HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-020 ChcnOfcBldgAppl 11-23-1999AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1999
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 99-020, Chacon appeal of Community
Development Director's Decision to Deny Site Development Review
Application (Report Prepazed by: Andy Byde, Associate Planner)
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Sustaining the Community Development Director's
Decision to Deny the Site Development Review Application
2) Resolution reversing the Community Development Director's
decision
3) Project Site Plan and Elevations
4) Community Development Director's Decision to Deny Site
Development Review Application
5) Appeal Letter from Dr. Robert and Fancesca Chacon
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing
2) Receive staff presentation and public testimony
3) Close public hearing and deliberate
4) Options for action:
DESCRIPTION:
Option 1. Adopt a resolution sustaining the Community
Development Director's Decision to Deny the Site
Development Review Application; or
Option 2. Adopt a resolution reversing the Community
Development Director's Decision to Deny
Application and approve the Site Development
Review; or
Option 3. Direct Staff to work with the applicant to redesign the
building to incorporate similaz azchitectural elements
from adjacent buildings.
This is an application fora 5,056 squaze foot professional office building. The new building is proposed
to be located at 6129 Dublin Boulevazd and would be located in the BJ Dublin Commercial Center.
Located to the west of the subject property is the RPL Graphics building and to the east is located Cook's
Auto-body.
ITEM NO.
COPIES TO: Robert and Francesca Chacon
Alan English
PA File
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 1994, the Dublin City Council rezoned the property known as the BJ Commercial Center
to a Planned Development Zoning District. The Planned Development Zoning District allowed for a
vaziety of permitted uses, including: retail, restaurants, auto service and repair, personal services, and
office, etc.. As part of the rezoning action, the City Council also approved a Tentative Map request which
created 9 separate lots. These lots were later sold to individual business owners. The businesses within
the center include: Holiday Inn Express, Meineke Muffler, International House of Pancakes, Dublin Auto
Center, RPL Graphics, Cooks Auto-Body, and Gallucci's Auto-Body.
On May 20, 1999, Robert and Francis Chacon submitted a Site Development Review Application which
requested approval of a 5,056 square foot Spanish style, professional office building. On June 29, 1999,
Staff met with the applicants and their azchitect to discuss the merits of the project. The purpose of the
meeting was to articulate staff's concern with the chosen architectural style of the building given the
design of the surrounding buildings. Specifically staff stated that style did not appeaz to be consistent
with the azea because it lacked similar elements from the surrounding buildings, however it was the
Planning Department's desire to work with the applicants towazd redesigning the building while hopefully
attaining mutually acceptable goals. On August 13, 1999, the architect submitted a modified design to the
building. On August 20, 1999, Larry Cannon, the City's consulting azchitect, Staff, and the applicant's
azchitect met to discuss the recently proposed modified building design. Mr. Cannon, while recognizing
the laudable design of the building, commented that the azchitecture of the building simply was not
appropriate for the site. As a result of the meeting the applicant's architect suggested an acceptable
modified design solution to the building which, subject to the applicant's approval, would better reflect
the azchitectural make up of the surrounding area. The following week of the meeting, the architect
resubmitted the same design submitted on August 13s' ,and Staff reiterated the fundamental concern with
the azchitecture.
On September 24, 1999, the City Manager and Planning Staff met with the applicant, Dr. Robert Chacon.
Dr. Chacon stated his frustration with Staffs position and time delays encountered thus faz. Planning
Staff reiterated the concern with the architecture and encouraged Dr. Chacon to contemplate redesigning
the building. The City Manager Rich Ambrose, also informed Dr. Chacon of his right to appeal staffs
determination if redesigning was not an option. As a result of the meeting Dr. Chacon stated he would
either contemplate redesigning the building or would request that the Planning Department issue the
denial to the SDR and would then appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. In Late October, the
applicants informed Staff that they would not redesign the building and requested a decision be made, to
start the appeal process. On November 16, 1999, the Community Development Director issued a
decision, denying the Chacon Site Development Review application. The applicants then filed a timely
appeal, pursuant to Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Reason for Staff denial of the Chacon Site Development Review, PA 99-020.
The area surrounding the subject property is predominated by buildings with significant mass utilizing
industrial style building materials such as split-face concrete block, pazapet wall roofs or standing seam
metal roofs. The selected materials of building, particularly the Spanish the would not be compatible with
2
the surrounding architectural vernaculaz. Moreover, the proposed building has a residential scale which
would be dominated by the sunrounding buildings.
Site Development Review
Section 8.104.020 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that the intent of Site Development Review is
To promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development
compatible with individual site environmental constraints and compatible with
surrounding properties and neighborhoods.
Staff finds that the proposed project is not consistent with the intent of the Site Development Review of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because the proposed project is inconsistent with the surrounding properties
in style, scale, and materials.
Additionally, to approve Site Development Review the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (8.104.070(H)) requires
the following finding be made in the affirmative:
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
similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of
approval in order of this development with the development's design concept or
theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
Specifically, Staff cannot find, in the affirmative, that the scale, character, or architectural relationships
between the proposed building and sun•ounding buildings are compatible therefore the Staff denied the
proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive staff presentation and
public testimony, close the public hearing and deliberate, and either:
Option 1. Adopt a resolution sustaining the Community Development Director's
Decision to Deny the Site Development Review Application; or
Option 2. Adopt a resolution reversing the Community Development Director's
Decision to Deny Application and approve the Site Development Review;
or
Option 3. Direct Staff to work with the applicant to redesign the building to
incorporate similaz architectural elements from adjacent buildings.
G:pa99-020/pcstatr
3
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
LOCATION:
EXITING ZONING:
Dr. Robert and Fancesca Chacon
506 Estudillo Ave.
San Leandro, CA 94577
Alan English
2769 Canyon Creek Drive
San Ramon, CA 94583
6129 Dublin Blvd
APN 941-550-58
Planned Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution sustaining the Community Development Director's decision to deny the Site
Development Review application.
2) Resolution reversing the Community Development Director's decision.
3) Project site plan and elevations.
4) Community Development Director's decision to deny Site Development Review application.
5) Appeal letter from Dr. Robert and Francesca Chacon
RESOLUTION NO.99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING PA 99-020
CHACON APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FORA 5,056 SQUARE FOOT PROFFESIONAL
OFFICE BUILDING AT 6129 DUBLIN BLVD.
WHEREAS, the Applicants, Dr. Robert and Fancesca Chacon have requested approval of a Site
Development Review fora 5,056 square foot professional office building providing at 6129 Dublin Blvd.
in a P-D Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental
impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project has been covered under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 96-
050 B.J. Dublin Commercial PD Rezone and Tentative Parcel Map project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a decision, to deny the proposed
project on November 16, 1999.
WHEREAS, the appellants, Dr. Robert and Fancesca Chacon, submitted a timely appeal, pursuant
to Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, contending that the building would be esthetically
pleasing and would further enhance the City of Dublin.
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on said application
on November 23, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission refutes the
appellant's contentions and finds that:
5 ATTACHMENT 1
A. The proposed project is not consistent with the intent of the Site Development Review Chapter
(8.104) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because the proposed project is inconsistent with the
surrounding properties in style, scale, and materials.
B. The area surrounding the subject property is predominated by buildings with significant mass
utilizing industrial style building materials such as split-face concrete block, parapet wall roofs or
standing seam metal roofs. The selected materials of building, particularly the Spanish the would
not be compatible with the surrounding architectural vernacular. Moreover, the proposed building
has a residential scale which would be dominated by the surrounding buildings.
C. The required findings to approve a Site Development Review required by Section 8.104.070 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance cannot be made in the affirmative because the scale, chazacter, and
architectural relationships between the proposed building and surrounding buildings are
incompatible.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny 99-020
Chacon Site Development Review located at 6129 Dublin Boulevard and is further identified as APN
941-0550-085-6.
PASSED, DISAPPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of November, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
6
RESOLUTION NO. 99 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REVERSING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY THE
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION AND APPROVING THE SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FORA 5,056 SQUARE FOOT PROFFESIONAL
OFFICE BUILDING AT 6129 DUBLIN BLVD.
WHEREAS, the Applicants, Dr. Robert and Fancesca Chacon have requested approval of a Site
Development Review fora 5,056 squaze foot professional office building providing at 6129 Dublin Blvd.
in a P-D Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental
impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project has been covered under the Negative Declazation prepared for the PA 96-
050 B.J. Dublin Commercial PD Rezone and Tentative Pazcel Map project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a decision, to deny the proposed
project on November 16, 1999.
WHEREAS, the appellants, Dr. Robert and Fancesca Chacon, submitted a timely appeal, pursuant
to Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, contending that the building would be esthetically
pleasing and would further enhance the City of Dublin.
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on said application
on November 23, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review:
A. The approval of this Site Development Review application is consistent with the intent and
purpose of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, because
the project it is compatible with the site and surrounding properties.
B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the General Plan, the P-D Planned
District Zoning District as well as with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because a
professional office building is a principally permitted use.
Attachment 2
C. The approval of the Site Development Review application, as conditioned, will not adversely
affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare because the construction of the building will conform to
all laws and regulations and because it will provide a new auto-related commercial use for the
City.
D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements has been designed to provide a
desirable environment for the development.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because it is graded and level.
F. Impacts to views are addressed because the site is level and no views could be interrupted.
G. Impact to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because the site is level and there
are not topographic features.
H. 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 similar elements have been incorporated into the
project and as conditions of approval in order to insure the compatibility of the development with
the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods
and uses.
I. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant
materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an
attractive environment for the public.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby reverse the
Community Development Director's Decision to Deny Application and approves the Site Development
Review for PA 99-020 Chacon Professional Office Building, subject to the following Conditions of
Approval. This approval shall be generally depicted on the plans with notations, labeled Attachment 3,
consisting of three (3) sheets, dated received May 20, 1999 prepared by Alan English, Architect, and color
elevations and material board, stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department,
subject to compliance with the following conditions of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public
Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [PR] Parks & Recreation, [F]
Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda
County.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval is for the construction, layout, and
design of an 5,056 square foot professional office building, as generally depicted on the
plans with notations, consisting of three (3) sheets, stamped approved, dated received
May 20, 1999 prepared by Alan English, Architect, and color elevations and material
board, stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department [PL]
2. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may
be considered by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or changes
proposed comply with Section 8.104.100, of the Zoning Ordinance. [PL]
3. signage. All signage proposed for this site shall comply with the provisions of PA 96-
050, B.J. Dublin Commercial Planned Development (PD) Rezone Master Sign Program.
Any additional signage proposed shall require Zoning Administrator review for
consistency with the requirements and provisions outlined in the said Master Sign
Program. [PL]
4. Encroachment Permit. The Developer/Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit
for any work that is performed in the City's right-of-way. [PW]
ARCHITECTURAL
5. Exhibit A. Building design and architectural treatments shall be as shown on the
approved plans. Exterior colors shall be consistent with the color material board,
stamped approved. Any variations or modifications to the design, layout and colors of the
building may be considered and will require prior review and approval by the Community
Development Department. [PL]
6. Screening. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and other mechanical
equipment on-site, either ground or roof mounted, shall be effectively screened or
enclosed from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main
structure. [PL]
7. Trash Bins. All trash bin(s) used for this site shall, at all times, be maintained within the
covered trash/storage area as shown on the plans, Exhibit A. A minimum 10' wide x 20'
long concrete apron shall be installed in front of the covered trash/storage area to
facilitate the disposal company's mechanical pick-up service and shall reflect the
dimensional criteria deemed acceptable by the Livermore Dublin Disposal Service. The
trash enclosure may need to be covered to met the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. [PL, B]
LIGHTING
8. Isochart. The Developer shall prepare a Lighting Isochart to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development. Exterior lighting shall
be provided within the parking lot and on the building and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular
traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs
(1.5 foot candles). Wall lighting around the perimeters of the building shall be supplied to
provide "wash" security lighting. The Lighting Isochart shall be provided and subject to
the review and approval of Dublin Police Services and the Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. [PL, B, PO]
PARKING
9. Parking layout. All parking spaces for the site, as shown on the approved plans, shall
be consistent with the approved Planned Development parking layout of the B.J.
Commercial Site. The final layout and design of the parking area shall be subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer. All spaces shall be double-striped with 4-inch
wide stripes set approximately 2 feet apart. Handicapped, visitor, employee and compact
parking spaces shall be appropriately identified on the pavement and designated on the
parking plan. [PL, PWJ
10. Handicapped ramps. Handicapped ramps and parking stalls shall be provided and
maintained as required by the State of California Title 24 provisions. All required
handicap signage for the parking stalls shall be installed. [PL, B]
11. Curb adjacent landscaping. All landscaping adjacent to parking stalls shall maintain a
minimum 1 foot wide raised curb or equivalent to facilitate pedestrian access.
Continuous curbing shall be provided for all parking stalls. [PL]
12. Radii of landscape planters. All landscape planters within the parking area shall
maintain a five (5) foot curb radius, or be 2 feet shorter than adjacent parking spaces
(with three (3) foot curb radii) to facilitate vehicular maneuvering. [PL]
13. Striping, drive aisles and sidewalks. The Developer/Applicant shall configure the
layout of pavement striping, drive aisles and sidewalks for maximized traffic safety, which
will include traffic circulation, convenience and site distance per City of Dublin Zoning
Standards. [PWJ
14. Fire lanes. The Developer/Applicant shall have all curbs within the development which
have been designated as fire lanes painted red with white three inch high lettering stating
"NO STOPPING -FIRE LANE". [F]
LANDSCAPING
15. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. A Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall
be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. All
landscaping shall be generally consistent with that shown on Exhibit A, and shall also be
generally consistent with the preliminary landscape plans approved under PA 96-050,
B.J. Dublin Commercial Planned Development Rezone. [PL]
16. Obstruction. Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians
or bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller
than thirty (30) inches above the curb. [PL, PW]
17. Maintenance. All landscape areas on the site shall be enhanced and properly
maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site, including the
removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written approval from the
Community Development Department. [PL]
18. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement Form. The
Developer/Property Owner shall complete and submit the Standard Plant Material,
Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement Form (attached) prior to the issuance of a building
permit. [PL]
19. Installed prior to occupancy. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required
landscaping and irrigation, including the installation of street trees and irrigation lines
within the sidewalk, shall be installed. [PL, B]
20. not used.
21. Street trees. The Developer/Applicant shall provide street trees in tree wells on the
adjacent streets. The number and location of the trees will be determined during the
Grading plancheck review process. [PW]
POLICE SECURITY
22. Security hardware. All security hardware for the use must comply with the City of
Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements. Security hardware must be provided for
all doors, windows, roof, vents, and skylights and any other areas per Dublin Police
Services recommendations and requirements. [B, PO]
23. Security program. The Developer/Property Owner shall work with Dublin Police
Services on an ongoing basis to establish an effective robbery, burglary, theft prevention
and security program for the business. [PO]
24. Graffiti. The Developer/Property Owner shall, at all times, keep the site and building
clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. Graffiti resistant paints for
the structures and film for windows or glass should be used. [PO, PL]
25. Addresses. Addressing and building numbers shall be visible from the approaches to
the building. [PO]
26. Employee exit doors. Employee exit doors shall be equipped with 180 degree viewers
if there is not a burglary resistant window panel in the door from which to scan the
exterior. [PO]
27. Lighting over exterior doors. The Applicant shall provide lighting over exterior doors
and provide for lighting in the parking lot areas. Lighting fixtures shall be of a vandal
resistant type. [PO]
28. Height. Exterior landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and fullness giving patrol
officers and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. [PO]
FIRE PROTECTION
29. Regulations. The Developer/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations
and requirements of the Alameda County Fire Department (ACED), including payment of
all appropriate fees. [F]
30. Sprinklers. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be designed and installed to the specifications
of NFPA 13, 1996 edition. Plans and calculations shall be submitted to the fire
department for review and approval prior to installation. A permit for the system
installation shall be applied for and fees paid prior to installation. [F]
31. Fire Department Connection. The Fire Department Connection shall be located near
the curb return on Dublin Boulevard. [F]
32. Flammable and combustible liquids. Provide details for the storage and dispensing of
flammable and combustible liquids. [F]
33. Fire extinguishers. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with the
Uniform Fire Code, and/or State Fire Code for the specific occupancy. [F]
34. Emergency lighting. Emergency lighting shall be installed. [F]
35. KNOX box. A KNOX box shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Inspector. [F]
36. Fees. Prior to the occupancy of a building, a Fire Permit, Plan Review, Inspection and
Service Fee shall be paid, in accordance with Alameda County Fire Department (ACED),
requirements. [F, B]
WATER AND SEWER SERVICES
37. Requirements. The Developer/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable
requirements and regulations of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
[DSR, PL]
38. Improvement plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, complete improvement
plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the DSRSD
Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and
all DSRSD policies. [DSR]
39. Easement dedications. Prior to the approval by the City of a grading permit, the
locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall
be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. [DSR]
40. Separate instrument. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by
separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final
Map. [DSR]
41. Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan check
fees, inspection fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge
permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in
the DSRSD Code. [DSR]
42. Improvement plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all improvement plans for
DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement
plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the
sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the
Developer shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of
construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, aone-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts
and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Developer shall allow at least 15 working
days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District
Engineer. [DSR]
43. Utility Construction Permit. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted
unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction
permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition #43 above have been
satisfied. [DSR]
44. Hold Harmless. The Applicant/Developer/Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board
of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify
and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction
and completion of the project. [DSR]
DRAINAGE/GRADING
45. Grading Permit. The Developer/Applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Public
Works Department. An information packet on the Grading Permit process can be
obtained at the Public Works counter at City Hall. Included in the Grading Permit packet
is the City of Dublin's Plan Check List, which shall be adhered to as a part of these
Conditions. [PWJ
46. Drainage issues. The Developer's/Applicant's Civil Engineer shall address all drainage
issues in and around the building. Issues which should be addressed include, but are not
necessarily limited to: Roof water leaders shall drain to an approved drainage system;
site drainage shall meet the current Uniform Building Code requirements, i.e., no
concentrated water across public property; no drainage onto adjacent property unless an
easement is provided; and slopes of landscaped areas should be 1 % minimum. [PWJ
47. Curb with gutter. Where storm water flows against a curb, a curb with gutter shall be
used. The flow line of all asphalt paved areas carrying water shall be slurry sealed at
least three feet on either side of the center of the swale. Minimum slopes on asphalt
parking areas shall be 1% and maximum slopes 5%. [PW]
48. Catch basins. All catch basins within paved areas not against curb and gutter shall have
a 3 foot concrete apron around all sides of the inlet per City of Dublin Standard Plans.
[PW]
49. NPDES. The Developer/Property Owner shall comply with all National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and requirements at all times. [PWJ
ON &OFF-SITE/PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
50. Public Facilities Fee. The Developer/Property Owner shall pay a Public Facilities Fee
prior to issuance of building permits. [B, PL]
51. Pedestrian walkways. Any new on-site pedestrian walkways shall maintain a minimum
4-foot unobstructed width. [PL, PW]
52. Standards. Any improvements within the public Right-of-Way, including curb, gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving and utilities, shall be constructed in accordance with
approved standards and/or plans and may be constructed only after an encroachment
permit has been issued by the City of Dublin. [PW]
53. Erosion control measures. The Developer shall install erosion control measures in all
areas of the site during construction between November 15 and April 15 to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. These measures shall include straw mats in
landscape areas behind sidewalks adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, a gravel construction
entrance and sediment control in all storm drainage inlets in accordance with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board Manual of Sediment Control. [PW]
54. Wells. Zone 7 administers a program for the destruction of unused wells in he
Livermore-Amador Valley. Known water wells without a documented intent of future use,
filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in
accordance with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7. There is one well of
record, well 3S/1 E5F9 which was constructed by C.C. Bancorp on the Dublin Boulevard
frontage (see map in Department of Community Development files). [Zone 7]
55. Water line. Zone 7 owns a 24-inch water line located within the 15-foot easement as
shown on the enclosed plans. A Zone 7 encroachment permit is required prior to any
work within the 15-foot waterline easement. The encroachment permit will have specific
conditions for construction within the waterline easement. This permit will become
effective upon payment of an application fee and the deposit of an approved surety bond
with Zone 7 an any applicable inspection charges.
1. The Zone 7 waterline includes a manhole structure located within the project area. The
contractor shall raise and adjust the manhole lid to new grade in compliance with Zone 7
standards. [Zone 7}
56. Underground utilities. The Developer shall construct all underground utilities to the
project building in accordance with the governing utility agency and the Director of Public
Works. [PW]
57. ADA access. The Developer's/Applicant's Civil Engineer shall incorporate into a revised
Site Plan a minimum four foot wide pedestrian access from Dublin Boulevard to the site
per current Title 24/ADA requirements. [PW]
58. Standard Conditions of Approval. The Developer shall conform to all City Standard
Conditions of Approval. [PW]
59. Fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with and/or
pay all applicable connection fees, development fee and traffic impact fees.[B]
60. Plans. The Developer shall submit site plans, grading and utility plans to the City Public
Works Department for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. [PWJ
61. Roof drains. Roof drains shall empty directly into the storm drain system. The applicant
shall comply with all National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulations and
requirements at all times during construction. Roof water, or other concentrated
drainage, shall not be directed onto adjacent properties, sidewalks or driveways. No
drainage shall flow across property lines. [PW, B, PL]
DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
62. Trash/debris. Measures shall be taken to contain all construction related trash, debris,
and materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The Developer/Property
Owner shall keep the adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt,
mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer/Property Owner shall
be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City of Dublin. [B, PW]
63. Dust. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered,
or other dust palliative measures used, to prevent dust, as conditions warrant. [PW, B]
64. Temporary construction fencing. The use of any temporary construction fencing shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director and the Building
Official. [PW, B, PL]
MISCELLANEOUS
65. Conditions/regulations. The Developer/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable
Alameda County Fire Department, Public Works Department standard conditions, Dublin
Police Services, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District regulations and
requirements. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written documentation
from each such agency or department to the Community Development Department,
indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. [B, PL]
66. Maintenance. The Developer/Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining the
premises in a safe, clean and litter-free conditions at all times. [PL]
67. Nuisance. The Developer/Property Owner shall control all activities on the site so as not
to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses or uses. No loudspeakers
or amplified music shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the building. [PO,
P L]
68. Accessory structures. The use of any detached accessory structures, such as storage
sheds or trailer/container units, used for storage or for any other purpose, shall not be
allowed on the site at any time. Outdoor vehicle parking and/or storage, including the
storage of materials or equipment of any kind is prohibited. All activities associated with
this business shall be conducted inside of the building. [PL, B, F]
69. Regulations/UBC. The Developer/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable
regulations and requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection
Department. [B]
70. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction
commenced within one (1) year after the effective date of this approval or said
approval shall be void. This one (1) year period may be extended an additional one (1)
year after the expiration date of this approval (a written request for the extension must be
submitted prior to the expiration date) by the Community Development Director upon the
determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above
stated Findings of Approval will continue to be met. [B, PL]
71. To apply for building permits, the Developer shall submit thirteen (13) sets of full
construction plans for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an
annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval, including any attached Special
Conditions. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be
complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions
attached to each set of plans. The Developer will be responsible for compliance with all
Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City
agencies prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. [B, PL, PW]
72. Plans. As indicated by the Condition above, said plans shall be fully dimensioned
(including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed
conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, architect or
landscape architect. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with
each other. [B, PL, PWJ
73. Conditions of approval. The Developer/Property Owner shall develop this project and
operate all uses in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development
Review and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the
terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. [PL]
74. Permit revocable. The permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section
8.132 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23`d day of November, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
(/ `v\
(~`/~~'
~
Z ta~
a~
~ ~ ~{6
V {
' _yy
~
Q
F Z 3 °~~i= '" ~ Y
a v ~~ i ~i$CS Y ~'" ~
M ~ d F
C
W
®
M
YI 17f
Y/ [
L U
~ y
N C ~
~ m
Ek6
w ~ U
m 6
m
0
L c2 ~
~~
~a m oo ~~ ~
c
on
[~
v
a
o
m
o
~
~
F
3~
60
a'
a
qJ
I'1 ~ w '~" ~ ~~ W
of h;~i ~
~ ~ W
~ c'i' ,
~I ~II:W
e
HN
:f ~ y
MA r3
II
pp
J~..n~ ~ ~ i. I
1£~.
I~ ~ ~ a ~.~
~ I ~
^' ~ °
j ~ i .
C ~ ~~ V I
w~K~U
:o~~~ ~ a
sr
_ 4 ~-
. Y9I' C
8' S
6 ~-~ ~ y u .
y ~~
BT'
~gi '~'n ~ "yLi
1
~~8 nl ^,1 ~ ~-
C
t0
a
.~
.~
S
O
.~
- L
I 1
W
~ ~
,!
d I.
I
I
3 m
~ o
~ ~ m
s
I
~ C
~ i
~ i Q
0
II ~
~ A UI
~1
1
~~
~`
~`
err,
rn = _.
S.9 . ,
~:
a
t~
a $m
~ ~~
a
o~ R ~aR $ I C I
~ ~ ~ii ~ W
a° ~ ~
2
U
C p~O o a Q
0 N ~ N
O ' " ~
a
F
~ ~ ~
N ~ a U
"n
S
a~
C d
ag
~ ~
9
C
J t
C
0
._
iii
r
_ _ LL ~i
~~g"i
6i L .- Y ~
. I ~ `
i ~
ai-
'~
f ~ ~
0
~-
C
~ ,
x
~
<~
r ~
`~ 4
~'~~
~ ~
F €`
''
~ N
Z~~ c
Y
~
3 ~ itE v $ ~
C y s
m
~
~
•~
~
2
i
j ~ t
'+ n
;
1
it
~ \ I
__ ~ at
~ ~ S
I I
I
-_'__..e:as. __-_ AfJ. .9.Oi ~
]6'e]L ] ]O LL LO N ~I
n'
W ~
i
p. ! :
~i 31 =
i~ - r
~L.
"t
O
O
_-
J
~ 1
1
- -,,, e~ , ~~ ~ T ~~,
~I
- I ~l
~ ~ ,~~
®~ I ~ ~
~
S
~~~, ~ ~~
~
; ~
o o e.
~
,
t. - ~ -~ I
I
~ ~
3 ~
>
7 __ _
~t
- _
'
c
~~
'
T
~ C
~ r~ ~ c 3
GG _ _ _ ~n;}~
L
J F ~
y ~
IY r
_ _ A '~jtivS.. I
e~ ~.L
_
~ ~
i `
~ _a.
1 _1_ 1 -_`
~I
i
-
B ~
r
;a
-- I ~- ~ ~_,
U
oL~e]L a ]o a Lo N ~ l__~ o
3
~~
~~
m 2
S ~ Y
o :
L:2
i.Cd
J ~
~ irr ~ I
I
i O
O
-- I
` .un .ca.ree+e ~
~ .
~~
y-
v . I I_
i
Y
~ •
w ° ~
E
~ ~
]
J J 1j
x
i.
~` O
C
-
~ •##
f ® _
'.
~
. _
.. ~
L ~
Q
(Q
_.._
.
__ s .
-
.
J
~
L
0
~ Z
= 3
~
~
p
c
t . 3
~ 0 o ~ --
~
~ 1L? E
~ ~ ~ W
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ u
® ~ _ _
a ~
® F
~ ~ i. .~ ~ ~I 0
AO
~
~ ~ L~ U ~J ~ ~'_ - oo
C
qq
~r~ ~ y~ ~tl ~F ~ i
~
~ 3
E
~~
~
~ 0
®
~ --
~ O
~0
i ~ I YCJ ~
i ~~_ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~~ a ~ ]~~~
b~ ~
~ / ~ ~ J
A
, ., .. ,~
.
: - - -
l
2~ .__
~ ~
~ D
,,
_~
~~~~
--
- ~ '; '~-
_'
I ,
I ;
~,
r
_ u
~/
fiib`
*
~ ~f
iq
4 P
E t
F
~
/yp
~ e ts J Q
Z yy; P
W
.~~ i tpp
i
~iYtE P # ~ d ''
-_ u_.}
t fn
+
Y
_ ~I ~ Y
Se I / C
~ 4r
Y !
~
~ +
I ._ ~-._.-
i Y
~ i{~
'
~
'
^~
~ ~ 2
~1 .i
i ~ .
PI ~ .. o ~
~ I
~, j
~
~
r
I i rtx
~
~
3
~
~
' ~
i
(
~
r,, v ~' ~ , I: I
, ~
2
j ~3 ~
,,, i ~„ ` i ~ I I ' ~
m
~ ~ , ~ I<< ~
~;
~' ~i~
f=1
tE~
Yi
~
I
i:i
i
l
F I ,
~
I
~
t .
s
' v a
y ~ x..3 i i I I I l i ~ 7 ~
.._
` I
~'
I L
~?
3 i'
~i I -
'
I O
I
I
.
~_~
~
.k. ,
I v' ,I i
; S L~ o: i : ~ 1
I. j
I ~
j
1
~k
~
~
'
t<~
j
~I ~
~'
.?
~
-y
u
~ ~ 1 2?t I ~ - ~ > ~i ~~ I ~
p
~
~ p
~ ~ _ p ~ i~
3c
W ~~ W
~ W I
~ ~~ !~ ~
W '~ .. ~
I
I ~
I
i ~
~ ~ ~ I ~ S I Ol ~ 4 ~~ I ~ ~ ~
9 ~ a ~ ~
'
I
iii I
~
I Q
~~
i I
. LL
(
II
f ~i t~ '.
I
3
````
i ~ I `. ~ ,F i. y I
`[
S
`(
`
_
_
~ E~ ~
} I i ~~ W I I
'
f
~
`~22
-
~
`
~
I
Imo,-n.-~
U
I i
II ~ r
Fl~ I
-%
I Crt _
~~ I tti
i
- i p I,
`
9 ~
!
~
~
~ i ~~"~
_~
~
--- >t,
'7 ~~~
?3 s
?
.
W
,.
~
a H
ii
_
YI
_ _
.
~
~
I
~ ,
n n
~
® Q
w
_ _ I
~
~~ ~
~
~ ., -
j a
~
~ ~ I F ~ ~ ~~ I i j r
a ~ ~ h ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , I~ ~
is
I
i Y
z. x
=j 3 _
~
~
i ~
~
I ti
t Y
a,
3
`. ~
r.
~
it
~ I
3
.
~~ 3 F P :
m _
'
~ i
~
~
._
-
_] Z. Z V I ", I
~ 4. LL V ~^ LL ~ ~ 1l'y.n ~I LL m `
2
~ ~ I .._ „~
l _ _ _ _.
I
~
I
,~ a
,~ '_
r
+~
!
" ~ ,
~_ d
~ s: ~( 7; 3> ~
+, it
~3x.~ ~'~~yi
.i °
~~
131 s31LL ~~, ~
~,
~ C
z
~Y
a s°
~
r ~ s _ 9
..
~ i ~ ~z > 1
3 h. _.- ~
}
J o N
.~
i
x
.
~,
..~ II
,
it
~
_
~`~ .
/
~~~\ '',
3
1 ~
e ' Y < \
i ~~
I ~'
_ ~
i ~~I
R o I -~ ~ I
` \\\
;,~~~;,,,~~~- ;~ CITY OF DUBLIN
~`(-~~l L~`>~ P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 • City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
APPEALABLE ACTION LETTER
Date: November 16, 1999
Planning Application: PA 99-020, Chacon Professional Office Building SDR
Project Description: Site Development Review approval for a new 5,056 square foot
professional office building. The new building is proposed to be located at
and would be located in the BJ Dublin Commercial Center.
Project/Site Address: 6129 Dublin Boulevazd
Assessor Parcel #: 941-550-58
Environmental Review: The project has been covered under the Negative Declaration prepared
for the PA 96-050 B.J. Dublin Commercial PD Rezone and Tentative
Parcel Map project in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines.
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
Bob and Fancesca Chacon
506 Estudillo Ave.
San Leandro, CA 94577
Dear Applicants/Property Owner:
The above-referenced project was acted upon on November 16, 1999, by the Community Development
Director and was denied. This action becomes final and effective at 5:00 p.m. on November 29, 1999,
unless appealed before that time in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Andy Byde
Associate Planner
g:lPA99-0201sdraal. doc
Administration (925) 833-6650 City Council (925) 833-6605 Finance (925) 833-6640 Building Inspection (925) 833-6620
Cotle Enforcement (925) 633-6620 Engineering (925) 833-6630 Parks & Community Services (925) 833-6645
Economic Development (925) 833-6650 Police (925) 833-6670 Public Works (925) 633-6630
Community Development (925) 833-6610 Fire Prevention Bureau (925) 833-6606 q-~-~gCH1Y1ENT 4
PA 99-020, Chacon Professional Office Building
Site Development Review
6129 Dublin Boulevard
APN:941-0550-058-6
Reason for Staff denial of the Chacon Site Development Review, PA 99-020.
The azea surrounding the subject property is predominated by buildings with significant mass utilizing
industrial style building materials such as split-face concrete block, parapet wall roofs or standing seam
metal roofs. The selected materials of building, particulazly the Spanish file would not be compatible
with the surrounding architectural vernacular. Moreover, the proposed building has a residential scale
which would be dominated by the surrounding buildings.
Site Development Review
Section 8.104.020 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that the intent of Site Development Review is
To promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development
compatible with individual site environmental constraints and compatible with
surrounding properties and neighborhoods.
Staff finds that the proposed project is not consistent with the intent of the Site Development Review of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because the proposed project is inconsistent with the surrounding
properties in style, scale, and materials.
Additionally, to approve Site Development Review the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (8.104.070(H))
requires that following finding be made in the affirmative:
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
similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of
approval in order of this development with the development's design concept or
theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
Specifically, Staff cannot find, in the affirmative, that the scale, character, or architectural relationships
between the proposed building and surrounding buildings are compatible therefore the Community
Development Director denies the proposed project.
PA 99-020, Chacon Professional Office Building
Site Development Review
6129 Dublin Boulevard
APN:941-0550-OSS-6 -
FINDINGS OF DENIAL
A. The proposed project is not consistent with the intent of the Site Development Review Chapter
(8.104) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because the proposed project is inconsistent with the
surrounding properties in style, scale, and materials.
B. The area surrounding the subject property is predominated by buildings with significant mass
utilizing industrial style building materials such as split-face concrete block, parapet wall roofs or
standing seam metal roofs. The selected materials of building, particulazly the Spanish the would
not be compatible with the surrounding azchitectural vernaculaz. Moreover, the proposed
building has a residential scale which would be dominated by the surrounding buildings.
C. The required findings to approve a Site Development Review required by Section 8.104.070 of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance cannot be made in the affirmative because the scale, chazacter, and
azchitectural relationships between the proposed building and surrounding buildings aze
incompatible.
Robert A. Chacou Jr. DDS
506 Estudillo Aveuue
Sau Leandro, CA 94577
510 483-1616
Director of Community Development
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca 94568
November 8,1999
This letter is to inform the Director of Community Development of our decision to appeal your rejection of
our proposed architectural design. Tire proposed snucttue would'be located on Lot 7 of Tract 6614 of the
DJ Dublin Commercial Site (6129 Dublin Blvd.).
Our architect, Alan English, had been in contact with City, specifically, Carol Cirelli with some sketches
and a copy of a Sunset magazine to give her an idea of what our proposed building would look like
(knowing that it would not look like [he boxes that were being constructed on the various sites). She made
copies of the sketches and the magazine pages and afrer consulting with Dennis Carrington she stated that
it would probably be the best looking of all the buildings. Upon this verbal approval, he proceeded to draw
the formal plans which were submitted to the City ]ate May 1999.
The past five months have dragged by with several meetings with various city personnel asking for
revisions to these plans. Upon the request of Andy Byde, our azchitect Alan English, met with the city's
consulting architect Larry Cannon. The meeting proved to be fmitful and that the original design was
acceptable. Following [his meeting, Mr. Byde again rejected the plans. Time and money has been wasted
due to the city's change of heart. We have not been able to lock into loan (interest rates have and will
continue to go up). Expenses are incurred, such a monthly fence rental, architectural fees to re-draw the
revisions and costs to keep the weeds abated, not to mention the business we are loosing, on a daily basis,
since we do not have a presence in the area.
We feel [hat these concessions comprise the integrity of our architectural design. The building that we
(Bob and Francesca) envisioned (and with the preliminary verbal blessing of the City) is a
Spanish/Mediten-anean style that would be the representation of the image that we would like to portray.
We are a dental office, not a repair shop! We would like to build an office building that is not only
esthetically pleasing to our patients Sur also to tl,c resi~ents of Dubim.
As residents of Dublin for fifteen yeazs, we feel that our city is in need of less boxed stmctures and more
original architectural designs. Out concept will would set our office apart from the other businesses and
make our building a landmark in our community.
Please we advised that we are appealing your rejection and like to be placed on the agenda for the up-
coming Planning Commission meeting.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Bob and Francesca Chacon
ATTACHMENT 5