning Staff ~
PA 85-041.1 & .2 Villages 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
Staff indicated that
issue would be provided at
City Attorney was secured.
elaboration of the Park Dedication Requirements
the March 3, 1986, hearing after input from the
That issue area is discussed later in this Report.
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 from the Commission on the five
sub-categories of the General Plan/Land Use issue area were as follows:
A. Commercial Site - The applicants acknowledged that the size of the
site for the proposed convenience store would have to be enlarged to provide
adequate room for additional parking. In response to the recommendation that
an additional driveway connection along Amador Valley Boulevard be provided,
the applicant indicated a preference to move the single proposed driveway
further west along Amador Valley Boulevard to provide for additional
separation from the driveway and the adjoining intersection. (A revised site
plan for this area was subsequently submitted by the applicant and is the
basis for the revised language proposed for PD Condition #75 outlined below.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. '7. L.j
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
B. Residential/Density - Village I - As proposed, Village I will be
below the 14.1 units/acre minimum Gross Residential Density (GRD) called for
by the General Plan. The Commission indicated its consensus opinion to allow
Village I to remain at the 11.66 GRD. The Commission also expressed a desire
not to impose restrictons on Village I that would substantially alter the type
of dwelling unit proposed (i.e., 60 3-bedroom dwelling units in four-unit
building groups).
C. Riparian Vegetation - Access to Alamo Creek - Discussion on this
subject was limited, without a consensus agreement/direction given.
D. Residential Density - Village VI - The consensus determination of
the Commission was that the 5.46 GRD of the proposed 146-10t single family
residential area in Village VI meet the intent of the General Plan.
E. Rental Units in Large, Multi-Family Proiects - While not objecting
to the intent of this Condition, the applicant indicated a desire to adjust
the language of the proposed Condition to assure retention of adequate
flexibility to avoid problems that might be created with the pursuit of
financing of the respective Villages. (Modified language for the Condition
dealing with rental units [PD Condition #83] has been drafted for the
Commission's consideration and is outlined later in this Report.)
Discussion deviated from consideration of the 12 identified issue areas
to more generalized discussion of project-related impacts.
Discussion was directed to Section 7, Traffic and Circulation, of the
Expanded Initial Study.
Cm. Raley stated that he was concerned because the School District was
apparently not adequately anticipating the type of growth which would occur as
a result of the subject project and other potential residential projects in
the general vicinity.
Cm. Raley requested that the Commission be provided with a sampling of
school-age children generation factors of other multi-family projects in the
City.
Cm. Raley indicated a desire to see another vehicular access developed
across the creek, linking either Villages VII and II, or Villages II and IV.
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS:
Staff indicated that an expanded discussion concerning the issue of the
project's park dedication requirements would be supplied to the Commission for
the March 3, 1986, hearing. To provide framework for this discussion, Staff is
repeating below selected State and City regulations pertaining to park
dedication requirements.
A. STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT Section 66477 (i) regarding Planned Development
Park Dedication reads in part: Planned developments shall be eligible to
receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body, against the
amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed
for the value of private open space within the development which is
usable for active recreational uses.
B. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
8-7.5 CREDIT FOR PRIVATE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. The Advisory
Agency at its discretion may reduce the land or fees required under
Section 8-7.4 by an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the area of land in
the subdivision which is to be used for private park and recreational
facilities, provided that:
(a) The subdivision, or that portion of it for which the credit would
apply, constitutes a neighborhood.
(b) Land or dedication fee requirements shall not be reduced by an
amount equivalent to more than two acres.
-2-
(c) The private park and recreation facilities:
(1) Have sites of at least one-half acre in area.
(2) Are owned by a homes association composed of all property
owners in the neighborhood and being an incorporated
nonprofit organization capable of dissolution only by a 100
percent affirmative vote of the membership, operated under
recorded land agreements through which each lot owner in the
neighborhood is automatically a member, and each lot is
subject to a charge for maintaining the facilities.
(3) Are restricted for park and recreational or open space
purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land and
cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the
City Council.
(4) Are in accord with the principles and standards for local
parks contained in the Park and Recreation Element of the
City of Dublin General Plan.
8-7.6 AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. Where fees are required
by the City to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fees shall be
based on the current market value of all of the land in that subdivision
as determined by the most recent appraisal made at the direction of the
City at the time of approval of the final subdivision map.
If the subdivider and/or the Local Agency objects to the determination of
current market value by the City, either may, at its own expense, obtain
an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which
appraisal may be accepted by the City if found reasonable.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 74-83. A 1983 amendment to the Subdivision
Ordinance to establish the following formula for calculating park and
dedication requirements and reads in part as follows:
The park and recreation area required for each dwelling unit shall
be as follows:
b) For zoning districts which require less than 5,000 square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit, .009 acres per unit.
c) For Planned Development, condominium, or townhouse-type
development, lot area per dwelling unit shall be computed by
dividing the total project area by the number of proposed
units.
A key element of the regulations outlined above is that the decision to
reduce the amount of land to be dedicated, or the amount of in-lieu fees due,
in acknowledgement of the development of private park and recreation facilities
is a discretionary decision by the City.
The applicant's desired approach for handling the project's park
dedication requirements have been outlined in his submittal dated February 26,
1986, entitled "Summary Revisions to Staff Issues and Conditions". As detailed
in that submittal and the previous discussions with the applicant, the
developer wishes to receive credit for the on-site private recreational
facilities and for the proposed creek-side pedestrian pathway system.
The applicant desires to have the Village VI (the single family
residential Village) recreational facilities reviewed as part of the overall
parks contribution package.
Staff's recommendation pertaining to the Park Dedication Requirement
issue is that no credit for private recreational facilities or for the creek-
side pathway system be granted for this project. The major factor contributing
to this recommendation is that inadequate funds would be secured to develop the
proposed park site if the parkland dedication schedule proposed by the
applicant was implemented. The monies currently allocated in the City's
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is inadequate to handle the development of a
park site bisected by a major creek. Additionally, new park areas have been
added into the pool of parklands on this side of the City since the CIP was
adopted that will draw additional monies from the City to facilitate their
development and maintenance.
-3-
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS:
Subsequent to the meeting of February 18, 1986, Staff and the applicant
conducted a series of meetings to consider specific conditions outlined in the
draft Resolutions of the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and the Tentative
Map. Outlined on the following pages are the Conditions which have been
modified, eliminated or added as a result of those discussions.
PD Condition #2-C - Second Paragraph - To be deleted.
PD Condition #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.
PD Condition #20-B - The project shall incorporate all reasonable water
conservation measures including water conservation appliances and separate
metering of gas for hot water heaters. The project Architect, or Civil
Engineer, shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or Building
Inspector stating the water conservant toilets, shower heads, and automatic
dishwashers with low flow cycles will be installed in the units in this
project.
PD Condition #26-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.
PD Condition #26-E - The recreational facility requirements for Village VI
shall be detailed in the Site Development Review submittal for that Village
and shall be addressed with the overall project parkland dedication agreement.
PD Condition #26-E - To be eliminated.
PD Condition #28-B - Parking and vehicular areas shall be screened with patio
fences or appropriate landscaping from view of ground floor dwelling units.
PD Condition #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.
PD Condition #38 - The use of entrance gates at any portion of this
development are specifically disallowed unless architectural treatment and
traffic impacts are addressed and approved through the Site Development Review
process.
PD Condition #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
-4-
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.
PD Condition #48 - The developer shall reconstruct and improve Amador Valley
Boulevard by narrowing the portion of the median fronting the property line to
Dougherty Road, providing lighting and landscaping, overlaying the existing
street section, providing four lanes from the entrance of Villages I and II to
Dougherty Road, and providing a separated six-foot minimum 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.
PD Condition #64 - The following design criteria shall be reflected in the
Site Development Review submittals for Villages I through V for the Dougherty
Road frontage strip adjoining the proposed sound-architectural wall:
a) Total minimum width of the strip, as measured from face-of-curb to
face-of-wall, shall be 19 feet, and shall be widened to 23 feet wherever
feasible. 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 mlnlmum 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 II-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.
PD Condition #65 - 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 ffilnlffiUffi 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 design shall provide detailed architectural design and
shall utilize "pop-outs" of a minimum depth of three feet, being
regularly spaced along the entire frontage. This fence or wall shall
extend along the Village II frontage up to the outside of the flood
control channel.
-5-
New PD Condition #66 - 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.
PD Condition #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.
PD Condition #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.
PD Condition #81-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.
PD Condition #81-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.
PD Condition #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.
PD Condition #83 - The developer shall provide guarantees that a minimum 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, V and
VII as a base (1,019 proposed units for a commitment of 102 units to the
rental pool). Commencing with the date of issuance of an occupancy permit on
the 102nd multi-family unit within Villages I through V, the developer shall
guarantee that a minimum of 102 units shall be available for rent at all times
within the above Villages (except Village VII) until the Condition has been
satisifed, there shall be no sale for a period of five years. 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.
-6-
PD Condition #84 - Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established
on the single family residential lots proposed in Village VI shall include the
following:
1. Front yards - 20-foot mlnlmum; subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director, may be varied from 18 to 22 feet to
provide variety while 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
-IS-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 not
utilize a shed-type roof design, but rather shall utilize a roof design which
will serve to mitigate visual impacts resulting from the height and proximity
of two-story units.
New PD Condition #85 - To assure that adequate diversity of building
architecture across the project as a whole will be provided, individual
Villages 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.
New PD Condition #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).
New PD Condition #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. This width may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet for the
remainder of the 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.
Tentative Map Condition #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).
Tentative Map Condition #4-C - An as-built landscaping plan prepared by a
Landscape Architect, together with a declaration that the landscape
installation is in conformance with the approved plans, that all work was done
under his supervision and in accordance with the recommendations contained in
the landscape plans.
-7-
Tentative Map Condition #5-G - Parking of recreational vehicles or boats shall
be prohibited, except in designated recreational vehicle parking spaces.
Tentative Map Condition #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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the scale and complexity of the subject proposal, it is reasonable
to assume the Commission may have difficulty making recommendations on all the
identified issue areas and the proposed revision to the draft Resolutions for
the Planned Development District and the Tentative Map. If significant
progress is made on these items, then Staff recommends the Commission consider
and act on the three draft Resolutions:
A) A draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
B) A draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning.
C) A draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511.
If the Planning Commission cannot make recommendations on the project at
the hearing on March 3, 1986, Staff recommends the project be continued to the
March 17, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. If continued to this date, Staff
has indicated to the applicant that the project would be pre-noticed to be
heard by the City Council at its hearing on March 24, 1986.
ATTACHMENTS:
Supplemental Background Attachments (These items supplement February 18, 1986,
Attachments.)
15) Additional Agency Comments received in conjunction with Expanded
Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek.
16) Revised Site Plan for the Commercial Site and Village I, dated
received February 25, 1986.
17) Memorandum from applicant dated February 27, 1986, entitled
"Summary - Revisions to Staff Issues and Conditions".
18) Applicant's letter of February 27, 1986, regarding proposed
Phasing - Villages Alamo Creek.
19) Applicant's letter of February 27, 1986, regarding Proposed Water
Features - Villages Alamo Creek.
20) Applicant's letter of February 27, 1986, regarding Proposed
Dedication of Public Lands - Villages at Alamo Creek.
-8-
City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 866-1400
, '" '"
, 'C -yo: , ,.
1t~ r.
f E. B 1 b '\'3'60
U.., pl.ANN\~G.
1)JJB "
Fchrullry 12. 1986
City of Dublin
Planning Commission
P .0, Box 2340
Dubl1n. CA 94568
Re: PA85- 041.1 and ,2 - Planned Development
Rafanelli and Nahas
Dear Commissioners:
This office has no comment on the proposed project, other than our earlier comments, especially
regarding traffic. From the data presented, we are unable to evaluate claims that there w111 be
negligible impect on San Ramon street traffic volumes, For example, no trip distribution
assumptions ere presented in the lb;uments to substantiate the claim of "negligible" impect on
Alcosta Boulevard or the Alcosta/l-680 interchange. We would tx:cept a final determination of no
environmental significance, if this information is provided and indicates the level of impact
anticipated in your Initial stulty.
Finally plans show minimal setbeck along the City's boundary line and, in one case, grading is
shown off site within the City of San Ramon. It is our request that all groolng be shown within
Dublin City limits, and that an appropriate landscaped setbeck be established along the north
property boundary - 30' or so of landscaped setbeck would be appropriate,
Sincerely,
b~~
Brian Foucht
Associate Planner
BF Imc
.08"
":"'>
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Go...mo,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~.,,-i."'.
. . ~
~
.ff....
BOX 7310
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120
141!)J 923,4444
February 13, 1986
RECEIVED
FEe 18 1986.
DUBLIN pI ..
-NN/NG
Ala 580 PM
SCH-None
AL 580112
R 21.. 43
Kevin J. Gailey
City of Dublin
Development Services
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Site Development Review for a Proposed Shopping Center and
44-Lot Single-Family Residential Development
Dear Mr. Gailey:
Ca1trans has reviewed the above-referenced projects and forwards
the following comments:
The number of trips generated by each project should be shown
together with peak hour volumes. If you decide to prepare a
Negative Declaration, you should show that the traffic generated;
along with cumulative growth traffic in the area will not have a
significant adverse impact on the ramps at Route 580/San Ramon
Boulevard interchange. If, on the other hand- you would decide
on a Draft EIR, please submit a Notice of Preparation for more
information on the requirements of an EIR.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Peter Estacio of my staff at (415)557-2483.
Sincerely yours;
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
WALLACE J. R BART
District CEQA Coordinator
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.
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.
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
,. .c".'; l--:-:~I~",.";'
~, ,',
. ,
Ii
f-
I'".,",'
.','
.\:
f
,
1
I
__._...., . '-'._ .,.._".'00-- ~.' ......._.'r------..'-.-...~.~n.-----,."...,.............-
'.
-- ) C.!
~--- , ~~~~~~-
--_.._~_._-.--~-- ,._--------'"
TOTAl I.JO, AGF-E:S{E\l:c.L,CCl--1!-.IE(<"CIAL,)
e,UltDll--iS, C,;:)\IEIZ-Ae.E (20 #(.)
I2ClAO'.> ! fAr-I.::..tI-!CS ('':: Go> 'Y.)
qr;1i <S.PACE ( lS4 <St,,)
4.~
.6-J
1,0(0
Z:Zo
n
I i
I I
I i
\ \
\ \
\ .
. \
i \
\ '
\
\ \-
\ \
\\
\, ,
\ \
\ \
'-::, i T E ~ F 0 po. MAT to t-J \:'\
TOTAL. 1--10. OF' PWELUI-l6 UIJIT".::, <DO \ \
\ \;
1JQ, OF F--UI-!ITS 44 . '\ '\
, 1-10, OF C- LJIoJITS IG: \'"',
TOTAL lJo. Of f'AF-t-<-I~,iS'-'mE&;D'11.''l) J"'"O \ \
NO. OF Gt~f-fOrrf STAl.,CC:... . .;,0 \ '\
.. \
l-J.O OF Cf'bl.1 ~"A,l-,l.~. 1D \ \
\, \
.. \
[;'"'
/ @
I
I
1
\
.\
\\(3'
\ 10 \
,\ '
, -
\ \ 11
\J II
VILLAGES @ AL.AMO cp..eeK
\JIl..L.AGe ,
SCALE: t"L;&.O'~.?'1
DATE:: 14 FE~. I'lBG>
\'1 fEe->. I~e~
f}Jt 5ef) S I Tff PL~
{fffI\f'I1d!Lr ~ - r/,Lt~ r
SITF
ATTACHMENT/b
February 26, 1986
REceIVED
FEB 2 '(' 1986
DUBLIN PLANNING
SUM'1ARY
REVISIONS TO STAFF ISSUES & CONDITIONS
VILLAGES AT ALAMJ CREEK
The following is a summary of tentative conclusions of discussions held
be~ Ron Nahas, Larry Tong, Kevin Gailey, Rich Ambrose and Lee
Thanpson regarding the staff package at Alamo Creek. These revisions
are numbered in accordance with the section, paragraph ancl page numbers
in the staff condition.
Staff plannina Issues:
Section - Applicable Regulations
Paragraphs A & B, pages 3 & 4
Parks Requirement:
It is the staff's position that the parks contribution for the project
will give credit for five acres of land contributed at the park site
and the balance of the parks contribution in the form of in-lieu fees,
calculated at the time of approval of the final map for the master
tract and based upon a contribution ratio of .009 acres per dwelling
unit. The staff proposal does not give credit for private open space
as provided in the City'S ordinances, or credit for contributions of
land and improvements to either the Dougherty Road corridor pathway
system or the Alamo Creek corridor pathway system. Staff reccmmends
that these credits be denied due to funding requirements for
improvement of the new park onsi te, as well as other facilities
throughout the Ci ty .
The Developer 's position is that the purpose of the park ordinance is
to provide for offsite recreation not provided within the individual
project; that there is no appropriate basis for denying park credits
which are all~ for in the ordinance ancl which were granted at Amador
Lakes. Additionally, the Developer feels that the contributions of
e.xtensive land ancl improvements to pathway systems along the street and
stream corridors is substantially in excess of normal street
improvement requjrements, provides a significant public recreation
benef it, and should be recognized in the parks contribution structure.
It has been agreed that a "Good Faith" attempt will be made by the
staff and the Developer to resolve the park's contribution issue by
defining additional improvements to be installed by the Developer
within parks adjacent to the Villages, as part of the Developer's
public infrastructure obligations. Should an agreement be reached
which is ultimately approved by the City Council, the Developer ancl the
City would enter into a development agreement setting forth the
Developer'S obligations.
ATTACHMENT 17-
-2-
General Plan & Land Use
Paragraph A, Subparagraph 1 & 2
Configuration of Commercial Site & Residential
Density - Village I:
Developer has sutmi tted a revised plot plan for Village I, which
resolves the shortage of parking, the distance of parking from
individual units, and the shortage of parking on the commercial corner.
This revised plan provides for 16 two-bedroom units and 44
three-bedroom uni ts . The revised plan also provides for an exi t
through la'1d cwned by Arroyo Vista to the south. SUbject to staff 's
final review, it was agreed that these revisions would remove the
necessi ty for a separate conditional use permit. There w:mld be a
staff condition requiring the Developer, in good faith, to pursue an
exit through the Arroyo Vista property, but no supplementary condition
requiring access to Amador Valley Boulevard (due to the difficulties of
site dimensions and grades). The Planning Commission has given
direction that they feel the three-bedroom units are a desirable
canponent of the project and that the density of Village I may be
reviewed in terms of the overall project density which is in
conformance with the General Plan.
Paragraph A, Subsection 4
Densi ty and Configuration of Village VI:
Following meetings with fire department, engineering and police
services, it was agreed that the two easterly cross streets in Village
VI would be terminated in culdesacs, but that the most ~terly street
w:mld be a through street. The Developer will sul::mit to his engineer a
revised design proposed by staff for two culdesac bulbs and an
emergency connection.
Paragraph A, Subsection 5
Rental Units:
The Developer shall prov~ae guarantees that a nururnum of 10% of the
multifamily units in the project shall be maintained as rental units
for a period of five years. SUchlO% E:hall be calculated, utilizing the
unmber of units in Villages I, II, III, IV, V and VII as a base. These
villages currently total 1020 units, requiring a commitment of 102
uni ts to the rental pool. Commencing with the date of issuance of an
occupa'1cy permit on the l02nd multifamily unit within Villages I
through V, the Developer shall guarantee that a minimum of 102 units
shall be available for rent at all times within the above villages for
a ];:€riod of five years. This condition may be met individually within
anyone village, or collectively over all five villages. Developer
I~~V
V
/'~i1
;'
V ~~~
-3-
agrees that until the condition has been satisfied, thee shall be no
sale or conversion of condominium units for sale within Village V.
Paragraph B, SUbparagraph 1
Village VI Recreation Facilities:
Developers have proposed that the Village VI recreation facilities be
reviewed as part of the overall parks contribution package. The
Planning Corranission approval of Village VI would be based upon 145 lots
(loss of one lot due to culdesacs), and 152 units in Village VII
subject to the provisions of the development agreement relating to
parkland. In the event there is a contribution which includes the loss
of lots in Village VI, Developers will retain the right to transfer up
to two lots from Village VI to Village VII. Staff is considering this
proposal.
Paragraph C
Dimensional Design Criteria:
Toe dimensional design criteria for the single family homes will be
revised to provide for a minimum five foot side yard setback on all
single family homes, provided the five yards is "flat and useable".
The objective will be to maximize .the other side yard, thereby
providing greater openings between hoUSes. The concept of softening
the visual impact of the development by setting back the second floor
behind the face of the first floor garages will be maintained. Some
flexibility for the five foot setback requirement will be allowed.
Paragraph D
Emergency Access:
With the removal of culdesacs on the most westerly road of the single
family areas there will not be a requirement for emergency access along
the flood control district maintena~ce road north of the park.
Paragraph E
Dougherty Road Design Criteria:
The Developers will meet the minimum 19 foot setback requirement from
face of curb as shown on Dougherty Road. It is understood that in many
areas this will preclude setting the' sound wall on top of a berm. The
sidewalk will be six feet in width and meander through the center
la'1dscape strip. In order to enlarge the Dougherty Road landscaped
zone, it has been agreed that the requested expansion of the pathway
along the creek will be modified to provide for a minimum of 50% of its
length along Villages II through V to be 14 feet from face of curb to
the flood control fence and the balance to maintain a minimum of ten
feet fran face of curb to the flood control fence, as provided belcw.
. r l'r-~(
~t) ~~) .
~\"
j ~t1
~u ~~\
0'~\\1'
J ~to 4
j yt<t b
-4-
Subparagraph 4
Alamo Valley Boulevard Frontage
The minimum setback to the fence will be 16 feet. There will be an
eight foot pedestrian bikeway path on either side of the road fran
Dougherty Road to the west side of the entrance to Village I and II.
Fran there, the sidewalk will be five feet wide on the north side and
bicycle lanes will be striped in the street. On the south side, t.l1e
sidewalk will be constructed in conjunction with the Heritage Gammons
project. Soundwalls along Village II will terminate approximately at
the curb retum on Amador Valley Blvd. and an open fence will continue
up to the flood control channel. On the south side of the intersection
the sound wall proceeding north along Dougherty will continue along
Village I, then behind the 7-11 to the west, and then to the north and
terminate a reasonable distance short of the Amador Valley Boulevard
right-of~y as required, to maintain visibility along the street and
into the convenience store.
Paragraph F
Convenience Store Site Plan Layout:
Conceptual approval has been given to the revised layout, ,which will be
studied further by staff.
Bus Turnouts:
Staff concurs that the dimensional criteria along Dougherty Road ar.d
the creek pathwaY system will be reduced whenever there is a required
bus turnout. It was tentatively agreed that the only required bus
turnout on Dougherty Road would be one south of the convenience store.
Final determination subject to approval of City Engineer.
Paragraph G
Loop Trail System:
The Developer has agreed to provide a location for future access to the
open space at Lot 113. It is understood that no decision has been made
regarding the actual provision of access in this location and it is p~t
the policy of the City to provide such access.
Paragrah H
Access Circulation Parking for Village I:
See above relating to a new plan submission.
,i ~1
~ ~
j iCo(u
j/~ 15
/ I c:
v~ \D j
00 ~&~
r \-\,~ 11(1'\l'
\", j)l\L
~
j *it~1~
.;
",
-5-
Design criteria for the multifamily villages shall be as fllows:
Building wall separation shall be measured fran the extrior surface
of heated space with the exception of the enclosed entry in Plan E.
Exceptions to the criteria provided below may be granted during site
development review at the discretion of the planning director on a
case-by-case basis.
1. Building-to-Building Separations
20-foot minimum separation between buildings wi th deviations of
the minimum separation subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director through the site development review process
to consider case-by-case reductions to 15 feet.
2. Building-to-Public RIght of Way Separations
15-foot minimum, except for building setl:acks from Dougherty
Road and Amador Valley Boulevard and along the first 100 feet
of each leg of the loop roads from T~ir intersection with
Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Blvd. where a 20-foot minimum
setl:ack (measured from the rear face of the sound architectural
wall or from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater) shall
be observed.
3. Patio and Patio/Building Wall Separations
15-foot minimum.
4 . Building Walls & Parking Area Separations
lO-foot minimum, with a minimum 5-feet of the width landscaped
for screening of parking.
5. Building Appurtenances (Including Stairways) to Building
Appurtenances Separations
10 feet.
Paragraph L
Archi tecture, Landscape & Grading:
It was agreed the staff condition requiring upgraded roofing material
to provide additional texture and shadow pattern would remain, but that
the reference "tile or the equivalent" will be removed.
j ~ Stf
~;;
-6-
PD Conditions
(Conditions of approval for Plan Development Application 85-041.1)
No.5:
Approval of "this Plan Development is for two years as specified in
Section 8-31.2, Subparagraph B of the Zoning Ordinance, or as detailed
on the approved project phasing schedule.
No. 20(b)
Shall be revised to delete water conserving faucets. We will detennine
whether there are available Builders Line Water Conserving Automatic
Dishwashers.
No. 23 - Recreation
This is dealt with at the beginning of the memorandum.
No. 26(d) - Creek Corridor.
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 Ci ty and Zone 7.
No. 26(e)
The Village VI recreation facility requirements will be reviewed with
the parkland dedication agreenent.
No. 26(f)
This will be deleted, except to the extent that there will be a
meandering pedestrian walkway along Village VII.
No. 26(j)
See previous provisions.
No. 28(b)
Parking and vehicular areas shall be screened with p3tio fences or
appropriate landscaping from the view of ground floor dwellin;;r units.
i~s
/ Jf1}/~
(t(" .
j t~~ D
j Z((e
./ Z<D -- f
J t<r; /P
-7-
No. 30
At-grade patios for multiple family residential units shall be
individually fenced with soil prepared for future planting. It is not
intended that the Developer will provide la.'1dscaping in the patios j' ~ ~ ()
during occupancy as a rental project.
No. 38
The use of entrance gates at any portion of this development are
specifically disallowed unless architectural treatment and traffic
impacts are approved through the si te develo~t review process.
J -% }~
No. 42
We have agreed that a separate conditional use pemi t would not be
necessary for Village I in light of the revised design which has been
submi tted.
, tLfv
Shall conform to the above right-of-way landscaping details.
/:y/4:<i
J~
/~~L\ \Jr~
No. 48
Needs to conform to the above right-of-way landscaping details.
No. 64, 65, & 66:
No. 79
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.
/ ~y11
No. 80(c)
if;~~OL'
The second paragraph should be deleted.
Shall be modified to provide the alternative of reserve deposits in
the event certification
of the roof does not meet the ten-year criteria
or if the paint does not meet the five-year criteria.
/.t(1/0'--
) '*~\ /0
No. 8l(a & c)
No. 82
This shall be modified to provide for a one-year parts and 'JJaIrant'']
guarantee on all appliances.
j' *r,1/
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
February 27, 1986
Mr. Larry Tong
Ci ty of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: PhasiDg Villages - Alamo Creek
Dear Larry:
Condition number five of the PO application provides for a term of two
years fram the plan development approval. We do not anticipate
camnencing building construction on all seven villages wi thin a two
year period and will, therefore, need to build the follcwing phasing
plan into our plan development approval:
1986 - Commence building construction, Village II.
1987 - Canmence building construction, Village III and Village VI.
1988 - Commence building construction, Village I and Village IV.
1989 - Connnence building construction, Village V.
1990 - Connnence building construction, Village VI.
Larry, in a project the size of Alamo Creek there will naturally be
need for flexibility in the phasing schedule to respond to conditions
of the marketplace. We v.Duld, therefore, request the right to extend
the PO approval beyond the dates outlined above for a period of up to
The years on any individual village.
/lZYi1~
~nald C. Nahas
RCN/rnmm
CC: }-lark Rafanelli
/Kevin Gailey
Lee Thompson
20638 PATIO DRIVE, CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537,0486
,
....if:
ATTACHMENT/8
-8-
Shall conform to the language provided on the attached sheet.
j ~(7
No. 83
No. 84
The side yards for tw:> story units shall be modified as provided in they:' ~f
"Issues" Section above. Also, the setbacks fran the face of garage
shall be modified as provided in the "Issues" Section.
Shall conform to the dimensional criteria under I, above.
! ~ c{~
No. 85
Tentative MaP Conditions
Bonds :
The Developer intends to apply for a grading permit in advance of
completion of the improvement drawings. It was agreed that subject to
the provision of security to ensure canpletion of grading and erosion
control requirements, that a grading permit could be separately drawn
and construction coonnenced separately.
Paragraph 4, SUbparagraph C
An asbuil t landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect will be
provided, together with a declaration that
is in conformance with the approved plans.
will not have to certify that all work was
the landscape installation
The landscape architect
done under his supervision.
Paragraph 5, Subparagraph G
FN parking will be prohibited, except in designated RV parkinJ areas.
Paragraph 5, SUbparagraph I
The City Attorney will be consulted to determine the intent and proper
language for subparagraph 5, I . ...
Paragraph 12
Easements:
The Developer will be responsible for development and recordation of an
appropriate agreement which will "assure provision of vehicular
pedestrian and bicycle cross access, where such access facilities are
canmon to more than one village".
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
RECEIVED
FEB 27 1986,
DUBLIN PLANNING
February 27, 1986
Mr. Kevin Gailey
Ci ty of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Water Features - Alamo Creek
Dear Kevin:
The water features shown on the illustrative plan for Alamo Creek are a
part of the intended design. The ~ct length and configuration of
those water features has yet to be determined. What has been presented
is an artist's conception. We are assuming that final review will be
accomplished at the site development review stage. There may be
trade-offs in final design between stream length and pond size. This
will have to be determined by the professional designers; however, we
do not anticipate the total size of the water features, including both
pond and stream to increase or decrease more than 40% frem the
schematic illustration.
COrdial~
(}2
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm
20638 PATIO DRIVE, CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537,0486
ATTACHMENT I~
-
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
February 27, 1986
Mr. Larry Tong
Ci ty of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Dedication of Public Lands - Alamo Creek
Dear Larry:
This letter will summarize the lands that we anticipate being offered
for dedication to the public. Parcel numbers referred to the tentative
map ti tle sheet.
Offers of dedication to the City of Dublin at the time of final master
tract map:
1 . Lands required for the expansion of the Dougherty Road corridor,
including all lands up to and including the sound wall. Also
including the lands of Campbell lying easterly of Dougherty Road.
2 . Lands adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard between the
right-of-way and the fence line of Villages I and II. These lands
will canprise the area of public pathway and landscaping along
the street frontage.
3. Park lands, includil'.g the park site lots P and Q. Lot 155, which
is the creek corridor lying between lots P and Q may be conveyed
to the City as part of the park or to Alameda County Flood
Control, depending up:Jn future agreements between those two
agencies.
4. Open space lot A and F.
5. Loop roads, tog'ether with the creek frontage pathway right-of'-way
traversing Villages II, III, IV and V.
6. The main entry road from Dougherty Road across the creek and
including all residential streets wi thin Village VI.
Up:Jn recordation of the final map for Village VII, we anticipate
transferring the open space lying west of lot 147.
We anticipate offering for dedication to Alameda County Flood Control
District, lots 154 and 156. Offer of dedication of lot 155 depends
upon contractural relationships between the City of Dublin and the
Flood Control District.
20638 PATIO DRIVE, CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415) 537,0486
d~
.ATT ACHMENlto .
Mr. Larry Tong
-2-
February 27, 1986
Larry, I hope this appropriately summarizes the timing and larrls
involved in offers of public dedication. If you have any questions,
please don't hesitate to give me a call.
.7{);1~
\1~
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/rnrrnn
cc: Lee Thompson