HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 San Ramon SP AGENDA STATEMENT
x ®--55
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 8, 1986
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Amendment Study covering the 1.4+ acre
Moret property and, as directed by the
Dublin City Council at its June 23, 1986,
hearing, the remaining acreage in the
13.0+ acre Area 3 portion of the San Ramon
Road Specific Plan above and beyond the
Moret property and the 4.8+ acre Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center property.
The properties in question include:
1) Moret holding (7436 San Ramon Road);
2) Rivers-Barton holding (7400 San Ramon
Road); 3) Commercial Property, Ltd.
holding (7372 San Ramon Road);
4) Nichandros holding (7360 San Ramon
Road);. and 5) East Bay Iceland, Inc.
holding (7212 San Ramon Road).
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding' the
Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for
PA 86-049.
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Amendment Study - Creating
Area 3B (Sub-Area of Area 3,
consisting of the Moret
property).
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan
" Amendment Study - Applying a
25% maximum occupancy cap for
Personal Service, Financial
and Office Uses for properties
in Area 3 of the Plan.
Background Attachments:
1) Written Statement from Project Proponents for Moret property
requesting authorization of a Specific Plan Amendment Study (Letter
of May 15, 1986).
2) Site Plan for proposed Office Project on the 1.4+ acre Moret
property.
3) Site Plan for proposed commercial development (The Fishery at
Dublin Restaurant) on the Rivers-Barton property.
4) Site Plan of Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center.
5) Excerpt of City Council Minutes of meeting of April 14, 1986,
detailing Council's minute order for preparation of San Ramon Road
Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Moret holding.
6) Excerpt of City Council Minutes of meeting of June 23, 1986,
detailing Council's minute order for expansion of the Moret San
Ramon Road. Specific Plan Amendment Study expanding the Study to
include the remaining lands in Area 3 of the Plan.
COPIES TO: Owners
Applicant
ITEM NO. 6,9 File PA 86-049
7) Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for San
Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment.
8) Copy of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
9) Resolution No. 81-83 approving an Amendment to Area 3 of the
Specific Plan dealing with occupancy by Personal Services Uses,
Financial Uses or Office Uses in Shopping Centers with a minimum
size of four acres.
10) Resolution No. 54-86 approving an Amendment to Area 3 of the
Specific Plan adjusting uses in the Dublin Town & Country Shopping
Center to allow uses generally provided for in the C-1, Retail
Business District.
11) Figure 1 - Land Use and Zoning Map
12) Chart 1 - Current Land Use Summary
13) Portions of Draft Market Analysis Report prepared by Laventhol &
Horwath
14) Office Occupancy Information from Coldwell Bankers, supplied by
Project Proponents for the Moret Property
15) "Office Vacancy Index of the United States", June 30, 1986, Report
by Coldwell Bankers
16) TJKM Consultants' Memorandums dated April 23, 1986, and August 15,
1986.
17) August 18, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report for PA 86-049
(without attachments)
18) Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of August 18, 1986
19) September 2, 1986, Planning Commission Supplementary Staff Report
for PA 86-049 (without attachments)
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation.
2. Take testimony from Applicant and
the public.
3. Question Staff, Applicant and the
public.
4. Close public hearing and deliberate.
5. Adopt Resolution regarding the
Negative Declaration of Environ-
mental Significance (Exhibit A).
6.a. Adopt Resolution regarding the
Specific Plan Amendment Study
creating Area 3B (Sub-Area of Area
3, consisting of the Moret property)
(Exhibit B), or
6.b. Adopt Resolution regarding the
Specific Plan Amendment Study -
Applying a 25% maximum occupancy cap
for Personal Service, Financial and
Office Uses for properties in Area 3
of the Plan, or
} '
-2-
6.c. Provide Staff direction for
revisions to Exhibit A and/or B and
continue the matter to the City
Council Meeting of September 22,
1986.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The project will have a negligible fiscal
effect on the City.
I. BACKGROUND
The current Specific Plan Amendment Study was authorized by the City
Council on April 14, 1986 (see Attachment #5). Under the Council's
authorization, the Study was to cover only the 1.4+ acre Moret holding
at the northern edge of Area 3 of the Plan. The Study was authorized to
allow a review of the merits of establishing offices uses on the Moret
property.
The action taken by the Council on June 23, 1986, regarding the Specific
Plan Amendment Study dealing with the Dublin Town & Country Shopping
Center property, including direction by minute order to expand the scope
of the Moret Study to include the remaining portions of Area 3, above
and beyond the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property (see
Attachment #6).
The subject Specific Plan Amendment Study was initially considered at
the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1986. The Staff Report
prepared for that meeting outlined specific recommended amendments to
three of the sections of the existing San Ramon Road Specific Plan (see
Attachment #18).
In response to the recommended changes outlined by Staff for the Land
Use Section of the Plan, the Planning Commission directed Staff to
revise the Draft Resolution prepared for the August 18, 1986, meeting to
reflect the two following changes: 1) delete text which would have
provided for the formation of Area 3B (Sub-Area of Area 3 of the Plan,
consisting of the 1.4+ acre Moret Property) which would have allowed
that ,portion of the Plan to be developed "predominantly" by office-type
uses, and 2) provide text amending the Land Use Plan Section of the Plan
to permit limited occupancy (25% maximum for all properties in Area 3
above and beyond the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property) by
Personal Service, Financial and Office Uses, regardless of property
size.
The Commission indicated consensus support for the recommended text
changes to the other two sections where amendments had been proposed by
Staff (the Circulation System Section and the General Development
Criteria Section).
At its meeting of September 2, 1986, three of the Planning Commissioners
indicated reservations about the previously expressed consensus direc-
tion given by the Commission regarding land use regulations outlined at
the August 18, 1986, hearing for the Moret property.
The Commission was unable to form consensus direction regarding the Land
Use Plan Regulations for the Moret property individually and for Area 3
in general. As a result of their inability to reach consensus agree-
ment, the Commission directed Staff to forward the Specific Plan
Amendment Study without recommendation to the City Council.
During the course of discussion at the September 2, 1986, hearing, the
Planning Commission considered a wide range of possible Land Use
Regulations for the Moret property, including:
1. Amendment to permit limited occupancy (25% maximum) by Personal
Service, Financial and Office Uses, regardless of size for the
8.4+ acre portion of Area 3 consisting of all holdings above and
beyond the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property (Exhibit
B reflects this approach).
-3-
2. Creation of a new Sub-Area in Area 3, providing for the develop-
ment of the Moret property to be "predominantly" by office-type
uses and requiring up to 30% of the development to be some mixture
of Retail Shopper, Personal Service, or Financial Uses.
3. Creation of a new Sub-Area in Area 3, providing for the develop-
ment of the Moret property to be by up to 100% Office Uses (i.e. ,
apply the C-0, Administrative Office District Standards for
Permitted and Conditional Uses).
4. Amendment to permit occupancy by uses generally permitted in the
C-1, Retail Shopping District for the 8.4+ acre portion of Area 3,
consisting of all holdings above and beyond the Dublin Town &
Country Shopping Center property.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above Staff Report, and previous reports prepared for the
Planning Commission pertaining to these requests, Staff recommends that
the City Council take the following actions:
1 - Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
(Exhibit A).
2a - Adopt a Resolution amending the San Ramon Road Specific Plan -
creating Area 3B (Sub-Area of Area 3, consisting of the Moret
property) - Exhibit B, or
2b - Adopt a Resolution amending the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
applying a 25% maximum occupancy cap for Personal Service,
Financial and Office Uses for properties in Area 3 of the Plan
above and beyond the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center
property, or
2c - Provide Staff direction for revisions to Exhibits A and/or B, and
continue the matter to the City Council Meeting of September 22,
1986.
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. -86
•
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCERNING PA 86-049 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY -
AMENDMENT TO AREA 3
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act and City environmental regulations,
requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
been prepared for PA 86-049 by the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan was prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council did review and adopt the Negative
Declaration for the San Ramon Road Specific Plan at a public hearing on
August 22, 1983, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 2, 1986, by a
consensus decision, directed Staff to forward PA 86-049 to the City Council
without recommendation regarding the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on September 8,
1986, to consider the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
aspects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review PA 86-049 relative to the
previously adopted Negative Declaration for the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
and relative to the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment at its September 8, 1986, meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds
that:
1. The project, PA 86-049, will not have any significant environmental
impacts and is consistent with the information in the Negative
Declaration prepared for the San Ramon Road Specific Plan and the
Negative Declaration prepared for the subject Specific Plan Amendment
Study.
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance
with State and Local Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations and that
it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk r a ��
RESOLUTION NO. -86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 86-049 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN SECTION OF
THE PLAN TO CREATE AREA 3B (SUB-AREA OF AREA 3 OF THE PLAN, CONSISTING OF THE
1.4+ ACRE MORET PROPERTY), PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE
PREDOMINANTLY OFFICE USE IN NATURE, AND AMENDING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND •
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SECTIONS OF THE PLAN
WHEREAS, Roy J. and Ula D. Moret requested on March 10, 1986, that
the Dublin City Council consider authorizing a Specific Plan Amendment Study of
a portion of Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan (PA 86-018); and
• WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting of
April 14, 1986, authorized the preparation of a Specific Plan Amendment Study
to consider the merits of developing the 1.4+ acre Moret property as an office
development, amending the land use restriction in the Specific Plan which
limits the amount of office use that can be established in Area 3 of the
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, consistent with the Planning
Commission's recommendations on June 15, 1986, regarding PA 86-050.1 and .2,
directed by minute order at their June 23, 1986, meeting that the Study be
expanded to include the remaining, unstudied portion of Area 3; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings to
consider the Specific Plan Amendment Study on August 18, 1986 and September 2,
1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
aspects as required by law; and
' II-WHEREAS, the August 18, 1986, Staff Report to the Planning
Commission was submitted recommending that the Land Use Section of the
Specific Plan be amended to establish a new Sub-Area in the Plan covering the
Moret property (providing development which would be "predominantly" Office use
in nature) and to further adjust the Land Use Section to allow uses in the
remaining portions of Area 3 of the Plan to provide for up to 25% occupancy by
Personal Service, Financial or Office uses and to also adjust the Circulation
System Section and General Development Criteria Sections of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth at their August 18,
1986, hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission provided consensus direction at
their August 18, 1986, meeting for Staff to adjust the August 18, 1986, Draft
Resolution prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment to eliminate any reference
to the creation of a new Sub-Area in the Plan for the Moret property and, to
further adjust the Draft Resolution to have it reflect an amendment to the Land
Use Section of the Plan to provide for the Moret property to be included as one
of the properties in Area 3 of the Plan (above and beyond the Dublin Town and
Country Shopping Center property) to be allowed to be developed with uses
including a maximum 25% occupancy (cumulative total) by Personal Service,
Financial, and Office uses; and •
F
17 lwr Irl mir , V-e m<5
Yst a 3)
WHEREAS, at the September 2, 1986, Planning Commission meeting,
three of the Commissioners indicated reservations about the previously
expressed consensus direction given by the Planning Commission at the
August 18, 1986, meeting regarding the Land _Use Regulations outlined for the
1.4+ acre Moret property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to establish a
consensus opinion regarding the Land Use Regulations for the Moret property
individually and for Area 3 in general; and
WHEREAS, as a result of their inability to reach a consensus
agreement regarding the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Section of the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan, the Commission directed Staff to forward
PA 86-049 to the City Council without recommendation; and
•
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been previously adopted
for the Specific Plan Amendment Study (City Council Resolution No. -86); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant
environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan Amendments are appropriate for
the subject properties in terms of providing for future development of land
uses which will be compatible to existing and proposed land uses and will not
overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not have
substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE,_BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council amends the
Land Use Plan Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan for the 8.4+ acre
"remainder" of Area 3 of the Plan identified as the Moret property creating
Area 3B and, introduces the following amended land use restrictions for that
newly defined Sub-Area which identify the uses permitted, conditional uses, and
uses specifically prohibited from being established.
Creating Area 3B (Sub Area of Area 3, consisting of the Moret Property) 1.4+
Acres
Unlike the remainder of the area identified as Plan Area 3, the 1.4+ acre Moret
property is not viewed as having the same high potential for the development of
retail shopper stores. The property's location at the northern edge of Area 3
of the Plan, its size, configuration and the presence of an active fault,
collectively serve to compromise the feasibility of developing the site for
Retail Shopper Use. In light of the above, Area 3B is established to provide
this property the option to develop with a larger percentage of occupancy by
office-type uses. While the site may be developed "predominantly" by office-
type uses, some level of Retail Shopper, Personal Service and/or Financial Uses
shall be provided on the property.
Permitted Uses
Office including, but not limited, to the following and restricted to 70%
of the total gross floor area of the Commercial Facility (remaining 30%
to be occupied by some mixture of Retail Shopper, Eating and Drinking
Establishments, Personal Service, or Financial Uses, as defined below):
a. Optometrist
b. Medical and Dental
c. Legal
d. Accounting
e. Architect
f. Employment Agency
g. Real Estate
h. Other Administrative and Professional Office
-2-
- Retail shopper establishments such as:
a. General Merchandise Stores
b. Clothing Stores
c. Shoe Stores
d. Home Furnishings Stores
e. Home Appliances/Music Stores
f. Hobby/Special Interest Stores
g. Gifts/Specialty Stores
h. Jewelery and Cosmetic Stores
i. Home Improvement Centers
j. Drug Stores
k. Auto Parts Stores
and similar uses that offer comparison goods based on price and quality.
- Eating and drinking establishments including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Restaurant
b. Cocktail Lounge
c. Donut Shop
d. Ice Cream Parlor
e. Sandwich Shop
f. Specialty Food
g. Delicatessen
h. Bakery
i. Candy or Nuts
j. Health Food
k. Wine and Cheese with on-sale liquor license from State of
California
- Personal Service establishments including, but not limited to, the
following: -
a. Beauty Shop
b. Barber Shop
c. Shoe Repair
d. Cleaner and Dryer
e. . r.-Laundry
f. Figure Salon
g. Photographer
h: Formal Wear/Rental
i. Interior Decorator
j. Travel Agent
k. Key Shop
1. Dressmaking or Knitting Shop
m. Tailor Shop
n. Handicraft Shop
- Financial Institution establishments including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Bank without drive-up facilities
b. Savings and Loan without drive-up facilities
c. Financy Company
d. Small Loans
e. Brokerage
f. Insurance
Conditional Uses
- Subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit
a. Community, religious and charitable institution facilities and
uses.
b. Public facilities and uses.
c'. Veterinary Office.
d. Commercial recreation facility, other than a theater, if within a
building.
-3-
e. Tavern
f. Recycling Centers, when operated in conjunction with a Permitted
Use on the same premises.
g. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as licensed by the
State Department of Health Services.
Prohibited Uses
- All retail commercial uses defined as convenience stores, including:
a. Grocery Stores
b. Liquor and Wine Stores
c. Drive-in and Drive-through Restaurants
d. Meat, Fish or Poultry Stores
and other stores which sell food and other household goods for
consumption in a short time.
- All other retail stores and personal services not mentioned above
including new and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service,
service stations, and other similar stores and services.
Residential uses.
- Industrial uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council further amends the
Land Use Plan Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan for the 7.0+ acre
"remainder" of Area 3 (above and beyond Area 3A encompassing the 4.8+ acre
Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property and the newly established Area
3B encompassing the 1.4+ acre Moret property) to permit limited occupancy by
Personal Service, Financial and Office Uses irregardless of property size and
subject to the following limitations:
- Up to a maximum occupancy of 25% of the total gross floor area of any new
development can be for Personal Service, Financial or Office Uses, as defined
in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council amends the Circulation
System Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to add the following
direction to future development projects covering properties in Area 3 of the
Plan located north of the extension of Amador Valley Boulevard.
The following "Key Items" shall be added to the Circulation System Section.
- Restrict access to San Ramon Road to the development of a single "shared
driveway" between the Moret property and the Rivers-Barton property.
- Development of the "shared driveway" with a 35 foot width with 25 foot curb
radius returns and a restriction of any on-site circulation connection to
the driveway within 50 feet of the San Ramon Road curb line.
- Development of two "shared driveways" on the north side of the Amador Valley
Boulevard extension respectively located 120+ feet and 430+ feet west of San
Ramon Road.
- Refinement to the location and nature of pedestrian/bicycle easements from
Shadow Drive through to San Ramon Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council amends the General
Development Criteria Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan as follows:
Sub-Category 2 - Compatibility of Uses - The following text is added to this
Sub-Category:
Applications for Planned Development Zoning in Area 3 of the
Plan involving commercial lands adjoining existing or planned
F multi-story construction shall have included as part of the
development plan review application plan sections to detail the
proximity and relationship of the relative land uses.
-4-
Redevelopment of the East Bay Iceland, Inc. property shall
reflect a site plan layout which attempts to maximize the
coordination between its planned uses and the adjoining Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center property to the north as
regards building location and orientation, vehicular and
pedestrian cross access, landscape treatment and use of
ancillary structures (location and design).
Sub-Category 3 - Circulation Improvements - The following text is added to
this Sub-Category:
Circulation improvements established in conjunction with the
development of the portion of Area 3 of the Plan located north
of the Amador Valley Boulevard extension shall reflect the
Findings and Recommendations of the TJKM Memorandum dated April
23, 1986 (see Appendix B)..
Development of the 0.4 acre stem remainder (346+' x 51+')
extending easterly to San Ramon Road from the southeast corner
of Area 2 of the Plan shall be subject to the Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning process and shall be developed as part
of a coordinated site plan tying the stem either to the Morrison
Homes-Kildara Project and/or to the adjoining properties located
north or south of the stem.
Sub-Category 4 - Physical Constraints - The following text is added to this
. Sub-Category:
Geologic Reports prepared in conjunction with the Development
Plan requests covering undeveloped or marginally developed
properties in Area 3 of the Plan may require on-site sub-surface
trenching to assess potential geotechnical hazards.
Sub-Category 5 - Noise - The following text is added to this Sub-Category:
Acoustical Reports may be required to be prepared in
conjunction with the building permit process for any new
commercial or residential developments in the Plan AVera. Where
required., said studies shall determine existing and future
noise. ;levels and shall outline specific construction and design
measures that will be taken, as necessary, to provide the
appropriate noise attenuation.
Sub-Category 6 - Setbacks - The following text is added to this Sub-Category:
Building setbacks for new development in Area 3 adjacent to the
easterly limits of Area 2 can be reduced to 15 feet if it can be
demonstrated that visual and acoustic privacy for existing or
planned residential uses in Area 2 can be provided with this
lesser setback standard.
The setback standard observed at the northern limit of Area 3
shall be determined at the time of development plan review. The
building location(s) shall be such to maximize the privacy of
the residential development at the north side of Martin Canyon
Creek and shall take into consideration the existing vegetation
canopy in the Creek.
Sub-Category 9 - Existing Vegetation - Project Landscaping - This Sub-Category
is created with the following text:
9. Existing Vegetation - Project Landscaping - To the
greatest extent feasible, the existing vegetation within the
Martin Canyon Creek corridor extending through the Plan Area
shall be left undisturbed. Said vegetation shall be utilized
and enhanced to serve as a natural buffer strip between land
uses in the Plan Area and as a design element, with use of
appropriate building design and siting, to compliment and
enhance new development adjoining the Creek area. Existing,
mature trees located in the Plan Area which are located outside
the Creek corridor shall be retained as feasible and
incorporated into the project design of new developments.
-5-
Project landscaping shall be of a design, mass, scale and
relationship to promote harmonious transitions between adjoining
projects and land uses and to create an internal sense of order
and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community. Project landscaping shall serve as a
design feature to provide conceptual compatibility with the
immediate environment of the site.
Sub-Category 10 - Project Architecture - This Sub-Category is created with the
following text:
10.. Project Architecture - The following Design Standards
shall be considered and applied, as applicable, to new
development in the Specific Plan Area:
A. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements
of the City's General Plan.
B. Conceptual compatibility of design with the immediate
environment of the site.
C. Appropriateness of the design to the site and function
of the project.
D. Promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
in areas between different designated land uses.
E. Compatibility with future construction both on and off
the site.
F. Expresses an appropriate sense of identity with its
function.
G. Creates an internal sense of order and provides a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community.
H. Utilizes materials, textures, colors, and details of
construction which are an appropriate expression of its
. r_.design concept and function and are compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures and functions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-6-
RESOLUTION NO. -86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 86-049 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - APPLYING A 25% MAXIMUM
OCCUPANCY CAP FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, FINANCIAL AND OFFICE USES
FOR PROPERTIES IN AREA 3 OF .THE PLAN ABOVE AND BEYOND THE
DUBLIN TOWN & COUNTRY SHOPPING,CENTER PROPERTY, AND AMENDING THE •
CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Roy J. and Ula D. Moret requested on March 10, 1986, that
the Dublin City Council consider authorizing a Specific Plan Amendment Study of
a 'portion of Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan (PA 86-018); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting of
April 14, 1986, authorized the preparation of a Specific Plan Amendment Study
to consider the merits of developing the 1.4+ acre Moret property as an office
development, amending the land use restriction in the Specific Plan which
limits the amount of office use that can be established in Area 3 of the
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, consistent with the Planning
Commission's recommendations on June 15, 1986, regarding PA 86-050.1 and .2,
directed by minute order at their June 23, 1986, meeting that the Study be
expanded to include the remaining, unstudied portion of Area 3; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings to
consider the Specific Plan Amendment Study on August 18, 1986 and September 2,
1986; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
aspects as. r.equired by law; and
WHEREAS, the August 18, 1986, Staff Report to the Planning
Commission was submitted recommending that the Land Use Section of the
Specific Plan be amended to establish a new Sub-Area in the Plan covering the
Moret property (providing development which would be "predominantly" Office use
in nature) and to further adjust the Land Use Section to allow uses in the
remaining portions of Area 3 of the Plan to provide for up to 25% occupancy by
Personal Service, Financial or Office uses and to also adjust the Circulation
System Section and General Development Criteria Sections of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth at their August 18,
1986, .hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission provided consensus direction at
their August 18, 1986, meeting for Staff to adjust the August 18, 1986, Draft
Resolution prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment to eliminate any reference
to the creation of a new Sub-Area in the Plan for the Moret property and to
further adjust the Draft Resolution to have it reflect an amendment to the Land
Use Section of the Plan to provide for the Moret property to be included as one
of the properties in Area 3 of the Plan (above and beyond the Dublin Town and
Country Shopping Center property) to be allowed to be developed with uses
including a maximum 25% occupancy (cumulative total) by Personal Service,
Financial, and Office uses; and
•
S RQ S o • 467/ 7.
•
•
FCtty, i ,1
aS7 /,4,g, C`�c� Cad
& -a ). F Ye 3 OF- s 7,Je c-
/" ,14 wi PO • Cl 1'lr C C.f /1
WHEREAS, at the September 2, 1986, Planning Commission meeting,
three of the Commissioners indicated reservations about the previously
expressed consensus direction given by the Planning Commission at the
August 18, 1986, meeting regarding the Land Use Regulations outlined for the
1.4+ acre Moret property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to establish a
consensus opinion regarding the Land Use Regulations for the Moret property
individually and for Area 3 in general; and
WHEREAS, as a result of their inability to reach a consensus
agreement regarding the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Section of the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan, the Commission directed Staff to forward
PA 86-049 to the City Council without recommendation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been previously adopted
for the Specific Plan Amendment Study (City Council Resolution No. -86); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant
environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan Amendments are appropriate for
the subject properties in terms of providing for future development of land
uses which will be compatible to existing and proposed land uses and will not
overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not have
substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, _BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council amends the
Land Use Plan Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan for the 8.4+ acre
"remainder" of Area 3 of the Plan (above and beyond Area 3A encompassing the
4.8+ acre Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property) to permit limited
occupancy by Personal Service, Financial and Office Uses irregardless of
property size- and subject to the following limitations:
- Up to a maximum occupancy of 25% of the total gross floor area of any
development (cumulative total) can be for Personal Service, Financial or
Office Uses, as defined in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council amends the Circulation
System Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to add the following
direction to future development projects covering properties in Area 3 of the
Plan located north of the extension of Amador Valley Boulevard.
The following "Key Items" shall be added to the Circulation System Section.
- Restrict access to San Ramon Road to the development of a single "shared
driveway" between the Moret property and the Rivers-Barton property.
- Development of the "shared driveway" with a 35 foot width with 25 foot curb
radius returns and a restriction of any on-site circulation connection to
the driveway within 50 feet of the San Ramon Road curb line.
- Development of two "shared driveways" on the north side of the Amador Valley
Boulevard extension respectively located 120+ feet and 430+ feet west of San
Ramon Road.
- Refinement to the location and nature of pedestrian/bicycle easements from
Shadow Drive through to San Ramon Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council amends the General
Development Criteria Section of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan as follows:
}
-2-
Sub-Category 2 - Compatibility of Uses - The following text is added to this
Sub-Category:
Applications for Planned Development Zoning in Area 3 of the
Plan involving commercial lands adjoining existing or planned
multi-story construction shall have included as part of the
development plan review application plan sections to detail the
proximity and relationship of the relative land uses.
Redevelopment of the East Bay Iceland, Inc. property shall
reflect a site plan layout which attempts to maximize the
coordination between its planned uses and the adjoining Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center property to the north as
regards building location and orientation, vehicular and
pedestrian cross access, landscape treatment and use of
ancillary structures (location and design).
Sub-Category 3 - Circulation Improvements - The following text is added to
this Sub-Category:
Circulation improvements established in conjunction with the
development of the portion of Area 3 of the Plan located north
of the Amador Valley Boulevard extension shall reflect the
Findings and Recommendations of the TJKM Memorandum dated April
23, 1986 (see Appendix B).
Development of the 0.4 acre stem remainder (346+' x 51+')
extending easterly to San Ramon Road from the southeast corner
of Area 2 of the Plan shall be subject to the Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning process and shall be developed as part
of a coordinated site plan tying the stem either to the Morrison
Homes-Kildara Project and/or to the adjoining properties located
north or south of the stem.
Sub-Category 4 - Physical Constraints - The following text is added to this
Sub-Category:
Geologic Reports prepared in conjunction with the Development
Plan requests covering undeveloped or marginally developed
properties in Area 3 of the Plan may require on-site sub-surface
trenching to assess potential geotechnical hazards.
Sub-Category 5 - Noise - The following text is added to this Sub-Category:
Acoustical Reports may be required to be prepared in
conjunction with the building permit process for any new
commercial or residential developments in the Plan Aera. Where
required, said studies shall determine existing and future
noise levels and shall outline specific construction and design
measures that will be taken, as necessary, to provide the
appropriate noise attenuation.
Sub-Category 6 - Setbacks - The following text is added to this Sub-Category:
Building setbacks for new development in Area 3 adjacent to the
easterly limits of Area 2 can be reduced to 15 feet if it can be
demonstrated that visual and acoustic privacy for existing or
planned residential uses in Area 2 can be provided with this
lesser setback standard.
The setback standard observed at the northern limit of Area 3
shall be determined at the time of development plan review. The
building location(s) shall be such to maximize the privacy of
the residential development at the north side of Martin Canyon
Creek and shall take into consideration the existing vegetation
canopy in the Creek.
F •
-3-
Sub-Category 9 - Existing Vegetation - Project Landscaping - This Sub-Category
is created with the following text:
9. Existing Vegetation - Project Landscaping - To the
greatest extent feasible, the existing vegetation within the
Martin Canyon Creek corridor extending through the Plan Area
shall be left undisturbed. Said vegetation shall be utilized
and enhanced to serve as a natural buffer strip between land
uses in the Plan Area and as a design element, with use of
appropriate building design and siting, to compliment and
enhance new development adjoining the Creek area. Existing,
mature trees located in the Plan Area which are located outside
the Creek corridor shall be retained as feasible and
incorporated into the project design of new developments.
Project landscaping shall be of a design, mass, scale and
relationship to promote harmonious transitions between adjoining
projects and land uses and to create an internal sense of order
and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community. Project landscaping shall serve as a
design feature to provide conceptual compatibility with the
immediate environment of the site.
Sub-Category 10 - Project Architecture - This Sub-Category is created with the
following text:
10. Project Architecture - The following Design Standards
shall be considered and applied, as applicable, to new
development in the Specific Plan Area:
A. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements
of the City's General Plan.
B. Conceptual compatibility of design with the immediate
environment of the site.
C. Appropriateness of the design to the site and function
of the project.
D. Promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
in areas between different designated land uses.
E. Compatibility with future construction both on and off
the site.
F. Expresses an appropriate sense of identity with its
function.
G. Creates an internal sense of order and provides a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community.
H. Utilizes materials, textures, colors, and details of
construction which are an appropriate expression of its
design concept and function and are compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures and functions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
F •
City Clerk
-4-
•
•
Jesse W. White or-Myron N. Crawford
3687 Thornton Avenue
Fremont, California 94536 •
May 15, 1986
RECEIVED
MAY: 21198,6:
City of Dublin
6500 -Dublin Blvd. DUBLIN PLANNING •
PO Box 2340 •
Dublin, CA 94568
Attn: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
Re:. Request for Specific Plan Amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
for a 1.425 acre Property Identified as 7436 San Ramon Road
• Assessor. Parcel Number 941-0040-001-02 (Subject Property)
Dear Mr. Tong:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the above referenced request. During our
meeting you indicated that you would like us to address the following:
A) Project Description - Land Use Proposed •
B) Size of Development and Building Coverage Ratio
C) Landscaping & Site Plan•
D) CC&R'S
We will, in tt}is submittal letter, address these items and include, a proposed draft outline
of the amendment which we feel would serve the needs of .the community and the
development. In addition to this information we are attaching appendices of information
on parking requirements of various cities including stall sizes and number required for
various uses. We have also included building lot coverages for several municipalities
around the Bay Area.
A. Project Description •
•
The proposed development consists of four three-story buildings with primary usage being
professional offices having some allowance for select retail on the first floor. The complex •
is being designed to fill the need of the small to mid-range company that desires to own
its own building and have specific identity. Each of the buildings may be owned individually
with the landscaped and parking areas as common ownership. Recent surveys in
San Francisco,-which is a corporate headquarters location, indicate that in many areas
71 percent of firms occupy less than 15,000 square feet and employ 60 or fewer people;
54 percent of firms occupy 7500 square feet or less and employ 30 or fewer people.
Other surveys have shown that nationwide 95 percent of the companies have 20 or fewer -
employees.
The site is triangularly shaped, bounded by a creek flood zone on the northern side and
is traversed by an earthquake fault zone on the most desirable section of the property.
These physical constraints reduce the utility and suitability of the property from a retail .
standpoint and add complexity to the office building concept.
•
•
•
TT
r -
City of Dublin - Laurence L. Tong - May 15, 1986 - Page 2
The site is isolated and remote from the main retail arterial intersection of Amador Valley
Court and San Ramon Road (see Appendix #3) which lends the site to a destination-bound
user rather than a convenience oriented shopper. The proposed office usage is well suited,
for the site and creates a soft transition from the northerly residential areas to the retail
areas to the south and complements the natural buffer of dense vegetation along Martin
Creek. Office usage is predominately daytime with minimal evening and weekend activity
which will also mitigate night time and weekend noise as well as generate less traffic
than retail usages. (See Appendix #2 for permitted usages proposed for this project.)
B. Size of Development and Building Coverage
The proposed size of the development is 33,000 square feet. The buildings would be paired
to share an elevator in a clustered arrangement. The building to lot coverage ratio is -
approximately 17 percent which falls well within the range of coverages allowed by various
Bay Area municipalities. Typical coverage ratios generally range from 40 percent in some
cities to 100 percent in similar areas of other cities. (See Appendix #4 for permitted
lot coverages by various cities. The Site Plan is in Appendix #5.)
C. Landscaping and Site Plan Layout
The conceptual design of the development is to utilize existing mature trees wherever
possible as well as new trees along with mounded grass areas to create a parklike
atmosphere. The buildings are clustered to provide maximum open space, maximum view
planes into the creek area, and to minimize the visual impact to surrounding adjacent
properties. The architectural treatment of the buildings is planned to blend in with the
natural attributes of the site thus enhancing the area in general and also creating the
impression upon entering Dublin that Dublin is a well-planned, attractive, professional city.
Due to the urxique location of the property, the site benefits from landscaping and landscape
view planes which give an open, parklike atmosphere and setting. View planes are as follows:
Area 1 Between subject parcel east property line and
San Ramon Road curb,
Landscaped area 8200 sq. ft.
Area 2 Triangular Parcel bounded by subject parcel north
property line, Martin Creek and San Ramon Road
Open Area 2800 sq. ft.
Area 3 Balance of Martin Creek area bounded by Arbor Creek
and subject property north property line
Open Area 18,000 sq. ft.
Area 4 Park area on subject parcel north west 100' property
line abutting the park landscape & open area
Landscape & Open Area 15,000 sq. ft.
Area 5 On site landscaping 6800 sq. ft.
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND VIEW PLANES +/- 50,800 sq. ft.
f - -
- + r
City of Dublin - Laurence L. Tong - May 15, 1986. - Page 3
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
The CC&R's that we tentatively have planned for the project would closely parallel those
that we.have developed for a project in Fremont. (See Appendix #6.) The CC&R's allow
the individual owners normal ownership rights of the building interiors along with use of
the exterior common areas. The building exterior and common areas, maintenance and
upkeep are regulated by the Owners' Association. In the event that an individual owner
did not want to cooperate with the Owners' Association regarding maintenance and upkeep,
the Owners' Association could perform the work and assess the non-cooperative owner
and enforce it with a lien: This would ensure that the development continues as a well-
maintained and attractive property.
The city of Dublin would benefit from this project in several ways. There would be
increased employment opportunities and most probably new business relocating to Dublin. -
The project would provide a good transition between retail and residential areas. The
office use of the site, as planned, would enhance the Martin Creek zone. The project
would make a strong statement of well-planned development and professional image as
one enters Dublin.
We appreciate the efforts of you and your staff in conducting this Specific Plan Amendment
Study. If you should have any questions or need additional information please feel free
• to call Jesse White at (415) 796-3363 or Myron Crawford at (415) 794-1615 at your.
convenience.
Sincerely, .
i> 4 .
Myron N. Cranford
"'Jesse W. White
MNC:mf
•
}
C
City of Dublin - Laurence L. Tong - May 15, 1986 - Page 4
APPENDIX
1) Specific Plan Amendment Statement •
2) Proposed draft of the Specific Plan Amendment
3) Distances to Moret Site from various intersections
4) Lot coverages allowed by various cities
5) • Site Plan*
Sc-�frrr rc ti^^eSiT Z
- -- e Nvr '1r1.rio
770-r ,FFf}rczT
7) Coldwell Banker report on office absorption/vacancy information 'k
S A-OM M e-gr lq-
8) Parking requirements for various cities - Sizes and Requirements
•
c•-
1 .
f -
•
•
• APPENDIX 1 -
Specific Plan Amendment Statement
Roy J. and Ula D. Moret have requested an amendment to the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan for 1.425 acres located at the northern limit of the 13.0 +/- acres identified
by the Specific Plan as Area 3, further identified as 7436 San Ramon Road,-Assessor's
Parcel Number 941-0040-001-02.
The requested Specific Plan Amendment would redesignate the area from Cl Retail
shopper goods with personal service financial institution or office permitted by special
provision to Cl Aministrative Office and Retail. There is little or no probability that
. the Specific Plan Amendment will be a detriment to or interfere with the future
developments within the Specific Plan Area.
The amendment is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible
with proposed land uses in the area, and it will not overburden public services.
The amendment will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to property or
public improvements. _. .
r .
•
•
•
RECEIVED
MAY 211986
DUBLIN PLANNING
APPENDIX 2 '
Proposed Draft
of the
• Specific Plan Amendment
r.
•
SAN RAMON ROAD - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
MORET PARCEL
Subject Parcel
The subject parcel is 1.425 acres of irregular, pie-shaped land, located in Area 3 and is
identified as 7436 San Ramon Road, Assessor's Parcel Number 941-0040-001-02. The
subject parcel is currently owned by Roy J. and Ula D. Moret.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The preparation of this Specific Plan Amendment is in conformance with Section 65450
of the State Planning and Conservation Law. The Specific Plan provided guidelines
regarding land use, development regulations, and a circulation system for a 40 plus acre
area north of Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road, and south of Silvergate Drive.
The Specific Plan also recognized that complete development of Area 3 could take
up to five years and that a precise determination of uses, sizes of retail or offices uses,
or types of rappropriate housing design were unpredictable for that length of time.
Coordinated .development with multiple property owners, one of the objectives of the
Specific Plan, is still possible but consolidation of smaller lots is now less likely or
insurmountable due to recent changes in ownership.
This Specific Plan Amendment has been prepared to provide for changed circumstances
and the need for land use modifications and changes to the development guidelines. The
subject parcel, as an isolated, irregularly shaped property with an earthquake fault affecting
the most usable portion is severely restricted with use limited to that permitted by the
Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Amendment changes the existing C-1 retail commercial
shopper goods zoning to C-1 commercial office and retail.
This Specific Plan Amendment also provides the development guidelines and criteria
for this new use.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LAND USE
For the most part, the Specific Plan Area is divided into small lots which have
access on San Ramon Road. The largest vacant single parcel is located in the RS-D-35
area (Area 2) of the Specific Plan Area. Developed uses in the Specific Plan Area consist
of an apartment complex, gas station, a skating rink (Iceland), a hardware store, a 52,000
square foot retail shopping center, a 112 unit multi-family project on the northernmost
parcel adjacent to Silvergate Drive, various miscellaneous commercial enterprises, and
older single-family houses. Several development proposals are currently under review for
parcels within the Specific Plan Area. They include a 288-unit condominium project at
the western edge of the study area, a 9000 square foot seafood restaurant on San Ramon
Road, and an office complex on the subject property.
Present use of the subject parcel is for a single residential home and access is via
direct driveway to San Ramon Road. - •
- 1 -
•
ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR USE
Introduction
Three types of land uses were considered for the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Area: retail commercial, office, and multi-family residential. The objective of the
following analysis is to evaluate the economic viability of the office park concept provided
for in this amendment.
Office Use and Projections
The, 1983 Specific Plan made the following projection:
"Employment in the east area of Alameda County (Dublin, Pleasanton, and
Livermore) is expected to increase an average of 2,000 jobs annually during
the next five years. About 40 percent of the expected job growth (800 jobs)
is expected to be in office-oriented types as the Dublin-Pleasanton area is
very attractive as a regional location for firms serving the central and southern
Bay Area. This translates to demand for about 200,000 square feet of additional
office space annually based on a ratio of 250 square feet of gross building
area per employee."
According to a recent publication by Coldwell-Banker the Dublin-Pleasanton-Livermore
area absorbed 483,000 square feet of office space in 1984 and 913,000 square feet was
absorbed in 1985. This almost doubled the previous year's absorption and is four and one-
half times more than the 1983 Specific Plan projections. According to a Coldwell- Banker
representative this absorption rate demonstrates that although there are a significant
number of projects in the pipeline, steady sustained growth is here and the space is being
absorbed. Over half of the space is being built for owner-users. -
The Specific Plan Area is an extremely attractive office location as it offers direct
access to the'I-580 and I-680 Freeways for firms with regional orientation. It is also a
good location for local firms due to freeway access, and it is convenient to most points in
the local community via San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd. The Specific Plan Area offers
a pleasant alternative for the firms who do not desire freeway visibility and/ or a "high-
tech" business park environment such as the Bishop Ranch in San Ramon or in the Hacienda
Business Park in Pleasanton.
Many local and regional firms do not need freeway visibility and the higher rents
associated with a new "high-tech" business park.
The office space vacancy rate in Dublin currently ranges from six to 16 % for
established buildings to 46 % for the recently-completed Amador Plaza Building. The
majority of vacancy levels are in the range of 6 % or less for the established buildings.
According to representatives of major and local leasing agents the market is expected to
continue absorption at the 1985 rate or perhaps to increase significantly within the next
12 to 24 months, and given the locational advantages discussed above, a moderate-rent
• office development could be expected to attract 10 to 15 percent of the projected demand
' for office space.
CONCLUSIONS
Office development of 33,000 square feet on the subject property will provide a
• needed product and is the most appropriate utilization of this property considering its
remote location in . terms of a retail site and the considerable development problems
inherent in the site. - 2 -
•
•
r
LAND USE PLAN
The following descriptions identify the uses permitted, uses allowed with conditional
use permit, and those specifically prohibited as they relate to the subject property.
Area 3 - Subject Property 1.425 Acres
This area is an extremely attractive office location as it offers direct access to the
I-580 and I-680 Freeways for firms with regional orientation. It is also a good location
for local firms due to freeway access, and it is convenient to most points in the local
community via San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd. Many local and regional firms do not
need freeway visibility and the higher rents associated with a new "high-tech" business
park. An office .in the parklike setting of the Moret Martin Creek parcel would be very
attractive to such firms.
Permitted Uses
1. Offices, personal services, and financial service uses such as:
a. Professional administrative offices
b. Financial institutions
c. Personal services -
d. Medical-Dental offices and/or labs
2. Eating and drinking establishments selling prepared food and liquor except those
• defined as drive-through .
3. Retail .
Conditional Use
1. Subject to approval of a conditional use permit:
. r•
a. Any change from one established use to another permitted use.
b. Community, religious and charitable institutions facilities and uses.
c. Public facilities and uses.
d. Convenience stores.
Prohibited Uses
1. All retail commercial uses defined as:
a. New and used vehicle sales and or repair and service.
b. Service Stations.
c. Auto parts stores
d. Hardware and garden shops
2. Residential uses.
3. Industrial uses.
- 3 -
•
•
}
}
.
•
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The circulation system which immediately impacts the subject property was previously
examined relative to external access, street plan lines, and the anticipated traffic impact
on major streets such as Silvergate Drive, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Blvd., and
Dublin Blvd. TJKM Traffic Consultants concluded in a recent study (April 23, 1986) that
the recent and planned improvements to San Ramon Road and Amador Valley will alleviate
any intersection capacity problems. TJKM concluded that the concerns in the area are
access and circulation. It has been established by the Dublin City Council by vote on
March 10, 1986 that the subject property will be provided direct driveway access to
San Ramon Road with the driveway to be located within the southern half of the Highway
frontage.
TJKM recommended that the various property owners in Area 3 coordinate their
development efforts to provide cross parcel driveway connections for access on
Amador Valley Court. Subject property is to provide driveway access in the rear area to
the Hayward Fishery property for this purpose.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY
It is anticipated that site planning issues not provided for in this Specific Plan
Amendment will be addressed through normal zoning ,site development, and other procedures
found in the City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Regulations. Unless otherwise identified
herein, all new development shall conform to the applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. In cases where conflict may occur between the provisions of this Specific
Plan Amendment and those embodied in the Zoning Ordinance, this Amendment shall prevail.
In exercising its right of review and approval, the Planning Director, Planning Commission,
and City Council shall adhere to the standards set forth in these criteria and shall foster •
and promote the purposes of these development 'standards.
The following general development criteria have been included to insure that proper
uses are deve1loped as identified in this Amendment, and the desired circulation system is
created.
1. Zoning
This Specific Plan Amendment allows ,for office and retail use on the subject property.
2. Compatibility of Uses
•
Special attention has been placed on insuring compatibility of the proposed use in
conjunction with development within Area .3 and adjoining areas. During the review of
these projects, attention has been and shall continue to be given to the height of proposed
structures, design, landscaping, setbacks, street side design treatment, distance between
buildings, loading areas, walls and fences, and pedestrian and service circulation.
3. Circulation Improvements -
Circulation between the subject property and the Hayward Fishery property is to be -
inv,estigated with the ultimate objective of continuing the vehicular circulation through
to Amador Valley Court.
- 4 -
•
•
4. Physical Constraints
Physical constraints exist within the Specific Plan Area. The entire area is located within
a potential geological hazard area and is designated as a "Special Zone" as defined by -
the Alquist-Priolo Act. The .subject property is crossed by a fault line roughly parallel
to San Ramon Road and approximately 110 feet to the west. In addition, Martin Canyon
Creek (Area 4) has a flood potential that has to be addressed. As a result, all final
stage development plans within the subject property shall include:
a. A comprehensive geologic and soils report prepared by a licensed geologist
identifying any geologic or soil hazard zones, appropriate mitigation measures
and other recommendations. This report shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the County Geologist to assure that a reasonable safety factor is provided.
b. A hydrological report on flood impacts related to Martin Canyon Creek shall
be completed. All flood control preventive measures shall conform to the 100
Year designated flood criteria.
5. Noise
Due to anticipated noise levels along San Ramon Road, all structures that may be affected
by noise levels in excess of commercial and residential noise standards shall be sound
attenuated to insure interior noise levels within acceptable standards (as defined by the
County of Alameda Noise Element). Appropriate acoustic measures may include walls,
special windows, building orientation, and similar features.
6. . Setbacks
Office building -setbacks from adjoining property boundaries shall be 10 feet minimum, and
this setback where not utilized for parking or drives shall be landscaped with an effective
combination 'c f trees, ground cover, and shrubbery. In addition, there shall be a 20-foot
landscape buffer between buildings and the curb of San. Ramon Road. Parking set backs
. shall be a minimum of 5 feet from all adjacent properties and not allowed in the front 20
foot setback on San Ramon Road. Cars may overhang 2 feet into the landscaped areas.
7. Parking Standards
A. The following requirements are applicable to all uses within the Specific Plan
Area:
1. As an incentive to promote the joint development of parcels within this
Specific Plan Area, the following may be provided at the option of the
developer subject to the conditions identified below when applicable to
commercial (including office use) and residential off-street parking uses:
a. Required parking may be modified as follows:
Up to 25% of required parking spaces may be waived by the Planning
Commission based on evidence presented demonstrating that the
particular use of land will require a smaller number of permanent
spaces based on the anticipated use of the land. Sufficient evidence
- 5 -
f
•
f -
i -
•
(.. r-
shall be presented demonstrating the unique or changed circumstances
substantiating the waiving of required parking spaces.
b. Shared Parking and/or cross-parking agreements:
Parking facilities required for any parcel may be used jointly with
parking facilities for other uses or parcels when operations are not
normally conducted during the same hours, or when hours of peak
use vary. Cross-parking agreements may be used for adjoining
properties where operations are not normally conducted during the
same hours, or when hours of peak use vary. Request for the use
of shared parking or cross-parking agreements are subject to approval
of the Director of Planning and must meet the following conditions:
1) Sufficient evidence shall be presented to the Director of
Planning demonstrating that there shall exist no substantial
• conflict in the principal hours or periods of peak demand of
the structures or uses for which the joint use is proposed.
•
2) The number of parking stalls which may be credited against
the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not
exceed the number of parking stalls reasonably anticipated to
be available during different hours of operation.
3) Parking facilities designed for joint use shall not be located
further than 250 feet from any structure or use served.
4) A written agreement -shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the
City Attorney and executed by all parties concerned assuring
r the continued availability of the number of stalls designated
for joint use at the period of time indicated.
c. Compact Cars:
Facilities with 25 or more parking spaces may provide up to 40 %
of its parking for use by compact cars. Spaces delineated for parked
compact car use shall meet standards as developed by the Director
of Planning. Parking Stall Size:
Standard Car 9' x 191*
Compact Car 7.5' x 151*
* Two feet of the parking stall may overhang.landscaped areas
B. Parking requirements for the subject property shall be based on one stall per
300 square feet of leasable floor area unless modified by the provision of
Paragraph A.
S. Height Limits
•
Heights in excess of the normal three-story, 45 foot commercial limits may be permitted.
For any proposals exceeding three stories the Planning Commission shall review the
appropriateness of siting and compatibility of the design with•the scale and character of
the Specific Plan Area. Buildings should:
A. Avoid significant visual impacts.
B. Respect views both on and off the site.
C. Be clustered, rather than spread out over the site.
} 6
}
•
•
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Site plan and design review procedures will be performed as a Planned Development
Zoning District with guidelines shown on Table I or located within the body of this specific -
plan amendment.
TABLE.I
Moret Property Development Guidelines
San Ramon Road - Specific Plan Amendment - City of Dublin - California
OFFICE USES
Maximum Height Limit 4 Over Parking
Minimum Site Area 43,560 sq. ft.
Maximum Bldg. Coverage 40 % w/surface parking; 80 %
Percent of Footprint to site area w/undergrnd. or struct. parking
•
Setbacks and Yards - 20 feet from major street;
for Buildings no other set requirements
Minimum Landscape Areas (planting, 10 %
walkways, pools, outdoor elements
Distance between Structures - None
Pedestrian Amenities Internal/external walkways &
connections to adjacent
Special Conditions Parking reqmnts may be modified
as per General Development -
- 7 -
f •
•
•
APPENDIX 3
Distance to Moret Property
From Various Intersections
DISTANCE TO SUBJECT SITE FROM INTERSECTIONS FOR VARIOUS ALTERNATES
• . Dublin, California
Intersections Direct Access through Future SRRSP
Property Hayward Fishery, Amador Valley
Access Nichandros and Court Access
Comm'I Property
Amador/SRR
Northbound 2235' 1460' 1510'
Eastbound 2235' _ 35001* 960'
Westbound 2235 • _1460' 1510'
Silvergate/SRR'
Southbound- - 835' 2100' 2910'
SITE to
Amador/SRR 565' 1460' 1510'
SITE to
.Silvergate/SRR 1965' 2860' 2910'
* Left turn from Amador to Nichandros property could be restricted in future
NOTE Distancess given in linear feet are approximate
.. - , • .
..,._ ,/ •
. .
e 5 It_Y ER_GATE. ......-• •
•
, .
. 1
. . • • ,
. • - ,
(-, t
.. . .
. . •
A
D /STANCES TO mORE_T PR2c...EL. . • .
/I: •
. - .
, .
.i<Ey : • . .
. • .
D i R ECT_ .pRopEgTy .Rec5 55 -------.1.- 41
FUTURE ,p2.0P0.5E-.0 iFccess •
THRU FeDzgcEwr PrZopa re.-r y — — — - ...
•
. .
- . .
. . . .
• ...---- .
% DE5T . .
/
• V.-
.
N1D(1E1- \ •
7 --.
-...._ _.,),„„. - ■
+1 .-<
/ • •
.
1 0 --
0 --/-.
I . N
-._.
..11- -
. - I .
. .
. . 1-1 AV1,01-\RJ.) FIS NEC/ .
I i
. - -
t .
------ 1 • •
I ---, —....4- ....4.- -4 .- - ----- _ ......\ .•
e 0 iA IA , piLoP, 11
4 / 1
I .
. I . • I
1\11C1-1 A ND rz.ob .
liz!iiit • I
•It 1
•
..----- -4- — --+-
----- )
\
------- •
/4/vulDo rL. GT. / .
.
. .
i ,
F - - • .
. . . .
• ,
. .
. . _
• ,
, .
. .
. .
• RECEIVED
MAY 211986
•
DUBLIN PLANNING
APPENDIX 4
•
Lot Coverage
APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
CITY ZONE LOT COVERAGE ZONE LOT COVERAGE
PERMITTED PERMITTED
Dublin �• .Comm'l Office 50 %
rf
- Hayward Comm'l Office 40 % Central Bus. 90 %
District
Hayward Central City 90% Gen. Comm'1 90 %
Antioch Comm'l Office 60 % Neighborhood 60 %
Commercial
Antioch Gen. Comm'l 60 %
•
f _
RECEIVED
MAY 211986
APPENDIX 8
DUBLIN PLANNING .
•
Parking Requirements - Various Cities
and
Parking Stall Sizes
I
Appendix 8
• PARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
PARKING REQUIRED FOR FLOOR AREA vs. USAGE
City Administrative Offices Commercial/Retail
Fremont 0 to 20,000 sq. ft. 0 to 3000 sq. ft.:_
1 for each 300 sq. ft. 6 spaces required;
• plus). for each 500 sq. ft.
over 20,000 sq. ft. 3000 to 5000 sq.ft.:
5 plus 1 for each
500 sq. ft over
3000 sq. ft.;
5000 sq. ft. & over:
10 plus 1 for each
250 sq. ft. over
5000 sq. ft.
Manteca 1 for each 300 sq. ft. 1 for each 300 sq. ft.
Pleasanton 1 for each 300 sq. ft. 1 for each 300 sq. ft.
PARKING STALL SIZE SUMMARY
City Standard Car Compact Car
Hayward 9' x 19' 7.5' x 15'
Fremont 9' x 19' 8' x 16'
•
. . .
. . .
• •
. •
. . .
. .
tn
. .
. .
. ••.< ,‘ i ......) ‘........---•" • .
• \ \:,,, ••.,\
) 1 i...■ ': • •• •
. ............,-- , ..,) ,..c.1"
. \ ... :•-....--.1, /
.t, :. . .5. /''''■ ;7.:.i..
\ ,' ,.. I 1141---- 4...S;:/
,;-7)
\ ,,......„ ss t • ti. .J..i. .
. ... ..c -C...1:, /..//'
\ . •
• \-3-'
••,' . ..•-I i. C'' - // . . .
..-----n- ••• .,.,
• ,,-* \ if-:..•
•-t..i.N, i . . 1..c.C C -. \ \ /.. , ,..
• ' FINFRIMII I .
. ' • -N-:s... ••) .......\---- , ‘ ‘..//
. . .
. ,
' \ .... ..
'''' ...i . • •
. `.1'•• •,./". II) .
ff0S8(-back lines ,..•••/..VV .
.• • •, -- :"Cl.,„..\,{\ \ \ \ ' )'.. 1
. • .
. _, •LEGEND: ..-- . • . • .
•
••••••., ;-. ' . i. ir_i •. \ --- / ' . -.'• .
; i • i. .. ' .
4
SITE AREA 1.42 Acres ••• \
\ X .. .• . •
.-....•:r • V \ .......)- --1-
BUILDING AREA33.000 96 ll q----\T---C. CC-,)*.6.: 2,..1■1-"Y.-C2-7-1 -7-::5;ej" = %)
. .
PARKING 69 rog -- --. / \ .
\. . ,
I Corg2 k
• 41 compact .4"c;)----'---:...0------. ,--- -5:1-1,....0 - 1
!i AP "SN\ ' *.'"
ii 4 loial 4 / / / •
,. . .
•
I .. 11,12211MII. t . .
. ,
.4-_._ . Bldg 4
: laZIOMBM 1 :
' .--'----1,-1 , I • 1 I. \ • i . 112=C • .
. • . . . \ ''.1 Ej . „
. f. ;11 ::: . . ..,•
• Bldg 3 ...f
. .
. .
• .:
Bldg 1 . . I 1 \. . •... .
•
\ •...,\ . (' . .
hc
. .
. . hc /
I .
_ hc II
.14---.
............. ,
.. I I . ....'.
•
0 • / • \ :. I ,
! . II\ _._,_,...."-—--1—1, . ..
" . (....• 4 .
Bldg 2 • • . .
. , .
• . ,,
• f . \ • • .
, • • . ..L.,..1._:„..? 1
I . '
! •• • I I
. . . . . .
.
-11," -.0- ,
/
1
• . • __.
.:
' . ' i.• \ .. .
•
. 'd • . .: .. .
. ' ..'
. . -
• •
, ' • .
• . .
. -..... ..
• . ....
. .
•
lb
ctill X
1 . pawns
. CX1'Jf1N4 DAL-CMb ! .•
( .
.w t / __
a _ �s�'__ l yzz a e' d cecaa /
r / �•. 1
. vno+e. hnw a M• /`/ 1 1 • —..
\ -( \
• Pe+b+e f•rru r f • F\ig i
; . . ,... ki: ---- . .ps 1:, ::::- Ir.
I. \ ' N /.. . '. .1c 0'4- p 1 -- ...go/ ,,..... .• 1dvYW!( • it • j1' ( ■N, am u 1 el )iiiim
I '--.s..., I 1 01111; , : --' . 7 l'i: . c, .
t .
_EG^cry '. � LI .iAti 7' ^°• rt':\ �Yr f . a — Prrwe re O. 1 Q el. yI �. . .
. i.,_,A. • . ...
0 . \
T-
I t I / rl•e. 711; Fu+ae � 1 T , 3 to
1 i .no ...
���N
—e'Frl+r�.oAnt7 .� �I cenov e�urrre» �- �" i� . :.
•' /Z ! !Pr,. ele: 1•V•YH WYDNf.b10Ni. �� �1 Ham. V.A./teem.?• /.4( l • \ v� G�•, it\I i ■■••■ ,:\ 1
•
, ,; . 1 eve.miroo wi. .- 4041 .41;. eisk..,istip-110 v.
• ..:.,. . 1 =L14.1.1T '.i.
•
: ii....----ITO'a WASP s1,
I 1 O� 1 .p 1 ® ", I
io
igdowm. 2.
' 7 ��� r ` J
4 1 ! O. SI ailltallb. :1"- of 6�R cauaert 4.7............, I 1 -� •
1 •.�{jQ�e„o..a.✓ /,r 7f f7' .cop„Ir. hNtlfLT1 -II•
�` f • s�
. illir • 1--... I . .\
7 ---•--
1 ; ' j I• I•
' p .fT 'LIST '/ Llr HTh 4 .
.. . . I51fe.. DQCP3JIC/6..L'NoMF {!•u!gN N4NG- . iy_ ,oeDE �T�'E I a-arras _ ••54-eye IzAw'rnT e No+F's Iz' ._
-- - -° I ISfJ+" al olzlr. �uuewrnt Stt# I)zeG f+'+T ' to-+o' le =... .. is •t
! weePNl.dacµ MeoUM r*x I'a' ' IS'
I Is", cEnx,• ro�ou�+� / ___ Site Plan e . .
lel,x. Fiz...uNws OKYUan. 'Wri�xd swwoco/3w Mmun HST '40-'0' 1 le I
MGM- rwr...4P GHWeN.ih i CJINrvG Par•zile. MCdUN 40' 12' .
-- 1 .IL n.srrw v,..t..•_n. - Fo¢TNIUIT LILY A"-X e' 3'
,..•
•
•
•
. .----- -
. .
.r.-- .
. •• -e. .
. . . .
• .
. .
•.
. .
. _
. . .. .... . . ___ .
...„....
( ( r ace
.f.
. .
lirl•AAA.1.17(
RAC AMMAN, C.•,A•De
1 I
\ 04•10 0.4
• _ 7
y 32 011 ,11
__ s• .v, 4 . .5.LC. •
V•C A MI 7 I A.• ,-a ,
I . - ----- --- -----f.7--- : — n —
%••_. .
..y ,
I I ,.............L.....,......,
1 I . i...,,■16■.....rc
411 1 I 71 .
, 1 .
i I • i i
A -..
I 0,acso 1.0 I.
ClIOCINO - .:AZ„ .• . I
•EN CC \s_ , IOTCALOCNNNO .....c. :.„.. . -.-...c . .......j.24' _...1.
—.............. dc
_. _...........--- •Nof.R3.....,.....I ci. ‘ .,..., \
/ N. .)(7N,....• 721
i
• I , • A.14-..•-• . .. •• " • Iv '
•
. • -/' . - „ I 1 11 ' :IP : oCILI 1 1,. .iilljNi 1.5 I 1 i i I 0 I
1 ..•• s , • I 1 -.,1.3 1 1 . • i •U-L•* I I I i i
I
I :.i -
I I I
• ...
. rt.!' n•.... 1 I .J.C. •
•
, lAr011A,Ar, .\#.1'4,12
. i 1
CrCLUVJAC•/9.
CA11271,10 .■ . • r
SKAITI•0 La.a, • ; I I I _,. 13 4.1:
--•-- .......—..--..----..--__..,
Ring ,
..■-•—
. A
—..—— .----'.1 ...• " • :I
• • .R
.i . • ..L.M
I( I
) CAISI,C ■
led
ET— f,,,,.•
el X .' X A 1
_ ■ I
• I • . _ ___
MVO I
• • I . -—•xfs•r5
_
6 :: ,„ .. ...... 21A, ...il IOC It; I ---/
i-- • 4 raeu..s.
—-.- : :
____ 1 ..1 .1... ta :r. ... , • . : . . i
n
_ i .
(.1..,1 ... .
• _.. .
. I :.....:. -7 -- ----. - - .
I n
- _ •
,..
A., - i.` -' 2.. g 1
1:. I
8 . . . los -.: -- -1- - I
., .
: .
1
•
is• e /3' . I
I I • .
. . 1
8 ..• ZS' 07. Ir .I. I KW .x.11°, I7.• : 23. •./ z. .
'8 ,_ .1.. L..„.1,___I__?,...._t_—TI__ _2? _i______T____,,,r___r...
. c.• L I -
: , I , . •_ — --- .•• I
• r.- •
-1 ":. --- • ,---
.E elerix Li , e ...1
PAVING I • op,cro.A• ,A. ,i8-,,morAres VAIN I . , .•
•
' •0 —SCA LccAnow
CO 7.1 BC Noma --
. .:•
'‘7.r:----esci-3. I _./...:.:.. .. '-I .,...'....; •.':.----.
i MI •'" , •
-t-I • 1 1 I , 1 4 L;11- S. . 1
I MI 14.:3r11111 ' I Illi 6-11iiiii \ ' .' 7 •
,..._..,
i....,. MASAI I <I3 40 I •Z
I• UMW,UWE.A. In. • *2:};;;;VL A 4 sr.Li. CO .
1 CO 41:Z. ,..
i cc. rt•
• I . f•uLr Lisa .—
1 ' -.•.••• n. I
7
c--- 0--,,.. r--) / 111. 1,::1- THIII c___,
. , • _.,_
if 414 I
III:. I i i ..I '41
i : ..
- I 4 e, 'a, 4 4 a ____ 1..S..f.1 S• *a. -----------
.... e _
. . •-,
/ ....:11" 11i1 ■ 1111 _ ........... -.I
11 I ■•1 se,_14 ... ..-.--.---o-•- I I I
I
i :r -0' X.."..." 1 . $ :O. 'V.:::tf 1 rt. :11.1• rs. ..; ,r ! z„,. }, . '7".` I : .'g_?1L._.fa,:_,.....L.).. .
■ -, ___. / / -7.' ei lem•ACr Sr■LL
_ \
III IC I
1 121 I 0 11111111ll "111 " 1 " 1
, t Ii2. 12.3e. . 1 • 1111 . ,
PL AM • , I
I I 1 ) IIIII, ,_ II :_ ! II ! ! .! I 1 I I I I ,,,,
.
) ,,SIGII
'51 ----\ _:.: •t: -.--. --.--.
(CIF*" 51134 N. 1 --------- / •
..\ .
\ • ir
A 9•3.•32.. •3C
"A•r— •I.
0 \
)
‘ ....-----
•
I - /
an R9 GI,ZSOGI I:faJD .
_
- •
,. .
•
. .
' .
• ,
i . . .
. . .
. .
.
-..* .
.
ti
.
A''2, -' • . g, ...,. .• '
i;- • .' •
•P.,...T.TAC --6,4 ENT
. .
Z ITEr PLAit4 -,D4 4L1 . .
%.taii § coqiv7R. 1 - ,
. _. .. .
. . .
•. • . . . . .
. . .
. . . .
• .
. .
r:-.-
PUBLIC HEARING
MORET PROPERTY, 7436 SAN RAMON ROAD
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Larry Tong presented a Staff Report and indicated that the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan was adopted in 1983 and established guidelines regarding the
land use, development regulations, and circulation system for a 40+ acre area
north of Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road and south of Silvergate
Drive. The Plan was prepared in response to the perceived need for specific
development guidelines in an area where property ownership was fragmented
into small holdings and which faced access and internal circulation problems .
The generalized development mandates for the area as applied by the Dublin
City Council included:
o Alleviate special access problems by designing future road locations and
access requirements .
o Encourage larger scale, integrated development.
o Require coordinated development among multiple property owners .
The Moret property• is located at the northern limit of the 13 . 0 + acre area
identified as Area 3 . Area 3 was the area identified as having the best
potential for the development of retail shopper stores oriented to providing
additional comparison shopping goods for both Dublin and nearby community
residents . The Specific Plan calls for the principal use of Area 3 to be
reserved for retail shopper stores, and indicates that in the case of
. shopping centefs" inArea 3 involving four acres or more, a maximum of 250 of
.the total groth floor area of any development can be for personal service,
financial or office uses .
Mr. Moret is requesting authorization to allow consideration of office
developments in excess of the amount provided for in the Plan in Area 3 of
the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area.
The Applicant presented several reasons as cause for the Council to consider
authorizing the requested amendment study. The Applicant indicates that
development of the site for office use will create a soft transition from
residential areas to the north to the retail areas to the south. Also
indicated is that office use on the site would generate approximately 1/7 the
traffic generated by a comparable retail area. However, taking all items
into consideration, it is apparent that the Applicant ' s statement that office
use would create 1/7 the traffic generated by a commercial/retail use of the
property is both undocumented and. misleading.
A factor that Staff felt should "be considered in reviewing the request for
authorization of a Specific Plan Amendment Study is the recently developed
market feasibility information prepared in conjunction with the Downtown
Commercial Study. The Consultant Market Analysis by Laventhol and Horwath
indicates that the retail market continues to be seen as remaining strong
while the office market is considered soft at this time.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @.@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@
CM-5-77 -
Regular Meeting • April 14, 1986
I IA MENT
NiV
}
CZ /hlpc4s 4- t4 -$6
•
Jess White who is a partner in the proposed office development, addressed the
Council and passed out copies of Government Code Section 65453 which deals
with how a specific plan may be amended. A Specific Plan can be amended by
the legislative body and what they are requesting is an amendment, not a
study. . Mr. White referred to a study done by Coldwell Banker related to
office space absorption from 1980 - 1985 . The Town & Country Center (retail
space) is currently only about 50% leased. The office project they are
proposing is not large enough to require a feasibility study.
Mr. Myron Crawford offered additional facts . He felt that the office space
would offer a nice transition which would benefit the community.
Mr. Roy Moret indicated he had filed an application for office complexes on
March 10, 1986 and had received a 100% negative response from City Staff,
which he felt should be there to assist developers in developing their
property. He would like to develop his property as soon as possible.
Mayor Snyder indicated that Staff simply carries out the direction of the
City Council.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hegarty felt that Staff was correct in their recommendations based on
City Council past findings , and this was not the place to critize Staff .
.There was originally a plan put in which was based on cooperation amongst the
property owners`; and this cooperation obviously did not take place.
Cm. Jeffery felt there was not enough evidence to indicate a need to change
the plan. A lot of time was devoted to the process when the plan was
developed and she felt she could not support a study for an amendment . She
did feel, however that it might be wise to obtain another market analysis .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote,
the Council agreed to have Staff initiate the process for an amendment study.
A public hearing on the study will be conducted and a determination will be
made as to whether an amendment will take place . No additional market
analysis will be obtained. Cm. Jeffery voted against this motion.
* * * *
•
t
•
(T
•
PUBLIC HEARING
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY AND CITY COUNCIL INITIATED
REZONING - DUBLIN TOWN &COUNTRY ASSOCIATES
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Staff explained that at its meeting of May 27, 1986, the City Council
authorized a Specific Plan Amendment Study to consider removing the
restriction on the maximum percentage of the total gross floor area that can
be used for personal service, financial or office uses in the Dublin Town &
• Country Shopping Center: Concurrent with that action, the Council initiated
a Rezoning Study to consider amending the current Planned Development (PD)
District regulations to allow occupancy by the land uses generally provided
for in the C-1, Retail Business District.
The Applicant presented the reasons for the requested elimination of the
restriction on the amount of allowable occupancy by personal service,
financial or office uses . Those arguments included 1) the slow progress to
date in leasing the tenant spaces within the Shopping Center; 2) the lack of
an anchor tenant; 3 ) the need for a mixture of uses to provide a "balanced"
center and 4 ) the constraints on leasing to additional food establishments
created by large sewer hook-up fees for restaurants .
Two Planning Commissioners, _at their meeting of June 16, 1986, expressed
reservations regarding both the Specific Plan Amendment and the Rezoning
request, in that the Specific Plan Amendment on a property-by-property basis
would result in a piecemealing of the Plan Area and undermine the original
intent of the Plan. In response to those concerns, the Commission directed
Staff to advise-the City Council of its desire to have any future Specific
Plan Amendmentr_. Study, including the Study currently under consideration for
the Moret property, be expanded to include the remaining 8+ acres of Area 3
of the Plan.
Discussion was held relative to confusion over terminology and definition
'optometrist' . An optometrist could also be considered as office use or as a
dispensing optician, which sells eyeglasses , etc .
Council agreed to remove optometrist from the office category and include it
in the personal services section.
The recommended percentage of office space allowed was discussed. The
percentage allowed was 10% of gross floor area. Mr. Jeha, applicant,
indicated they would like to have additional flexibility and requested a
higher percentage be allowed for office use . Staff reported that the
Planning Commission felt that 10% office space was desirable.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned certain uses under the office category, -
specifically, Accounting.
•
Cm. Hegarty questioned what a Veterinary Office was . Staff responded that it
would be considered a facility for the treatment of animals, not just
offices .
***************************************************************************
CM-5-125 .
Regular Meeting June 23, 1986
•
•
dig riiitogatkeift
C 2 Now-r s 6-21-8Ø
Page 3 of Exhibit B Resolution was discussed and under the list of prohibited
uses, Staff felt was too broad.
- All other retail stores and personal services not mentioned above
including new and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service,
service stations, and other similar stores and services .
The above paragraph was changed to read
- New and used vehicle sale's and/or vehicle repair and service and service
stations.
Richard Wiebe, part owner of the Town & Country Center addressed the Council
and stated they need flexibility from the original prohibitions and
limitations of the original agreement. They would prefer a C-1 zoning and
were requesting 25%-30% for office uses. Mr. Wiebe stated they appreciated
all the work that Staff and the City Council had gone to.
Len Mignani, Western Development Services, and the leasing agent for the
shopping center indicated they were doing everything possible to market the
center. He felt that office uses would give them more opportunities -to lease
the space.
Roy Moret indicated his support of Town & Country's request and felt they
should get as much support from the City Council as possible. Mr. Moret
questioned the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the
feasibility of including all of the remaining property in Area 3 and felt it
would delay his project.
Planning Director Tong indicated that the Moret application is being.
processed and including the remaining property in Area 3 would not increase
the processing time. •
Cm. Hegarty indicated that when the previous review of the Jeha project was
done, it was reported to the Council that an anchor store would be in the
center.
Myron Crawford questioned who would be responsible for additional costs of
study.
Mr. Tong •indicated that since the Planning Commission is requesting the
additional study, the City would bear the costs .
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she was in favor of raising permitted office type
uses to 50% to give as much flexibility as possible.
Cm. Moffatt indicated he would like to go even further and put all of Area 3
into C-1 zoning. Cm. Moffatt felt the City was practicing spot zoning and
cited several cases which ruled against cities .
Cm. Jeffery felt that the reason for the specific plan was that the City
wanted something special for this entrance into Dublin and that the City
should try to retain the original goal.
***************************************************************************
CM-5-126 -
Regular Meeting June 23, 1986
}
f
suggested that perhaps not everyone' s goals were the same for
•
Cm_ Vonheeder su qg
this City entrance.
He arty agreed about and of a
Cm. g a reed that the Council
idealdwasmnot1comingually an would agree
lack of sally pleasing and felt
to of .cooperation eration amongst the property owners . He indicated he
to in
crease the allowed office uses to 50% and would like to see it rezoned
to C-1.
Moffatt felt that inconsistent zoning will create court challenges .
Cm a s ecific plan
City Attorney Nave indicated that the whole point of having P
was to avoid this . The motion died
•
Cm_ Moffatt made a motion to change Area 3 to C-1 zoning.
for lack of a second.
Attorney Nave stated that such a motion would be best dteaddressedtby direct
Clan in suggested that t
Planning Commission and
the Planning Commission to conduct a study to make this change.
changed his motion. The motion, again, was not seconded.
Cm. Moffatt ch an q
Mayor Snyder felt the center was there for retail purposes .
He arty feat- the. center needed something to bring the people in. to
On-Cm g g y by majority vote,r Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. He art , and b maj Y
the motion
Co Council of Cr e the allowed office use to 40%. Mayor Snyder and
the Council agreed to Chang
Cm. Jeffery voted NO on this motion.
directed that all Resolutions and documents be changed to reflect
The Council direc
this new allowed percentage .
On motion
of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 86
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
CONCERNING PA 86-050 . 1 SAN R
(AMENDMENT TO AREA 3 ) AND PA 86-050 .2 TOWN &PCOUNTRYDSHOPPINGNCENTER DISTRICT
REZONING OF THE DUBLIN
On motion of
Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, -
the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 86
PLAN
ppPROVING AN AMENDMENT DOSPECIrIC P ANN (RAMENDMENTITO AREA 3 )
PA 86-050 .1 SAN RAMON ROAD
Cm. Jeffery voted NO on this motion. -
f
******** ***************************** ** ********************************
f CM-5 June 23, 1986
Regular Meeting
•
•
•
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 55 - 86
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING
PA 86-050.2 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 3
DUBLIN TOWN & COUNTRY SHOPPING CENTER
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote,
the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property located at the
Southwest Corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Mayor Snyder
and Cm. Jeffery voted NO on this motion.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council directed Staff to include the remainder of Area 3 in the Moret San
Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study.
•
}
}
CITY OF DUBLIN
•
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR:
•
PLANNING PERMIT: PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan Study to consider adjust-
• went of the uses allowed in Area 3 of the Plan and to also
consider adjustment to the development criteria for the
individual properties in Area 3 of the Plan.
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq.)
LOCATION: Properties within this Study include the C-1, Retail Business
District properties in Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan (excludes the PD, Planned Development District - Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center property), including:
1. Moret property
(APN 941-040-1-2)
•
2. Rivers-Barton property
(APN 941-040-2-14)
3. Commercial Property, Ltd. property
(APN 941-040-2-10)
•
4. Nichandros property
.(APN-941-040-2-3, -2, -7 and -3)
. 5. East Bay Iceland, Inc. property
(APN 941-040-5-1).
PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Roy J. & Ula D. Moret
• 129 San Wedge Place
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
2. Ronald Rivers
22701 Foothill Boulevard
Hayward, CA 94541
3. Commercial Property, Ltd.
931 Camino Ramon
Danville, CA 94521
4. J. C. & L. K. Nichandros
7360 San Ramon Road
Dublin, CA 94568
5. .East Bay Iceland, Inc.
7212 San Ramon Road
Dublin, CA 94568
•
•
! TA1ME1T j4
POP" Metro rEC 4
APPLICANT: City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin; CA 94568
FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan Study
Page Two
INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study dated August 15, 1986, provides a discussion
of the project's potential environmental impacts. No potential
significant impacts have -been identified for the project.
MITIGATION
MEASURES: No mitigation measures are required for the project.
•
SIGNATURE: DATE:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director •
•
1 • - : ••
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
.
-:. �:- CITY OF DUBS, CAl, V p 'l+ •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
•
•.L• •
•
•
JUNE 1983 •
•
•
- . 1:11, A r'g.4 Fi A-- A FT
$ ?r
. . 1040 OAK GROVE ROAD, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA•94518
•
CITY COUNCIL' '
Peter W. Snyder, Mayor
Peter J. Hegarty, Vice-Mayor
Linda Jeffery
Paul Moffatt
Fred Drena
David C. Burton (served until October, 1983) •
PLANNING COMMISSION
William M. Tennery, Chairman
Georgean Vonheeder, Vice-Chairman
John Alexander •
Eddie Jo Mack
David M. Petty
CITY STAFF
Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
F
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
•
Objectives 1
Existing Conditions and Land Use . 1
Economic Demand for 'New Uses 2
Land Use Plan 4
Circulation System 8
General Development Criteria 9
Specific Development Criteria 12
• Administration and Review Process 12
Table I: Specific Development Guidelines 15
. Appendix A Definitions 16
Resolutions of the City Council 20
Adopting the Specific Plan, Amendments,
and Corresponding Negative Declarations
Acknowledgements 27
•
.SAN RAMON ROAD - SPECIFIC PLAN . _ _
•
•
•
OBJECTIVES
•
The preparation of this Specific Plan is in conformance with Section
65450 of the State Planning and Conservation Law. At present, the City of
Dublin does not have an adopted General Plan, but this Specific Plan
implements the General Plan Elements (Land Use, etc. ) presently considered
appropriate by the Dublin City Council. This Specific Plan provides
guidelines regarding land use, development regulations, and a circulation
system for a 40+ acre area north of Dublin Blvd. , west of San Ramon Road, and
south of Silvergate Drive. This Specific Plan has been prepared in response
to the need for specific development guidelines in an area presently in small
ownership with definite access and internal circulation problems.
This Specific Plan recognizes that complete development may take up to 5
years. A precise determination of uses, sizes of retail or office uses, or
types of appropriate housing design are unpredictable for that length of time.
In place of a definitive plan for each of the 15 parcels, development will be
guided by.this Specific Plan and the principles, criteria, and standards
presented herein to assure that future development conforms to the mandates of
the Dublin City Council as defined in their meeting of May 16, 1983. The
Council wants:
- To alleviate the special access problems-by designing future road
locations and access requirements. *
- To accomplish larger scale, integrated development by encouraging and
requiring the combination of smaller lots. . • _
- To bring about coordinated development among multiple property
owners.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LAND USE
At present, the area contains some 15 parcels which are presently
utilized as noted in Figure 1 (Land Use and Zoning Map) . The area is
presently zoned for commercial and multi-family residential uses (C-1, C-N,
R-S-D-20 or R-S-D-35) . For the most part, the Specific Plan Area is divided
into small lots which have access on San Ramon Road. The largest vacant
single parcel is 4.8 acres in size and is located at the center edge of the
Specific Plan Area. Developed uses in this Specific Plan Area consist of an
apartment complex, gas station, a skating rink (Iceland) , a hardware store,
various miscellaneous commercial enterprises, a church, and older single-
family houses. Several development proposals are currently under review for
•
parcels. within the Specific Plan Area. They include a 112 unit multifamily
project on the northernmost parcel adjacent to Silvergate Drive and a 288-unit
condominium project at the western edge of the study area.
•
- 1 -
} •
•
•
Present access from parcels within the Specific Plan Area,is via direct
driveway access to Dublin Blvd. at San Ramon Road, and access to San Ramon
-Road via a signal at Amador Valley Blvd.
ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR NEW USES
Introduction
Three types of land uses were considered for the San Ramon Road Specific -
Plan Area: retail commercial, office, and multi-family residential. The
objective of the following analysis is to evaluate the economic viability of
the' three uses in terms of market demand given area growth patterns expected
during the next five years.
Retail
The City of Dublin is the primary retail trade center for a regional
area encompassing eastern Alameda County and southern Contra Costa County. In
1982, Dublin's retail stores recorded taxable sales of about $174 million.
Residents of the surrounding region accounted for about 70 percent of these
. sales and Dublin residents accounted for about 30 percent. The high
proportion of sales to .residents of the surrounding region can be explained by
the fact that Dublin's retail area offers a selection of shopper goods such as
clothing, household furnishings, and household appliances not available in the
surrounding communities. Most retail centers in surrounding communities offer
predominantly convenience goods such as food, liquor, drugs, and' other
consumables.
Dublin's retail sales can be expected to increase rapidly during the
next five years. The population of the surrounding region is expected to
increase frorA. a current total of about 150,000 persons to about 180,000
persons from 1983 to 1988. This will generate a proportional increase in the
regional demand for shopper goods. Dublin's shopper goods stores and -
Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center will share most of this increase as the
number of shopper goods stores in surrounding communities is not expected to
increase significantly.
Dublin's population is expected to increase about 5,800 persons during
the next five years as about 2,000 housing units are planned for construction
in the City. About half of the new housing units will be built in the area of
Dublin west of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area. Based on expected. -
household -incomes, the retail purchasing potential of the west area of Dublin
will increase a total of about $19.6 million when the new housing is completed
and occupied.
Retail development in the Specific Plan Area would be in a good
locational position (fronting on San Ramon Road) to capture some of the retail
spending of new residents to the west. Further, a retail center offering -
shopper goods would be in a good position to intercept some of the "shopper -
goods"traffic destined for Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center from the
communities north of Dublin. • .
•
•
- 2 - •
f _
•
Given the retail sales potentials discussed above, the market could.
support both a 5 to 6 acre convenience goods .center and a 5 to 6' acre shopper
_____..__._goods_center. in_the..Specific_Plan Area._within_the_next_five_years.__ Market___ .._____
support for a shopper goods center already exists and such a center could be
developed in the near future. •
It is doubtful that market support for a convenience goods center will •
be sufficient until the new residential areas to the west are completed.
Development of such a center prior to that time would likely have a negative
effect on nearby existing convenience centers as the market would not be
sufficient to support them all.
Office
Employment in the east area of Alameda County (Dublin, Pleasanton, and
Livermore) is expected to increase an average of 2,000 jobs annually during
the next five years. About 40 percent of the expected job growth (800 jobs)
is expected to be in office-oriented types as the Dublin-_Pleasanton area is
very attractive as a regional location for firms serving the central and
southern. Bay Area. This translates to demand for about 200,000 square feet of •
additional office space annually based on a ratio of 250 square feet of gross
building area per employee.
•
The Specific Plan Area is an extremely attractive office location as it
offers direct access to the 1-580 and I-680 Freeways for firms with regional
orientation. It is also a good location for local firms due to freeway
access, and it is convenient to most points in the local community via San
• - -- Ramon Road and Dublin-Blvd: -The disadvantage-of the Specific Plan Area is
that it is probably not attractive to "showcase" firms who desire freeway
visibility and/or a "high-tech" business park environment such as the Bishop
Ranch in San-Ramon or, in the future, Hacienda -Business Park in Pleasanton.
Many local and regional firms do not need freeway visibility and the
higher rents associated with a new "high-tech" business park. An office
development in the Specific Plan Area would be very attractive- to such firms.
The office space market in the Dublin-Pleasanton area is currently soft,
with vacancy levels of 10 to 15 percent in some buildings. The market can,
however, be expected to strengthen considerably during the next 12 to 24
• months and, given the locational advantages discussed above, a moderate-rent
office development could be expected to attract 10 to 15 percent of the -
projected demand for office space. As such, office space totaling 80,000 to
120,000 square feet could be economically viable in the Specific Plan Area
during the next five years.-
Multifamily
Employment growth expected to occur in east Alameda County during the •
next five years will generate demand for new housing averaging 1,200 to 1,400
units annually during the next five years. This will be supplemented by • .
"commuter" demand from the central Bay Area which could range as high as 1,000
units annually. Given the amount of new housing planned in Dublin and
residential growth limitations in Pleasanton and Livermore, it is doubtful
•
•
- 3 -
•
•
that the supply will be sufficient to satisfy the demand. As such, rapid .
market absorption can be expected for developments in a wide range of prices
and densities.
The Specific Plan Area is locationally well-suited to new housing
development as it offers excellent access to both local and central Bay Area
jobs and is close to a wide array of consumer goods and services. Multifamily
housing would be particularly appropriate in the Specific Plan Area as.it -
could be designed to reach moderate rent/price levels where demand will be the
strongest. Such price/rent levels could likely be achieved at densities
ranging from 13 to 18 units per acre. The advantages of such multifamily
residential development in the Specific Plan Area would be that (1) it would
provide new housing_in a price/rent range which is not likely to be available
elsewhere in the west area of Dublin and (2) it would increase the household .
income spent in nearby retail stores.
Summary •
There is approximately 30 acres of vacant or partially developed land in the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area. Based on the foregoing analysis, a
combination of retail commercial, office, and multifamily uses would be the
most appropriate alternative in terms of expected market support and community
growth expectations. The Specific Plan could absorb up to 10 -. 12 acres of
retail. commercial use, 4 to 8 acres of office use (80,000 to 120,000 square
feet), and the balance for multifamily_residential use with the expectation
that there will be sufficient market support within. the next five years. It.
is essential that retail commercial uses front onto San Ramon Road and. it
would be desirable,-although not absolutely essential, that office uses front
on, or be visible from San Ramon Road. The following list of potential uses
-is arranged according to the expected relative strength of market support.
• 1. Multifamily Residential
2. Shopper Goods Retail Commercial •
•
3. Office Space
4. Convenience Goods Retail Commercial
LAND USE PLAN
This Specific Plan has been divided into five geographic areas (Figure
3) . Certain uses are permitted in each of the areas, subject to the
provisions of the development guidelines presented herein. The following
descriptions identify the uses permitted, any conditional uses, and those
specifically prohibited.
Area 1 (Dublin Blvd. ) 8.7+ Acres
The policy governing land use within this area is to retain the already
built apartment complex and commercial use at the. corner of Dublin Blvd.
and San Ramon Road. No change is anticipated in the future.
•
•
•
. - 4 -
F
•
•
Permitted Uses
•
- Multifamily residential and commercial uses as presently built.
Conditional Use
- Subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
a. Any change from one established use to another permitted
use.
•
Prohibited Uses
- All others.
Area 2 (Properties on Western Edge of the Specific Plan) 12.4+ Acres
This area is well-suited for either multifamily townhouse, condominiums,
or rental residential uses or professional offices. Given access to
Amador Valley Blvd (extended) and Donlon Way, these properties can be
developed in a fashion that will serve as -a transition from the single
family residential areas to the west and more intensive retail
commercial uses along San Ramon Road. No retail commercial uses are
proposed for this area.
• Permitted Uses =
- Multifamily residential uses such as rental housing, and/or
• condominium uses with a density of 12 - 21 units per gross •
acre. The precise density shall be determined by number of
"bedrooms per unit proposed and other site planning
• I considerations.
•
Conditional Uses
- Subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
a. Any change from one established use to another permitted
use.
b. Community, religious, and charitable institutions •
facilities and uses.
c. Public facilities and uses.
•
•
•
- 5 -
•
Prohibited Uses
- - Any other-commercial use not found to be ancillary-to' office•-- - - - -
uses.
- Other residential uses not defined above.
•
• - Industrial uses.
Area 3 (San Ramon Road Properties) 13.0+ Acres
This area has the best potential for the development of retail shopper
stores oriented to providing additional comparison shopping goods for
both Dublin and nearby community residents. Its location along a major
street, proximity to the Regional Shopping Center (Stoneridge) and on
the direct route to and from Interstate 580 for a large area give these -
properties a potential not found elsewhere in Dublin. It is the intent
of this Specific Plan that the principal use of this area be reserved
for retail shopper stores. Under certain circumstances, as noted below,
a limited amount of development can be for personal service, financial
institutions, or office uses as defined in this Plan.
Permitted Uses •
•
- Retail commercial shopper goods uses such as:
• a. Family apparel • -
b. Household furnishings •
" c. General merchandise stores
`-' d. Specialty stores
that offer comparison goods based on price and quality.
- Eating and drinking establishments selling prepared food and
liquor except those defined as drive-through.
Special Provision
- For shopping centers involving 4 acres or more:
Up to 25% of the total gross floor area of any development
can be for personal service, financial institution, or
office uses as defined in this Plan.
- 6 -
F •
•
•
Conditional Use
----_.-_- - Subject--to -approval -of-a•conditional use permit: ----' - -- ___.___-_.. _. _.. _
a. Any change from one established use to another permitted
use.
b. Community, religious and charitable institutions facilities
and uses.
•
c. Public facilities and uses.
Prohibited Uses
- All retail commercial uses defined as convenience stores,
including:
•
•
a. Grocery stores
b. . Drug stores
c. Liquor stores - •
d. Drive-in and drive-through restaurants
which sell food, drugs, and other household goods for
consumption in a short time.
•
- All other retail stores and personal services not mentioned
above including new and used vehicle. sales and/or vehicle
• repair and service, service stations, banks, dry cleaners,
medical services, garden stores, auto parts stores, and other
r similar stores and services.
- Residential uses. _ -
•
- Office uses.
•
•
- Industrial uses.
Area 4 (Martin Canyon Creek) 0.4+ acre
This creek should be preserved for open space and/or flood control uses -
only. Use of the Creek should be for public or private recreation/open
space uses.
Permitted Uses
- Open space uses including, but not limited to: public or
private recreation uses, and/or flood control protective
structure and appurtenances.
•
•
•
•
- 7 -
F
•
•
Conditional Uses
- None
Prohibited Uses
- All others
Area 5 (Silvergate/San Ramon Road) 5.8+ acre
This area is at a gateway to a large, 'developing residential area
- westward along Silvergate Drive. The site is removed from major
commercial uses along San Ramon Road and is physically separated from
• proposed retail commercial uses in Area 3 by Martin Canyon Creek. This.
area, given its size, is suitable for either multifamily condominium,
townhouse, or rental residential uses or professional offices: •
Permitted Uses
- Multifamily residential uses such as rental housing and/or
condominium uses with a density of 8 - 15 units per gross acre,
The precise density shall be determined by the number of
bedrooms per unit proposed and other site planning
considerations.
Conditional Uses
- Subject to approval.of a conditional use permit:
a. Any change from one established use to another permitted
r_-
use.
•
b. Community, religious, .and charitable institutions • . -
facilities and uses.
c. Public facilities and uses. -
Prohibited Uses
- Any other commercial use not found to be ancillary to office
uses.
- Other residential uses. not defined above.
- Industrial uses.
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The circulation system which immediately impacts this Specific Plan Area
has recently been examined relative to external access, street plan lines, and
• the anticipated traffic impact on major streets such as Silvergate Drive, San
Ramon Road, and Dublin Blvd. As a result of new anticipated development
within this Specific Plan Area and in the Dublin Community as a whole, new
•
- 8 -
F
•
•
improvements will be necessary within the Specific Plan Area (San Ramon Road
Report, TJKM Consultants, March 1983) . The findings of the consultants, TJKM,
concluded that undesirable congestion and access problems will occur in this
area-as-development-proceeds—unless-specific remedial-measures-are- takes--Zt ---------------
is the intent of this Specific Plan to recommend standards for the following
circulation system: .
A. An internal and external street circulation and pedestrian pattern.
B. Appropriate location of access and driveways to affected parcels.
C. Necessary improvements to peripheral major streets including
signalization, widening and striping.
As noted in Figure 2, key items of this circulation element include:
- Creation of an extension of Amador Valley Blvd. into the Specific
Plan Area to provide access to internal parcels as well as those
parcels fronting along San Ramon Road.
- Roadway improvements along the following streets:
1. San Ramon Road/Silvergate to Dublin Blvd.
2. Silvergate Dr. near the San Ramon Rd. intersection.
•
3. At the San Ramon Road/Dublin Blvd. intersection.
4. At the intersection of Donlon and Dublin Blvd.
•
- A 14,mited number of direct access points from adjacent properties to
Silvergate Drive, San Ramon Road, and Dublin Blvd.
•
- A recommended pedestrian/bicycle system that should be precisely
determined at the time of site plan approval.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
It is anticipated that site planning issues will be addressed through
normal zoning, site development, and other procedures found in the City of
Dublin Planning and Zoning Regulations. Unless otherwise identified herein,
all new development shall conform to the applicable standards of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. In cases where conflict may 'occur between the provisions of
this Specific Plan and those embodied in the Zoning Ordinance, this Plan shall
prevail. In exercising its right of review and approval, the Planning
DIrector, Planning Commission, and City Council shall adhere to the standards
set forth in these criteria and shall foster and promote the purposes of these
development standards.
The following general development criteria have been included to insure •
that proper uses are developed as,identified in this plan the desired
circulation system is created, and larger scale, multiple parcel development
is encouraged.
•
•
- 9 -
1 _
•
•
1. Zoning
•
All new development proposals within this Specific Plan Area-shall be required
-----to f il-e"a Planned'Development-Zoning-request-wit1T the -City-of-Dubliir:-Unless-"---
otherwise noted herein, normal site development standard and City review
procedures .will be utilized.
•
2. Compatibility of Uses
Special attention shall be placed on insuring compatibility of uses proposed
in any new development with existing residential or other commercial
development now located within or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. During
the review of these projects, attention shall be given to the height of
proposed structures, design, landscaping, setbacks, street side design
treatment, distance between buildings, loading areas, walls and fences, and
pedestrian/bicycle and service circulation.
3. Circulation Improvements
At.the time of approval of any Zoning or other Plan Review, new development on
any parcel .shall be required to .contribute or dedicate either land and/or
monetary considerations to the roadway, pedestrian, signal and other
circulation system required by this plan. Said contributions are to be made
based on the benefits derived to the subject property and/or impacts created
by the proposed development. Vehicular ingress, egress and internal
•
circulation shall be accomplished according to the provisions of the
circulation element of this plan. Circulation improvements may be
accomplished in a number of ways including assessment districts or other means
•
of financing.
4. PhysicalsConstraints
Physical constraints exist within the Specific Plan Area. The entire area is • _ -
located within a potential geological hazard area and is designated as a
"Special Zone" as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Act. In addition, Martin
Canyon Creek (Area 3) has a flood potential that has to be addressed. As a -
.result, all development proposals within the aforementioned plan area shall
include:
- A comprehensive geologic and soils report prepared by a licensed
geologist identifying any geologic or soil hazard zones, appropriate
mitigation measures and other recommendations. This report shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the County Geologist to assure that
a reasonable safety factor is provided.
- In Areas 2, 3, and 5, if necessary, a hydrological report on flood
impacts related to Martin Canyon Creek shall be completed. In
addition, all flood control preventive measures identified in Areas
2, 3, and 5 shall conform to the 100 Year designated flood criteria.
- 10 -
} •
•
•
•
5. Noise
•
Due to anticipated noise levels along Silvergate Drive, Dublin Blvd., and San _
Ramon Road, all structures that may be affected by noise levels in excess of
commercial and residential noise standards shall be sound attenuated to insure
interior noise levels within acceptable standards (as defined by the County of
Alameda Noise Element) . Appropriate acoustic measures may include walls,
special windows, building orientation, and similar features.
6. Setbacks
•
• Building setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential areas
both within and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area shall be at least 20 feet,
and this setback shall be landscaped with an effective combination of trees,
ground cover, and shrubbery designed to screen the development from existing
uses. ' In addition, there shall be a 20-foot landscape buffer along Silvergate
Drive and San Ramon Road. All other setbacks shall be determined at the time
of design review for the individual projects in accordance with acceptable
• commercial and residential standards.
7. Parking Standards
The following requirements are applicable to all uses within the Specific Plan
Area:
- As an incentive to promote the joint development of parcels within
this Specific Plan Area, the following may be provided at the option
of the developer subject to the conditions identified below when
applicable to commercial and residential off-street parking uses:
1. -41Required parking for various uses as identified by the existing
• City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance may be modified as follows:
a. Up to 25% of required parking spaces may be waived by the
Planning Commission based on evidence presented
demonstrating that the particular use of land will require a
smaller number of permanent spaces based on the anticipated
use of the land. Sufficient evidence shall be presented
demonstrating the unique or changed circumstances
substantiating the waiving of required parking spaces.
2. Shared Parking:
•
Parking facilities required for any parcel may be used jointly
with parking facilities for other uses or parcels when operations
are not normally conducted during the same hours, or when hours -
of peak use vary. Request for the use of shared parking are
subject to approval of the Director of Planning and must meet the
following conditions:
•
a. Sufficient evidence shall be presented to the Director of
Planning demonstrating that there shall exist no substantial
conflict in the principal hours or periods of peak demand of
the structures or uses for which the joint use is proposed."
} - 11 -
b. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against
•
the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall
not exceed the number of parking stalls reasonably
. - anticipated-to-be-available during different hours of-_.
operation.
c. Parking facilities designed for joint use shall not be
located further than 250 feet from any structure or use
served. _
d. A written agreement shall be.drawn to the satisfaction of
the City Attorney and executed by all parties concerned
assuring the continued availability of the number of stalls
designated for joint use at the period of time indicated.
3. Compact Cars:
a. Facilities with 25 or. more parking spaces may provide up to
40% of its parking for use by compact cars. Spaces
delineated for parked compact_car use shall meet standards
as developed by the Director of Planning.
8. Height Limits
Within this Specific Plan Area, heights in excess of the normal two-story
residential and three-story commercial limits may be permitted. The Planning
Commission shall review the appropriateness of siting and compatibility of the
design with the scale and character of the Specific Plan Area for buildings in
excess of two or three stores for these land uses: Buildings should:
1. Be set back from any existing residential uses to avoid significant visual
impacts.
•
2. Respect views both on and off the site.
3. Be clustered, rather than spread out over the site.
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Based on the three alternatives described earlier, the following
standards place some specific controls on the development associated with
Areas 2, 3, and 5 within the Specific Plan Area. They are intended to permit
development, whether residential or commercial in nature, that will enhance
the objectives of this Specific Plan. Normal site plan and design review
procedures and requirements of the Planned Development Zoning District, or
applicable commercial or residential zoning district within the City of Dublin
will prevail unless defined in Table 1.
ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PRCCESS
Because of the variety of uses proposed for this Specific Plan, it is
necessary to create a review process that provides- the City of Dublin with
adequate controls over- future development while providing-applicants-with a -- - _
timely direction. Even though the City of Dublin presently combines many of
J
F
- 12 -
•
•
•
•
the planning applications into a single hearing process, it is the intent of
this Specific Plan to further encourage the combination of various planning
processes that may be required for development.to occur. The following steps
- -- now -normally reviewed- separately-or -together may-be combined: -
- Zoning Amendments •
- Site Plan Review
- Any necessary staff review procedures •
- Variances and adjustments
- Tentative subdivision map procedures •
A use legally established prior to the effective date of this Specific
Plan or prior to the effective date of subsequent amendments to the •
regulations shall be permitted to continue, provided that it is operated and
- maintained in accordance with the conditions prescribed at the time of its
establishment. Any alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use, shall be
permitted only upon the granting of a Use Permit. Alterations not exceeding
$10,000 in value as determined by the Director of Planning or his designee
shall be permitted without the granting of a use permit.
In regards to the determination of uses not presently listed within
• permitted uses, the Planning Commission upon its own initiative or upon
written request shall determine whether a use not specifically listed or
conditional use in any of the four specific areas shall be deemed a permitted
- ' use or conditional use on the basis of similarity to uses specifically listed.
The procedures- of this section shall not be substituted for the amendment
procedure asra means of adding new uses to the list of permitted or
conditional uses.
•
This Specific Plan has been adopted to accomplish the City objectives of
this City Council of the City of Dublin and to implement at this time period a
Land Use Plan and Development Standards for an area undergoing specific
development pressure. This Specific Plan is adopted with the realization that
a new General Plan for the City of Dublin will be shortly proposed that may
necessitate a revision- of the uses and development criteria presented herein.
Notwithstanding, it is the intent of the City of Dublin to regulate the use,
location, area and dimension of sites for development, the height of
structures, the appearance of certain uses, structures and signs, open space,
landscaping, access and egress, off-street parking, and the intensity, timing
and sequence of developments and any other aspects of land use that are
appropriate within this Specific Plan for the public peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of persons working and living within the City of Dublin.
In terms of administration of this Specific Plan, the following
regulations shall apply: •
- No building permit shall be issued nor shall any building be
constructed, structurally altered or enlarged on any parcel of land
affected by this Specific .Plan except in conformity with the • - - - - _
provisions of said Specific Plan.
•
• - 13 -
F .
•
•
- No site development of private property which lies within the
territory included within this Specific Plan shall be developed
except in conformance with this Specific Plan.
A proposal to amend this Specific Plan may be initiated by resolution -
initiating a Specific Plan Study or a Specific Plan Amendment Study by the
Planning Commission or by the City Council, or an application may be filed by
any landowner. In the event of an application, the area included within this
Specific Plan Study shall include, but need not be limited to, the land owned
by the applicant. The fee for an application shall be the same as required
for an application for an amendment of the zoning regulations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- 14 - -
f •
. TABLE I ;
. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES. ' ri'''
San Ramon Road - Specific Plan
City of Dublin - California I`,S`,..
• AREAS 2, 3, AND 5 AREA 4 K.2t`.
MULTI-FAMILY • i .
RESIDENTIAL RETAIL/COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES OPEN SPACE USES • i{1,i '
J,`
{imum Height Limit 2 - 3 Over Parking 3 Over Parking • 4 Over Parking 1 Story :f.-','-.
7imum Site Area 43,560 sq. feet* 43,560 sq. feet* 43,560 sq. feet* None Fly;?';
r �,r
timum Bldg. Coverage 35% w/surface parking 40% w/surface parking 40% w/surface parking None
ref',
70% w/underground or 80% w/underground or . 80% w/underground or . ;tia;
structure parking structure parking structure parking �''''
:backs and Yards Same as R-S Dist. 20 feet' from major 20 feet from major None .}� }'
y ?:w
. street; no other set street; no other set `s
. • requirements requirements . 4v
•iimum Landscape Areas 30% 20% • . 20% See Special Conditions
lanting, walkways, . "•)1s, outdoor elements • • . N, )
•,tance between 20 feet None None None
:uctures .
lestrian Amenities Internal/external walk- Internal/external walk- Internal/external walk- A walkway along Martin w ;;•
' ways 'and connections to ways and connections to ways and connections to Canyon Creek shall be c;,•�,:
adjacent-streets if adjacent streets if adjacent streets if required; location to be
necessary necessary necessary determined at time of ad- W
jacent land use decisions . ,,
i11,,
2cial Conditions Parking requirements Parking requirements s Parking requirements Parks, recreation facili- • '
• g q g q g q r. ;,
may be modified as per may be modified as per 111.14y be modified as per ties, open' green areas, • .
General Development General Development General Development trails both public and/or :
•• private are encouraged. E3 ;
*This site area may include portions of one or more parcels or combined lots with one • f:,
or more ownerships for application purposes
. i' 1
:4µ7l
l r .�y•
- 15 - :x
•
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS
Definitions: Throughout the area covered by the San Ramon Road Specific Plan,
the following words and phrases shall have the meanings described in this
appendix.
1. " Convenience Store" is defined as a retail commercial use which sells
food, drugs, and other household goods, generally for consumption in a short
time.
2. "Eating and Drinking Establishment" is defined as a use selling prepared
food and liquor, except that defined as drive-through and drive-in restaurants
which involve the sale of food and beverage directly to occupants in vehicles.
3. "Financial Institution" is defined as a use that provides monetary
- services related to the depositing and removal of money from established
accounts, or the investment or loaning of monies.
•
4. "Office" is defined as a .use primarily providing administrative, clerical,
or professional services.
5. "Personal Service" is defined as a use providing services of a personal
convenience nature or related primarily to individual needs.
6. "Shopper Goods" is defined as a use that primarily offers retail sale of
. comparison goods based on price and quality.
Examples: Me following list gives examples of uses that fit into the
established categories. The list is not all-inclusive. The Specific Plan
provides that the Planning Commission shall determine if a use, which is not -
specifically listed, is a permitted use of conditional use "on the basis of
similarity to the uses specifically listed." The Specific Plan further states •
that this procedure "shall not be substituted for the amendment procedure as a
means of adding new uses to the list of permitted or conditional uses."
1. "Convenience Store" includes but is not limited to the following: .
a. Grocery stores -
b. Drug stores
c. Liquor and wine stores
d. Drive-in and drive-through restaurants
e. Meat, fish, or poultry stores
f. Other stores that sell food, drugs, or other household goods for
consumption in a short time.
- 16 - I '
I .
•
•
2. • "Eating and drinking establishment" includes but is not limited to the
following:
•
a. Restaurant
b. Cocktail lounge
c. Doughnut shop
d. Ice cream parlor
e. Sandwich shop
f. Specialty food
g. Delicatessen
h. Bakery
i. Candy or nuts
j. Health food
k. Wine and cheese with on-sale liquor license from State of
California.
3. "Financial Institution" includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Bank without drive-up facilities
• b. Savings and loan without drive-up facilities
c. Finance company
d. Small loans
e. Brokerage
f. Insurance .
4. "Office" includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Optometrist
b. Medical and dental •
c. Legal
d. Accounting
e. Architect • - —
f. Employment agency •
g. Other administrative and professional office •
5. "Personal Service" includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Beauty shop
b. Barber shop
c. Shoe repair
d. Cleaner and dryer
e. Laundry
f. Figure salon
g. Photographer
h. Formal wear/rental
i. Interior decorator
,j. Travel agent
k. Key shop
•
- 17 -
F •
6. "Shopper Goods" includes but is not limited to the following:
• a. General Merchandise
1. Department store
2. Junior department store
. 3. Variety store
4. Discount department store
5. Showroom catalog store
b. Clothing
• 1. Ladies specialty
2. Ladies ready-to-wear
3. Bridal shop
•
4. Maternity
5. Hosiery
6. Millinery
7. Children's wear
8. Men's wear
9. Family wear
10. Furs
11. Jeans shop
12. Leather shop
c. Shoes
1. Family shoes
2. Ladies shoes
3. Men's and boys' shoes -
4. Children's shoes
d. Home Furnishings
1. ' Furniture
2. Lamps
3.r Floor coverings
'4.. Curtains and drapes
5. Upholstering _6. China and glassware
e. Home Appliances/Music
1. Appliances
2. Radio, TV, Hi-Fi
3. Sewing machines
4. Records and tapes
5. Musical instruments
f. Hobby/Special Interest
1. Sporting goods
2. Hobby
3. Art gallery
4. Cameras
5. Toys
6. Bike shop
7. Arts and crafts
g. Gifts/Specialty
1. Imports
2. Luggage and leather
3. Cards and gifts
4. Candles
5. Books and stationery
- 18 - 1
h. Jewelry and Cosmetics
1. Costume jewelry
2. Jewelry
3. Cosmetics - - ••
i. Home Improvement Centers
1. Hardware
2. Paint
3. Wallpaper
4. Plant and flower shop
•
.c.
19 - 1
•
•
•
•
• RESOLUTION NO 36 - 83 --
•
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .. ,' •.
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN :
STATE OF_CALIFORNIA . : •
ADOPTING
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
•
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin prepared the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan with the intention of setting forth the City's policies for the
development of the area involved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 5, 1983, did recommend
approval of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan with revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department has caused the required
notices to be given; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the proposed Specific Plan and
considered it at a public hearing on July 25, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Dublin is in the
• process of preparing and adopting a general plan, and that there is
reasonable probability that the proposed Specific Plan will be consistent
with the future general plan; and _
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the Specific Plan
will be a detriment to or interfere with the future general plan, should the
Specific Plan ultimately be inconsistent with the future general plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Specific Plan will not
• • have.a significant environmental impact; and
•
WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to establish a policy framework.
•
against which specific development schemes may be judged, leaving Maximum -
opportunity for design freedom'; and
•
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan details the development goals for the
area and sets forth the criteria for judging development proposals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council —
approves the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, for all areas except Area 15, with
the following revisions:
Change the land use designation in Area #2 to
"Multi-Family residential (12-21 dwelling units/acre)"
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 1983.
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt & Mayor Snyder
NOES: None '
ABSENT: Councilmember Burton
41131111115 Ma or G
ATTEST:
•
Pi
C
City Clerk A
•
•
.
•
•
I
•
RESOLUTION NO. ' 35 - .83
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION •
CONCERNING
SAN RAMON 'ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN -
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended together with the State ' s administrative guidelines for
implementation of the California Environmental regulations, requires that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Dublin
Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative
Declaration and •considered it at a public hearing on July 5 , 1983 ; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission on July 5, 1983 recommended
to • the City Council that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and
processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline
regulations and that it is adequate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Negative Declaration and
considered .it..at a public_ hearing. on..July:251 ..1983 .. _ _ _ _ _ _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the
Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State
and local environmental law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate
and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 1983 .
AYES : Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt & Mayor Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Burton -
/ /
.
Ma or /7
ATTEST.
City Clerk
•
• - 21 -
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83-48 • -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 5
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin prepared the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan with the intention of setting forth the City's
policies for the development of the area involved; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 5, 1983, did
recommend approval of the San Ramon Specific Plan with revisions;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department has caused the
required notices to be given; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the proposed
Specific Plan and considered it at public hearings on July 25,
1983, August 22, 1983, and September 26, 1983; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Dublin
is in the process of adopting a general plan, and that there is
reasonable probability that the proposed Specific Plan will be
consistent with the future general plan; and,
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the
Specific Plan will be a detriment to or interfere with the future
general plan, should the Specific Plan ultimately be inconsistent
with the future general plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds. that the Specific Plan
will not have a significant environmental impact; and,
. WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to establish a •
• policy framework against which specific development schemes may be
judged, leaving maximum opportunity for design freedom; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan details the development goals
for the area and sets forth the criteria for judging development
proposals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City
Council approves the San Ramon Road Specific Plan for Area #5,
with the following land use designation: Multi-Family Residential
(8-15 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September,
1983.
AYES: Co'uncilmembers Hecarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and
Mayor Snyder
NOES: 0
ABSENT: Councilmember Burton
Mayor — /
ATTEST:
ty Clerk
DP 83-20 - 22 -
1•
RESOLUTION NO. 60 - 83
. A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL - - •
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING
PA 83-063 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended together with.. the . State' s administrative guidelines for
implementation of the California Environmental regulations, requires
that certain projects be reviewed and environmental documents be
prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative •
Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on July 5, 1983 ; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission on July 5 , 1983
recommended to the City Council that the Negative Declaration has been
prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental
law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete; and •
WHEREAS, the City -Council did review the Negative Declaration .
and found it complete and adequate at a public hearing on July 25 , 1983 ;
and
WHEREArS, the City Council did review the Negative Declaration
and considered it at a public hearing on October 24 , 1983 . •
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE. IT RESOLVED .that the City Council finds that
1) the project PA 83-063 will not have any significant environmental
impact; and 2 ) the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed
in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline
regulations and that it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1983 .
•
AYES : Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and
Mayor .Snyder
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Mayor
AT TE p;
-
City Cler
}
- 23 -
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 61R- 83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING PA 83-063 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
•
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin prepared the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
with the intention of setting forth the City's policies for the development
of the area involved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 5, 1983 did recommend
approval of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan with revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department has caused the required notices
to be given; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the proposed Specific Plan and
•
adopted it at public hearings on July 25, 1983 and September 26, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Dublin is in the
process of preparing and adopting a general plan, and that there is
reasonable probability that the proposed Specific Plan will be consistent -
with the future general plan; and
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the Specific Plan
will be a detriment to or interfere with the future general plan, should the
• Specific Plan ultimately be inconsistent with the future general plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Specific Plan will not have
a significant.-environmental impact; and
• WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to establish a policy framework
against which specific development schemes may be judged, leaving maximum
opportunity for design freedom; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan details the development goals for the area
and sets forth the criteria for judging development proposals; and
WHEREAS, the Appendix .A includes definitions and examples to be used _ -
as part of the administrative rules and procedures of the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Appendix A and considered it
at a public hearing on October 24, 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BT IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council approves
PA 83-063 San Ramon Road Specific Plan - Appendix A: Definitions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1983.
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery and Mayor Snyder
NOES: Councilmember Moffatt
ABSENT: None 7 /
Ma}for G'
ATTEST:
. _
City Clerk
•
•
•
•
- 24 - i ,
•
RESOLUTION NO. 81-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 83-064 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3
WHEREAS, Richard Jeha, property owner, proposes to have the
land uses permitted in Area 3 of the San Ramon Road financial
institutions, and offices; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin, on
November 28, 1983, held a public hearing on the planning
• application PA 83-064 San Ramon Road Specific Plan - Amendment to
Area 3; and,
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the Specific
Plan amendment will be a detriment to or interfere with the
future general plan, should the new amendment ultimately be
inconsistent with the future general plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment will not
have a significant environmental impact; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment is appropriate for the subject
property in terms of being compatible to proposed land uses in
the area, and it will not overburden public services; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment will not have sustantial adverse
effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to
the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council amends
the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area 3 to permit limited
personal service, financial institutions, and offices, as listed
below, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
•
1. For Shopping Centers Involving 4 Acres or More:
• a. Up to 25% of the total gross first floor area of any
development can be for personal service, financial institution,
or office uses, as defined in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November,
1983.
AYES: Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jeffery, and Mayor
Snyder •
• NOES: Councilmember Moffatt
ABSENT: None '7 .
Mayor.
ATTEST:
City l jc
- 25 -
•
RESOLUTION NO. . 82 - 83
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
. PA 83-064 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
. (CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative
guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared; and,
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the San Ramon Road
• Specific Plan was prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did -review the Negative
Declaration and consider it at a public hearing on August 22,
1983 , and the Planning Commission and City Council did review PA
83-064 relative to the Negative Declaration on October 17, 1983 ,
and November 28; 1983 , respectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council finds that:
1) the project, PA 83-064 will not have any significant
environmental impacts and is consistent with the information -
in the Initial Study;
2 ) the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed
in accordance with State and local environmental law and
guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 th day of -
November , 1983
AYES: - Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt
and Mayor Snyder
NOES: None •
ABSENT:None
• - ' •
4
_ Mayor
A l ;City Clerk
Clerk
- 26 - 1
r r 1
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -
REPORT PREPARATION •
This report was prepared for the City of Dublin by:
Santina and Thompson, Inc.
Engineering, Surveying, Planning Consultants
1040 Oak Grove Road
Concord CA 94518
In association with:
Anthony C. Hurt and Associates
Economic and Real Estate Consultants
2200 Camino Ramon
San Ramon CA 94583
Participants were:
City of Dublin Consultant Team
Laurence L. Tong, Eddie Peabody, Jr., AICP,
Planning Director Project Manager
' Thomas P. DeLuca, Anthony C. Hurt,
Associate Planner Project Economist
Arnie Hollander, Judy K. Armstrong,
Planner Word Processing
•
•
•
•
e - 27 -
,
SAN R z' RC)Ais) oc1PECIFIC PLAN 1,
,
_
--,!GUR E 1 .
4.,,!401,44..;_,S . ,-- • (,-1-1.1., : h.
lo.
u ' • • ' .4 at, • .-ogo , 0.0r,- # .- 1 - )0,4,,a,s' Jo 4.‘ '- lonow, '1- 41,`4,1 . I .1".t I LAND USE AND ZONING 04:
.4,35, t, 1.1,14A.livet,, 4,, ,4 tiezfii,, 1,1
11!.
SCALE : 1 : 200'. Il ''• .. i' 711■ ' 0.4 '. tilt'' '4#
0 ,el A'.. i\44:'40: :.'3",..::::). 0 V *4' . 1' fl oVittkne."Ut rid /il N4.41/4.11. '' ' 1 tikt
-.:1 ■° ' '0' . .'', ''',r: " 0 ,4"; P,7' Ift,;;',V" Virti. . (464 Alkt
() 1100 200 300. .0 2:0'11."' ,,,... i 44,,,,, 1oP I;11:,i; rf",,,,k1\ ,..' !4,,, ril'I'l .- ,:.2,.' .
.11
NORTH ' ' ''''''411, ' 4,.• 41‘,;) '. ''''';*F t•e, )-10*1, F-711
-..,, \;,,0 .. at. , ,s.•%111 ,5 1,, 1.' „A lif.oir 4 1'4, I .."Y r,''.:ii,' " 4. ' ! '',I LAND USE '11
, ,0 0 .- r2,.1 1. . , .,.. - 4,,,,,,,,,, ,4.,,, , 4. -411 14, •
'1. ' ,,,' ,.1 40 ly,, ,, . ■. • ., , .., t 41,i, I V ;.•,b,rftvtip 1,4,,.1 "6,9.,,*4 ..24-S4fiy■1'41'0/ I
,„'„ ' i,,..: i' ,,,,.p,,,, , C...1
1••••■■■ SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY 14 .. ''' ,..,-4, - ZONING ..,
,l,„ i ,. k ,,,v-`, ..i'.r . 'Rh't tlibth •..fro'1?t,.'fl' '4,:‘;ti", 10if',.n...,i--.040 :. '6,ti,:, .1;1
,,,, ,. , .,. At , . , ,4 IL ' t 011 • •'' .o2:,,IX .■ , '-',. .#1?.. • , .
,.., 2 , 4 r, , 0, , 0 A . ■ ,..• 0 •t "; ( 1 .'f'
1,4eq. t.,.2.10 , a.' ,r„,,. „0 ..11. "."11'0 s j'IP,;; ?I",0:31‘,Vairil y t. •..,or sjp,* .\..;:t,„6. ce„, ;, , i,,* . 11
.1'411!ittr.:,:nc‘,..1%;7fiyelti'V?„1 0 t\V-` q,,i,• ./ '.,,51 r.,'Zi-,, ITM, 0, It. .it4,i,fesq.1:'V, •,;. 74.,1 ,.., 4.‘f)r,!,,i),4',4,,a,,,t•ti.,4. , 4, ■"4,
T .i,
,..„.,....), ,,„ .. .„ . ,,...\ .., )'rr' ,t 41 4' .' At? Al ....4,,,, ,w, ,,,,,,.,,,A,,,,,,,, . "7., '4, ' 4'' ' '' hi
...;:e!:1,-;,■,a :Ik•of,„..4.04004,..,:t,::•°14 .. ,1,11,,,a t ''''',kV■ , •. I.,• '3.,4, •':Otet t, , 1 ` 4- . .,,,, ., ,zo.e, ,..>. 1,...-1, ,,...0
-'....; ''..r '''''' ",tk4ti.:5.;ttr.;f8I,, %e•it; . A?■fiTI ‘ .. ",'7‘. ' 4, ,-,,,,,,t ).4v,- J'y IV:o'..Pc ,-).,'").4', igprzhh,,,t 1.„. ; . .. ‘14 r (.0 , ,• .11
,,,,,
,.,,,„yg.,..v.yz•,,,,,,4-/i.t,,,s .44..,, ",-- , kll.,.1 ,'4,ft `..0.4'4,4,4.'•,.b ', ts. .4.,. AFt,,,or.,1t-InA, , ,_
i t
• ,t't 't .1‘ 4.0.,;4., 'Af) ,.i.ii IV 4ifvu'' V,(V+'A. T.140.R4 .,..\'''''',',''4 +:1' ..,.`IV`s 1 ' ', ' '' •- "' •• •
-;'-'414V?4A4b7A1114'40'1'.':'1;44° ;°)1.1,'. Z.0616 F F'", :,!...Figdo' il a4t,t1 t'??4 A.VI Ift114130f Cl.,e'...4, 4/73X,'0 4,'141.,4`''''.: °: •TIA 0: • .1;.'"liej -'7. '":ii.: : '''''' • '''''"" . . -. .
..'..) ql
1 .411k...f.„-rop.,. ....r ;1., Jii: ,,:wegkitl itivotyp $4f014,,,',,-,...41,41(,A, v?,,fk„1,, ,A,./.11;.A.,. .., 40.,,,,,.,4%;.„.. .*„0. ', ,,s;.4;.iit-;,.„.:,. ',•../0
At t vi,,...,4, .. . 7 7114. r dlt. , 14. , , , . k- .4. • iii
i
v, ...; ..,. ,,, .'. •: 1.i.! ‘4'Al -7' I tej.Illir / ..k. , m 14. .11,Opta.1141 ds, "AP.14”,;:' 4e4t°-.fi Mtlft, -x...(1-01:i'-301,,' . *:1-'7', 'f:1,-,',
.,,,,i,.;?,...40...,_.i,, . Ilitittotwat,. ?..,•,,,140 Ai Akr 14:40 1'," Art,'.3..g-• Mo"%....% -, lel;eke
p,,.,.,;,,,,,,,..i., .: 1 I-ti,NiAlp..%,.,,,, .11/44,4'Id ii,k1 VACA N T l'iliia...4 itr4 "d iiev',10.:404;ii'4 • tY li
. 14(
3ARTMENTS 41,,:?;$;',..4 _rir, '''''■Atiatql.).,}.01.i..1,,,i,e1,44..440 i4/0.1r1 0140iiiAtAvP,ik'il, r .,,,,.... .0,....„ .„,,:. ,„.„...,.,.„,,,,,,,,.....
\
,
,,,,...„ —fe.,;1.0 , ',.er-s....v 0,,,,,,L%ile'.. '411'4'"`" 10.: ierN*0 ver4NOV,;.,,41,. y,;(i .,,,,.v. ,.! .. , ..* Wi....44 ,,, ,A., ...or#t ei)'44ipet)'-1:teb.410 r 1 l'
,"If...oit,er':$144.' t'l "'AOC 44*4 ItIftela i' 11111 ■f',., f1t.,‘,0 1;1. .41,•tiglifig.00.1104, TP no 4 iii0400 .', ;i:,,, .•N ,f,'. ,,,,0 40 t p,,,a f. . 1
1
k,„;,,,w4,: •,. ,,..ipo .4 '„.- ' 1 41, 'A: . ...y„, ,,, ,4,1,144.0.1,11 ,,, ‘1P, it 1:N,"' ''• rtYtl-F''''' ..‘reitiVol 0.k 'N. . "1,
' li.1. 0""1.9;'''' X.'''*'' ' 4.0'1. 11.'' 1 4 ell r#'‘a; Ililg 1.)'44 f "lipii't414r),( ;I, •,r tk vti 14040.4,-e, ' iliNt1921witti ,31,4it, pm .4
''' re.,"i,"? '- (,•.:40:`,:.,.440. - % 4,1•47$,.„4-4tikt, ,,,01,,,,,),„i li),_,T ti:r.41,,--eierro,''. ii;,4 t".k.t, 'Y' „4"-1 •ilo,' It, If+ , 3 *et ,./‘,.'. lii).:1 i-..4c,,,s10,,to...3541,0,, . ,OW ,1
0:e ,,t1,...r.;,t,". '4 v. ' •,v.4!' .,11*,...} .,fect Vi",p.,1,x,,,^4p 1140 yiran.tileii:m 0..0.t.,,,k...e.pcislet 11111 , .:4*1,1, ,.1,, ,4. ,,4. ,. i ,,•, • ,-,.4.,444,61,1 7,,, ...,...„.„ ,,,, . i
vyn 1",•te,t1 , . '.. q. -' ,(',vi:,., ...I 4.1.4r;0 i:4).. +5,41,• O' iti“ .1143711414'041'44;i1514411.41VIkiliqr /' P.1 : '4), '11 i ett43-ii.,A • .,:(it. ' Tilo,41',..4‘I''''' .1.'"14, '4:Poll A g
,..1,
,
''‘ vii, /..14400.--\.-, %,.,'1,14-...7.00,*. •..,e 'APOtiolt,V444 Ii101,Vilif 'i,,14,;101,4+ ',".,tr:' .T., 5.) ',..... i Itlivii Ifg,ri:4,7*N'cl%' .„i ef...?A SWOP,. ' mt ,..1
i -.1"- ''''-.,,0:e ? 01: \el...4 ..-,..0.- .• .14.., ,-,'). -Tot ;3$0' tArtl,4.11.41 .4- ' ti' or ' ' -r, toi , totlitA4k"T‘•fAt P . • • "441'4 Ivitili-1"t!mr '1
N,\\tr.,7_,..r.' ttirr,..,-; ,,,x, fk,, ,, 01,,,, . ' *,,4 ,,.,.t.t.4,..."1,.. ,-.114.1 ., . Als ,,,%Irk. ,L, ,;170 ' ,- 14 etele4.1;ts 1 to t,x, A 4:4 1,,,r4, :14,•••.$ :.t,' O.
M C r. :f litAP-Avom.qt. 731 I
'), '\ IA ,. N 41 ..'''`NiAh" -A:--'1.',,-...v...A.-..'3.0.- ;IA ,. • \I.,r 2 , ,, ,, „ , ,,.7 Nei/pi, HO‘_,....,._ 0.,..,,.. o.toivrtf.A4,.a. ,,,,,,,i, .....-4
VACANT
, „c,,,,\I„3 lt3 9,■,,,,),,7;,*,,,,i'.01.lr...,,', . 73.-4:1' . VI , ,...t ,
'. .4 0..6\iittt c4•Yot''''': tV,;5;"(' ':,,"''.4.''':, N14i3O, , ? \ 'i,' - , .,,iiikx'ni—,. A V4.-41'''' l''"P" ' ' ' )I''.
.•* \W. "fie • ls' ".'''',\ -ei,■^ti'-'. :•Vi;'.0 -,•-•;':1. ;v.,., .,.,t,'-,54,.,:;:m.„t4t..t, ;., , 4 .' ' 4:.' ''' . - , 4,4-'4..".40;0.tia.,i;17`: 1,1. .a, . ....,,,, -.. :::.....: .
. , ,z:,it..:-. ;,A.,,...), .'" 'N "4 le 4 ' 'VO:fati,Ir I, ''.1 ks'fie 1.41,EWil'd, fit • N6.'t! i '''A . '' ' '.:l'i to' .-.3, ''' .. ....T.1 . ... bo.<0 ;..1,4••• ,
A.;43',10,041`" itlitv .._ - 4 ,•VI'',.„. ..,,, ,r,,,,tk•,,,,,,,,..0•Vilt''i;11 4 sot.:li) 4,4,t .. cti,.,t le:"•,A 1 ' A', i'I, t ' :0 1 Ay\';f.''-. •
' Z..,......."4'',.. .":"...1 . ''
i:' ' %r..1,,\ 1400 , '1, .' :',.,,,,v17 . ,,t'._ ' PI q .**.lieqp.,,e114. 1,..0 1 4 ,141:4 it . ofi. Ai ,_, . .4„,14 ,p,,,,f,, 1...N.,11.• NI,, „j _.....frd 1 .....,,',...400.•'"....,,,'..."..fr2'7-''....,•-'
f
I
„.
:.‘,), i;,..&,, t•144 ..0: t.e.,..„..,. ..',.*., i'l, .A ,-,r,,N..dit?,..,..--p.,.i‘A, , -(.. ,,.,,t,,brik to...0,1.),A1 if ,. -1‘, 2,, p Zria,,,i,, . .4, .-0,,-. ,,,,,.........f.„..,..-.....-.7.,..r.t.;, , •. ....„_,....„.. .
6 't, I. ..mit `. , ,,,p.:.4,,,,k`..4i,i4Ota• ' V,,,O3 1'‘\.1,Iti%,:r:- .•''Il 400144'''' 'fl'0 44tWoo ir■'• : ' ' ' '.4tZtt 4.,,..)...o.,..P.t„'","„„,--•-•-•-;..., '•• 1,., , • -.......-----,, '.,
It' '1- .' 1 \V, '6 1.t ., ,1,',.`-',.V.Silio',., '-." • ''. t4;4k, '6,411'''f.'1'1';'-''' t'L.'(10.,23, Poo■ '' ; • ,- . k, EI.IP •,d,1‘,J,•,'"'''''„..701.-;*'#:**-"'..*.- '' ,'" ' ' , , '*.f.. vo, ..;:drog,":`e;"
- i#f+/-''• '' ,,a .., ,,,,,„.„,./ ,.,....wv., ,. ,1,,,.., _ '11' '•'" .■^‘"..t",,'i , `... ..r.'''''.........,----- .....-0*"...r 'VI 0
•,4' .•• ts Yit1.17 11, ?-14:4:.1.64,...N A,y. • Ar, 0. . ' 'x.,--, ;.',0,1..,4-:..4$44.- ..•. ..,"-4„....-•••• .. .-;-,1 . - 1 : oc;*. ...31%;i: ' 't.
>;:\ ' ' '‘\.' •'v,-... ,-% rft,-.4tiaiii":f-ii,": 11:rwr:if_.'",-----:r.7-'r-7=------' ',-','"Nr'' . 1 '.4- -;1''''v;,,"-,,c; .';.1go'j .1:1:4.1,, . .„„t:tilsiiitt iit.,, J.
\
.,
.,:.
,1!
, \ sl,..,4 A t ,.1;','‘v1.1",:6,i,"„44::',;,,;;;111,?;V ..:;.-1:4t;-•- let 40isi1/4s.,..---,':"'"-''r 1 ' ,_c,,,,:,-4.: ‘1 'l,4,A:. .);,;k1/1:' .'1.-,,-.F. .' %t 4,,r■FlOWAV1 Arnb..■ `-t
1 0,,ife7,1,,,..,;,;,\.1.1. ..,..,v,v,,,...,,,,... .,,,fi,,,::....:72trtit....:4,;,,v,.;:t.,..,....r..41.1..g,,,,:.,,,,:,.,7,....., ,413.7v:Isiv..„.,04410. ...;,,,,,7,11A,..M,. il4,4yz,..0,,,..„,,.-3,,,. .. 3:7.,....,,,,,;•,),..,•Ity,,,,I,, *.,. L ...P5p. ' . ....;:.74i;y:..; ..5.... t.. 1,.,1 ,46.11Wri,..orit•41,, '44, . CITY OF DUBLIN •Vii.: A'. I,
• "r."/
r,..1 s.,, ',4)17;1144W P41.7,t 4'\," PLANNING DEPT. '?'' ' •
i
....,...;L - ,.,,,A,_,vtivz, , -4,,,,,, t 0 11:1
Nt
1:1
, . ......,,,,, ,c, .:, .:v.„... .....,„...,,,, ..,..., 01.1( lc'..%. , .z ,c,1 fi-,
.,IA), __ ' ''...'1 . At (■ ,1/4V.t 4'.% frqq.?„9.!"1/1...A''` \- ,----T., ti 4R),''....3.- )" '■ • - ..,. , • ---
, 1. A i i q 1 '-'6.'-''.'s\' ,.''''-1-,le' •' ' 17:IIVAr./. '1.4,1/. - j 4 ' ':-..?..,:•:."..:4 t - ..'. :. k .N1r.400-- . ",:0 01
, .... .. . ..( SANTINA
r \ I: ., .. ..,I...„1,11?,...,,,5,,, ' ‘4.0'. tit.':- HARDWARE '41i!--,-1_,,D.SV■3 ,--co
\
\ I 1
,i, 4,, LP
4 i) i ,., ,441„, „,.,, . 416 ,....4 •,.,a •:. %;!,"9.X.P'" ''' A , IP THOMPSON
.-,--' ' t '''' ''''L. • l''Y ti 1, ,''t, `14+4044i0s el', V." ,./f.". \ ..* . 4 ,v , ..„,.. lt,n, krilitt:,,, .,.,,,;..0,,,,y4.--5&,- s , .1, ,„i i.,„ ,r,o, ,-;,1'
\14, \. \4'..1p .414.A,' %'-\,'. .., )0111:0't liorle ',-v:.:. '.. N., ....1)'';.4..`" ■ ' , ) ' ."''Al 'IA tz‘'\ • 1 4,','i •'' '''-''''.,'I;.,-.■• 7' ..,''1 II,• ,,,,, .14,0vo
f - \, ,e, ‘, ‘". ', i; we .-I,..'',011%*'••
,. 1 -, 4, . „ ,,,,,: ,.. . ... „,,I, s.,.,::„.,._ ,f, #,::,,e. oft.;.41:4.,,,,1 . v\,..4 1040 OA Grov.R..d. Co nc.,,d, C.1110.1., t_ ■I
1 1.11
, .
• • :1'1
1.: ,
, ..
RAIViON 'ROAD SPECIFIC PL.A1.,;, ' •
1,• , . .,
•
FIGURE 2 • ,
SiV,,,.?.,
1 ...1
,a -V-
• ql1Y,;3,,.■.1.f:,:,r,,,, ' '.'.4 Te: '. kn;•-•'''l'.'.:.‘,'-,'.77,12-7'.70''''it c*.-‘71,. 7 m' .'"T"---1 .1.i 2 .1
pi. ‘ft,.•,, , -.1., '..,,,,,t, else .Yfeck :.:,::',1.•,,••',4\;•'4,•'•-4,,, ,14,,,,, . ,1„...,!Pc.'4'',..'„4,1e‘.1/44'4"14rotrt‘,i ;
1!•• — .." I V I s._.." A 4 ,
II Fot, . . .., . . , ,10‘•,:s. ., 2„......',Y.''' ', 4 , ,00. .t,l%..t,J1‘$,, , 41„,,•:, •T
, ' ' 4''‘If?0 "•!. ;4.P.i,'.,.. .,,,,v, .,,- .4 k .%, ,.•'; • ''.., '.1.•;.. -k..•'. 0,,..!'-,..P,r, CIRCULATION SYSTEM .11
, _
.1 SCALE, : 1": : 200 '''j', 4 '1*. :ogiv -- 17*-',6;?.\," .ii ..:'•;;;rittitiiiit:'''''''4#4`44,.7 ,, ',IV49, ..:ii?': . 0;j st,'., MAY 1983
1.1 • .
MAJOR STREET / d
— ?ci :' -. *' ';,S,..0A--, .'''',Ait, t.' 't0-' '' .. 41 - 1. '..y'144tr.• '4,
'''' • • '''" jP.r.',,'”,;..>.4,.,, :,07rtiA`t$ N. . . f .1i'il,f kl.,.,, .,r.,4,1) 1
I'''' NORTH . 0 100' 200 300 or i 70,..10 ,,,, i 41•..••1 . 1 ■ •lo ,1 •• F., -k, • [------1
'1' ..):::,,-. li-`:,' :-- -.''t41 l'.14. no..il'0 V if ei't 4' ?pa; ,'..,.. , .N,Iitt" . %t 1 4
'
i ..' 0,..-. ''''''''' ';',','44,4; ,:%..Ck!,!, tdi ',11?)64.*•117'' .... VPI.44•41 *:: INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ?..1
IT
Ill
f,,j '4':'• A 0„,' to V,'0',)S.A X, ,,,' , .'ViiVt`4401.'y'1,:',4 ....;s,".?:( 1'le,'!,',is,q,1.4,11 ,V', , 14'-?..F
) .-' '',-' • - ','6',/, .\,.,, A■ '.' .,t0 :;..tri atkil., „,g" .,.ti!,:t;4 'ile: ' ' '1. ,pA' -','t %. 41111111B> I!) .1
''''' • . liorp.,. •1),21,\ki.k.,,..At I 1 :EDESTRIAN/B IC YCLE ACCESS 1
71,']•■■ SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY 2.0i:t•C).
id: Y i, 4, 1L,. ti . - '.e:1$ ....i, • I' ,...1040,i icAVINO Pi.16<W1)4/.i'$'rt'' ,4'it''t'it'A ',) ' . v;
ttt ,,W4'lit '.4. •'I.A1•••'• ,r4R•'•*.t•P4 34•11'ir‘•4410431,01,4.1".4ftti, :Pfic10. 'i '10 ! . r .
,
,1
'0':,,' ,.' 'i6.*-.•,'1.cilt 0.:P$VIez. .40,-;'C''i ..7'-r'" 1;4 ''''' i#'11"e', V.i,et .......4373v,:3.i401.;,*1.31,4,&',,,::..i.,:y.'1,:l'o,';6 ,,,i. . ,.., 1 t.,.- INTERNAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
$:,.'::, ':.,.•. • .•°:,?'•4,50".1 •.,Ati..414 • • .. .1\r.,''''''".7..',4• "s' ', -r?'•;,4,t44?.oi.t.r.k.o... statyLic."V't MI4t; '..'",..'41i''-''-:sess, ," '.. ' .'. fil• 1
.:-!:.:. ,::',':,..- --):'-/-4.4f,f• VIL, _,.!,• ,• :, a,..,,. ../, ,s .. ,.0;, - . ,ioolNu, Arai.- ;AA 1,3 ....r, ,,,1,../!.;1!. %E..,.:. .,, , .iri.,••,- 'Vfir ! i
;Iir;e:C.f•-::::,. ;,..,.,,'7644 eli,,.*4444 :44;',W•••-WA 1-::.1,V:' •,,:if.:00 WVAilt:IttAW=1' rieN*0:11:" '% . 04,,,f;;Ni., ''-.1) •.),;,., 1;0.a L.I.,;,5, f A
44 .
'POSSIBLE MAJOR STREET ACCESS ill
1
0 - -,, '...,.,—,-avt4u.-- . -4:4414q,''':'':',"..-' ',,.',410...4-Vi'Aff'FP0-41 ',...-S4.041?-1104'itil4urvi.44.j4`4-'`IWIP";q354,44; '2''.14'.::.<•11;- ",
t \ .,;
'..: 10.4011A 1'-' . ':"A' "=. ..---:'- •-;...
te,,,. ..i.rriYarP..R. .0,.VEY. E,<NT S,.'.'2.':, P.a 4,..!•:''_. t.1" `'.1. .1 k ti:;.4?:f MifC 4-c.elOM Y ell*"41W'Stegl.D, 00 Pet tj.*:1110 N4'09PA„;,t,' IMP.1.510:,k ji,,_.:Q.et'A.0.. V...„ , .,..0;'40.• ' i'!,t,.14L'.1,' i'/,t,-4
.1407 " q IS'
6NAL. !.•.:':',...1•;.",.,t4:,:•,::: ;tt'f,..E.,,!:‘.1?..;,sii..:,,ti,:,rk.'4,;,',.;: ,",<4.;IV,:,,,,;41,ri:41..1, INTERNAL Pitkitlitt,,r. iklittl,...11,,,,A,-)I.:,tet',,,z• =•*'S1+1tql'i.,iii-'4 .0/IP 1 4-41,' *. AL .‘:;•4.';'. 'ii
.11,341...S4TREET0A,C,CESS .0.1.,:gtak§h,';',4..;,•,,i$Ai..,■?,..;;4,•c7k5,,,,I,,,i Ii...1 :'„,:.1'.‘,1'-.I,,,,"._,,,,,I',''' *.,4.,..', 1,A*;',0&**4.14#tiiM.,:, ' 1
' PROVEMENTS .!.,ii. -..5,1„0..e1.11:17, .1P.!..irtA.., *1■
` *:‘'. *•,..., `.."•,,-MI's'k ' , ' .* 40,031114k;:'1 i. '''* *71140:11i,I4A.ifbillfA,A 0,0 tb.,41':tii, ''''l..'7.01:$•,'^''''')71'*' ?:•*10 r'";*kli''!'.,,,0,-,,... ,.. a:71114213471
• ,,,,,,'1- ---'-atsgolift `,'6:, ,c,''''•--i. •3 iit,I0444141:tigOik;APT•rie•,-•4•34,„,', .`ittg•10,0:0,?„),41.1f0,1,*.i.f-, f.. ,, '4.,:t:' • :4',',o'v. .,,..i:' ..' ''440 itO"' INTERNAL 0.1,'''•,' r. , .
. '• : r., ,-;,..V.,--' %' • •fc"-,',..014V. • ov,.,zWfolosWit.fg.041,14. -,,,,;(444',•.1,....5romr b ,,oe, ..:gglopi4V-or4470,1,..:,,t4.4• ''‘,* ' i':.; !;•41.01%;k:'•1111.*4. t,,:•.' ,3•., .,1y4,449,3-4- 1.4:3,1 sTREET .".,,,i14.r *I ,,.1
1 1. -Ifitri+4:e\'',1'' ' ... J!',',11:.,:',I.'S ".,•;‘,::\ ",?,4110;44.N,4..1; ;II,: 'p,o A..'`‘'S..'4,tfe. '', ".ttu4'111A4'Cfp.05:40..' W' '4'1 'i '!:;f9.1:00... . iq'44'''''.."r:$.00,4 ACCESS rg."'P.i.,$,' k, -$4 .'SIGNALS & . •,
.J1
._,. ei ito„,„,..-ep,,,c,,,.c. .,. „,r3,. '. ;.%,,,043',".14€40„.31;4•03te . ',;• .1\i.4,,h 3 le. , ...r,i,,,,.V.44.4144• i' $.4, ',:r',,4r :.444 •'r•P.%,,,,N li "1,'t''1.1. f it t ' • '•••i''...61'‘'•' 110 1 11.
If
r\N'''■5VIr.7'''::.,.;,;13:'.4',i* ql,i‘: ''', ,,,li...: t,VT::,guite/Aki■Oilliqo,*.,;,,tosi,„.0,,.:4.4c,,f Iv '10,gi4F0..11 -'..FIO',...'i, T.,. ''''.1 .;., ...f,'t`.4.t., • .4,,eit• Irmirecottv, : li.., vvIDENING .',+;11
' k",■••:\tiVis.,;')'''''''.:. \;-' -,./,5,\'',;:qk-;:11.c)b.,VAIONV,071.0i0644114144041, 4\slit:,1,,iii1.4:',„.. .ib ' li..,,..St ..,. ., : it..,''',' kr„Ac,': ,..,tegAiste. c:;:t,t2N7Y:ilt4.7,,ittif ', A .
/ )1
'1,-4, 8,\\VP Y .. '',C,'''f''''' .' 41' -,-*'kV 4:"411.4.1•2';::-‘2:=:'' '' -143tit'AVIVAT,44001.10111,tlf,V4 1.'' cif--2 '- .7-, 'Al "'It .I). '""' " '1' ...kip. i :poi. , r\g ' DKEERGATE .'i
'''‘ v -, =v.' -• ..4.:, ‘ ,.,.. ' ::,...0),,,,.. „),,,..,,, ,, ., „ , ,, .. • .. .„:„.,,.....„ " .. ,..„-.... .1.,..'4,*.i.,.i .i_.4. 0:,,,,,,‘: , , , ,•}1,...:1,..„ ). . . N,,,,. POSSIBLE ,. ai%.11, iv•0,0411' ' ,' \ 1
•4 .'s' •' •• .i',1,.*::. . ,••,i:r4i.'.•;'• -17•••''''',45tor '.,A: ;t• . • • ',14•M EXTENSION OF Vi''' • '''' •N.-..'1...: '. • "ri *-. 1''' -.:`,.'n °EDESTRIAN: lcral "M.4',. " ''''13‘
'1" 'it' A r .:1"'/%4 1 c;'''''. • -'1,' , .f*'.01w4kt-'4,■z1 ''' . ' ' riti R V LI, Y 114 ' • ,le''., - - 1• l't...irt-ip i-ci, ' 01, owy.e.44y--4 . - .
, . .- \,.. , ...k,.. . ;;,,, ; ,; I, ,,,pis.' ,', 7t&T,,,i ,,,-'. , _ .. 1,..■,,, , AMA DO A E •".0"trq ,'",2_,kin .,,-.. - . - .;,. ...t,".'.4.,.'"?., 4164fLwi, ',• ACCESS .gi,.A:Voae...,....'. , <1 ti.
:,..... .. . .,,11,),,,1447.4. ,,:.sii,... ':!"-',rt,,.., '--A'334,„:4,v,-;.,.- , ' , 03, R OA D lt,:1*,. l•tr,i4,,',..;;;;;V,' .; -; 0.11,V ■•?Zrr,,,Vi; 24,7**77.0011.ffikiKili ...'.... . --..' /1\1 11,
''''1'.''''''• '5:\k'-1. • '' k' -'• ''"4!"r1%. • t.-''Cir.1 il '‘,•4:A.•1 ......,,...44'.."';V '‘•:'0c1,5111.,, 'f,',""tgriirAt e'A', 4 ./4••',i1-;4,,;••1_.-•" ' ".•.; ''''' •-d:,.•44,1 ''•'4.•'''!,)..., •4:64,6.44:•::Y,,,:t,....4,4,,t,.' ..,••.,„„ktr...41i'l ,r,; 0
'",'•",',',,i .,.12., %,3'1,1,3,.„,,, ,-,e.,• 'F('N:■•' s:.1.4i•,. '"e ';':,11',',1,/,....440.rleit'.11 ftorktfil.ON gik,; 'dN'V l',04, kg, ,1;,.ki1,1'.:4.,V,,*,i'11 r. 0,110,1 ,,,r);',.1.i4,.?• :"A 4.;074,0;;;,‘O‘"ti*Y*''. , '1)11)5'''''"OA * 14
k .*"..., iki or:k.1. -.14 .1■‘-s rP; .;'.:'.?1.$:4* '*.1.:13 1P..1.1MN:8413tV'',3444114(')15111,,t4 114f s'4t•V4'''''.11:',11'r1"--!: 04 • •q'i '. r111$ii'.1,>.:, iAi:.,','.'?"' — • ll• tii4tliiI\I. ..t.l..7.1?
.41
,,,,,.,,,,, 4,,4,. :..'.i :'0. 'tt' ' •,1.0....",,A• 4c11?;i- ,.,ii''1'1A.Akiiir*A1.1'111.g,10'etlit iteborte. leriegffrk‘L' • ' INT i-iw ilw,(k, . 'JP,for Y4., ''',,,:-Al'imnowitl....Itilt.111;112,....;.......-,..........„. ..,.."'...._,:•_•:_-.2-...-::..:-:-e, J-
3•I ;' ',i,' '''4t44 ''.:;,:ip,,,,/. ....3,,,e,,, ;,,,,,. 4 , ...;,f44,.6,,, itttgr,4,1,•i.;411,411,411.V.S V ii.:'yriite,141'',.iapt,::0 .1' .-rn . , ' ,± "'s,,,4,.s. - -'0' ''lit ili
1-1 • ..,....0-.-"_.........,11-4.;;......,,r.-".. • ,....., ;-. -
-.,--.."';., '' 1 .•-,po.•%•t.: . 'V "' ',..e:•'•:'ke.,•,A*' e' .4. k;41:-;•.,••.0 v te i„.7.,`,,k.,,,, .;itp,, p',44■Agonvit/n.s.4it.t.t _ . . „., r,, ,. a ....,,,IliiiirklIkl‘ 1
4"14, .F. eif'''''' :‘,..',10;,,A.ces.\.4,\\VV1:1,,1i.1.:::114,0, egr.„.41;t14 IX"401.-,1,1,1.tk•,'-'41:,...9Af,jr,044;:Nor, ,.., .....;;.611046111)111100111,1 " '' .0,..„„„.,,,,,..r.7,7.1"7"....,...";I.r':-. .,•,.,;,..,. ... '... , i...,..,,,;;.1.,•-•...;r: , _,. ,„,',.,,,,,, ,;(12,111
\
I.' -1 A', .l'Ai;14:::', 1..',Viiiii:V,44,Vilt.''.?' 'A.-;:3''.. ' IIIIIIIIilitilitilimilt.!.111,0.4:711‘,14,T14,;-„,;:o1W. ,,-..:, .,...r.7.55r5 Ro.A,,D.. ,' .,,,, , ,..., . ...•:.... ., ,.sr:,: ,.,.„,,,,.,,,,,,.:.::,,,,:tf...q?;:.74:,-,,,,
1; ,-`1*A .. YV 1;,fitt,.4-ri,,,, .14 .e)„ '..,,',:.•-,"43, ,, .;''1
5:. .ii,.:.1• , ' ...i.-.-, ',,,,:,. ,• K._.,:,.....-,,,, ....i., -A,. ,74P.'.0.g.:.:;`,.;.;;;'--eltir.1,4,-......°- ___:.....,,—_,:.--4,—,..--v.,.-; .-'-..L....-,.., --..:::;.:''.!......,t,,.'^,,' „A-'3..t'3Y.T,4,31 ,41.-1 ••40 It.' ; .,,.33",... -,.i.ze - :02( ;131.:
mc .„...1 ty.k.,,-,' i 1,..,.,,,,)••,..,33„.3--4„ii.5.0,,...A,._41tt,t,f,....,.; t,..,,-,:...a....,-,--,f *0. ‘,..--,-,4;,..-.,,...-_,.:-.:•!-....,-• - 3.,,'• - ,i. - 1,0 '',4.:.ii.:".",' ''',-;:,- ,‘,,, ',`,••1'4;0'41'.■kt tl:'.44,01., r,r,r1 '•• ' - '.' " 'OM
t '''''• .\\\'•- ri...',...40 ,44',;,:ro.;r4"4".4* 1. "'"'''''''' rer& go , moH..:...fr,-,- •. ' . -. -.,--rti,. ;• •,.,,,.„,....;:,,,,, ,,,. ''......;••-% .'. •;,-. • , .. ' tofq41.,„,, ,-41.',' IR 411,0'.,k ..,,, ' .(1
_,.ikrgi .;•,•,, `sql.'1'.7'''''_,..,'"..,,____*,.,,,,:rrtoz•,,,,, ,V4 ‘,..,*,,, .71,-:','S74r; . • ..' ;4;■,.:14:41,:,44.1.-0AUff\'''' is 77\ a"''',:%: ;"Iiici•:::::.:2g4.K7'..:1:.':::.f.''..". 1.;, ).,,'''.5.4tkolio:of'44044.,..101,"'..:.:‘, CITY OF DUST TN , ,i• •
00544f*.;:::;:..-* '''''' '''4,77--w117----7-:. .;''''`';'";-.4`45.5r171't:4,4-.•..--iii.,..1e4s-h.,, ,i-i, ,__)NA i,- ..- •. • .,.1,:: A.. . ,,,...v.,. ,1;,x;,-tifp. -- ..,i4.-A-.iivii0:e4944wivt,,,1, . --- ".,,,:, .,;, 71:
1... -7---: ,,. i 'il,,,,,--,- .;,7,1.4.),' '''''''''''' - -..0 4,- '..,;.?.i :4.6'0 \---7•9- \-' ' •'IC\Vi‘.11 .4..'i 4.Si: -1;,..,v..,04:4: li
,iii.4. A; ..., vAia--':-..v...7.rir,:f ...%.1:14,:covnfT,,t.f.40., A:,-__',.____ ,,, .1.,k `\.."- ::* *`7•, i'• 1,1,0,%:14i . .;0 'W4',!IY,f.i 9'''.'•";:r12•::.?;:l■RAzs,tvi. oviiN0'."...'iN:f:::::41....1/41.74, .!IttM_:!!;:til:t:-17:::".„..w3-0\i' PLANNING DEPT. 'i ''' LI
• _,,,.,, f. ..,\•,,1 -,:,,,, ,It.t, ,A,.-:. •.....,:x61 elAri.-'...e.:r''ir0;-•+'• ■ 1• 4iV,,,,,viedia....• :...._.1 „., .. 441..%,:k...kc,:,4 %.2':',•'•‘.1:.'.. SIGNALS -
\:1,1 1.'i SIGNALS &!IMPROVEMENTS VAPP,061111411 . ?,,,‘A ., ', 71to,,,;14....i/7;:‘.'4,-;- fl ,,,Ii.`...-..'i: SAN I:
ri0-'1,....4. • ‘.- s,A 1 .*DUBLIN/SAN RAMON ROAD t:'''''''''-iiiitt' l'
4"IiiN,;1,_14•A '4".4i, .i (4.• .. ..3. ,,, 1 .1, AffctfT,r)..,'• .• . s'i,t,, ' i`7,-.4"'' i, .ri, ' ,0,1X.3,101'....: ,..',.::hr.3,.-(.1u . , ..,, (..;:(3i -0., -.,;:,•31. ,r-:\ cri) sANT1NA &
V''-'41° i:`,N.: 1'■..li\ICA:Cgil:;;)4-11;,t,V,L. ,-.:''''' '-', ."'s.1411-3?.1:.,, .\it',' 03111% . 1,,,4V.,y..:4 1.!til li ... . . ,.., - .„.A.. - ;7.
... i, THOMPSON INC, il
I
;1, •,,, , ''''''4' ''' ' ‘'..! Y••• •‘'.-• \A , ` '1' r•i• , 4 ..a\• \ '$1 *0-',VA * ,'t 'I\, .` •,'" i?1,0-\ I
. _ . ......„., ,v1ii,.‘..,.. ,, !le CA iliz;.E,...wf. .,,q,c,-,.•..w...4 10-40 Oat Groot Rood, co. Conlorni• +
— , t
1
, 1 • . • . eor Vcr.C?13:1'''1 5 .3
: ' .
•
•.
- '
. ,
....
•
:.:.,
-If- ....
I RC)AD q 1
sArA RAI cjim , 11(5,18ILD ,L, #
,
..,
, -1, 1 1-,..71:lif-1(74 PLAN
i .
1 ..... ,..,,,, ..3_...1 4,'.•'.-.7',T.ct J---
.:..:
.. , .,,,...-,,-.F.0,,,....i:•.-...' 73'Nr rfZif ir•45.'f:14t Al; AiA-...V.lip 4.4'''.1 -'r, LAND USE PLAN .:,./ .
1GURE.3,.: 17.*`,.. ";•;.1-I'i.;'4?. A.-0.•,\0,-, ,:,.. .P.,,,:". ft.--'111147 ..41*•',. MAY 1983 '1.,' •
- •
i• •:;.;• '.1 '.0 ‘' ‘'-:•04,1'1-t.'•i::`•;•;71.),Ii 1.: ' 1.'' §'4:144;11i.i.,,titifi'i. Illt•"411. ''-•''.
=:-. •-•
k$ ,. 4.-,. -. . ...vit. , ,,,.. ,,.... it% 4.,,,,,,,Aviitmvi,p,_... '1., .0',, ' :', ,
•
.!..: .
AREAS ft 1
'' • . °.; y 41''.4: 4.'' ' $:11;6 V : ... '''''' '... .'■.Z14,..:::: •,,;., ,,A.i ....11i,j Nif •. 4' ••,..:, V.,
t)
lit,,',1•:;
.•' ..; : SCALE. :. 1": :. 209 e, 4,..., -•; %..,,,....,7 , ,„„, -...:4;• , .,,,,,. ..4k. •,,, • .••,fikik.„.,,vio.„4,.,, ,•■,1,,,,, .,/, ,r, ,.,., •.,., ARE ]i
.. '',c) - '.'.'..41'Y"-- ; JY2. ‘- •:•••:',D,---1-))4:40 k,,'•ci ,;t 4.014,,,;44,.ftlik,•40,-1.'• P 1, •Ii2411t-?”
,....,,... . , •l',.. littAi-,5: ,1, .,P.r-1,t)..F04,341`(04 nt-i.-P*,, i II, ';;, TI,W,1,15,A.FN• ''' Viv.,23:".1;
. -Fi ' .........umemo........
14 X:. '2.).°'6°• •4'..,--4;11,',.4't,•
200 . 300 pt,
t ;?6„.1C 14*"344;:)..,,,,A.:61011kle ic,!Al/' l','•C 4,',1. ,i140-aio,'"''A,, , , ?i.irc,....4, OFFICE PERMITTED LAND USES:,, • . ,1.1..::
NORTH • °•:-., °,,N:0,,0,— .,),id...e.kw 10 -.).,2",....1, ."■,X. *4.;11.,4.•A. - ,451° ij'at..,,p'ep',;,.:4..,,,,'‘2'.,,-,,iel ,,a. .1, . ::.•''
i'A •-'.'' le°, 4,1;lie'-;'''''.°','„.s ,it-.,.':141,44:'';•ii; ' 1'; AltiV41"-!.'' ',,,'/*/, ''''': i 4.. 'i •
. . . . ...i::.n..
- . ,i. . L;;‘,..,....9,,‘,.,,„.,..,,,A,_, 4,.t,.‘,, ..,.:.,,1,.,,,,,.. ._..:,,i,t '61.',0.i.. . , .,;.•.=.0:41,,L...' :0.44p.' ,.-; ,f r......'
,..
-
. •
-'.,17./3. ,• .4r,...-.‘ , ..- , ,"..4...•4,•.•-.. •41.0 6 :'k :44:..*!A"ife lti.,,P. ':-,•6 ,,k,,,,...,.1•••_•44, ,•,),; , ,„. .
i...
,..... ...... SPECIFIC PLAN potaioAF:IY. '.. ra:..... . ;.s..,...4 .,Nit ..,,, :.....q.,1,i,.„;,• ..,ac ,0,•..v.,,,i2;i\ii.;0,F. -..,\?,,..,.,.
11,::•
' • .-'...'' '-'''''' .. 7 .1,74 •■.,f,' '''*41'! •.1. 4!:4'C'''‘.1'1 4r4F':..t'll'0.1' .P p.(`'' r'
?:...•
, :.,,t1,1:,4.; ( , 67i:„...;..'',,.„,„0$:,,,,,;,- "47,,..1-;1/411,4; ..'„,, .,*it!: .14.,12,loit..r.,,,t,,,>: ,4, 5,,,,,,o,i,,,,;1.,,, SEE TEXT FOR EXACT opsc ii I P T I 0 NS
'i itt., '.•,::•+:.!c4.,....K.5,1114:.k4AS/4. i,!.:•4 i,•.,,-, ,,I'ic ra...,.. e,."',. ', 1'', V'01 vi:771...',A,,A. $AI'.,°•-.1 :,.2;''',VA .,,." I,fr. ' .3 V i 'f'''''..n01•:,.■ ' ''Ai,: '''' iirreilikiCr'l 4iirit".......,'1;:444,:.41., ''=■P.t)4! '
.,.„.44c 6
i3I' d'.11.'"•eE*;''''' 111%.1iCI‘‘1.4.k'f':4'.1445 ''''4 1'0 Ci2.' 1 `''''1' i •4•,...ti.,:.'•' .,.: .!•,-:-'0,.1 ..4 4104 t....kr?4. .'•!“1_,,,.4.-.. '9',4C.'...q.i.N-,44c., 0‘:' k• ., '''f.., ,-1,4V, „..0 Et.,,,,,Ig . if i. .
4t,
1 i1‘0 ' 1.'';'.' . ,•iit'.,i,Of .,X'Skw....lw• l•io':' 1. '='.• ,14'"I". . • 17 0"'` 3.`.14.'" ,i• ' -
re
.4 ,, k;;;;-''' '-'•--44-4•1441Wir,..%:"*Viii.ri;7,41,•.%);•'. 0,4;-;;•.-44.—,9,,,A.to:v.,40°,,,''0,,...Ati:„,f iliti,iitri,.,,....'fil.;," 0. .,,,f,, '4,:NI).t,..,,•°,. .1.k": ,',411.r.,;.',..iii...;„ .„4„..:;,,,, ,,,,,,,Ii',',,,.it, ,,,,7 ,,.,x,... ..tm. oc,,;..1%.k.if,-•'..,k,.s..4.,..ivr,N1.4.;.:40,,,,t,•..,...4,•',A,,,Wi,,,..?,..•°,i..r,:,;:;:,., ;
' °;',f•-.°'1V :: s'AREA 1 : f:11-`0.-'°W elakt"1--..."if, lor.iir, l':Ail 911:‘'t',P;','e"';•'1' '''' A•4'''50..'ii,.P6'' Y''''.1-•''''''ik‘-' i•,''-`•Nktjk•0.4,Av°. '“..,..1. 4 1444krilV.,. '.;r,, ..,
1 i
.1.:,..,•-•
4 .'6,1P,', -.. '` ' :••••,,`..',..,iiiFtt,-,..A‘ ,•,-4 'op -•,. v''•„1., '•A A, •'.ts•A44' ' ••\-••' : ■,1 i.'t'A.A't4: '''.,.■.•4' ;l's',;;PV:.A'. ., „,..j. ',i,'';Si,.:keigedir. , , —,ii,..4/,
-.o. .,Vr...-;..opwAlirtrtnar;,:i.-'-' ,,, tvAttit,.. 't .'•,ifP1,. •4',,'i: .ticfc• A REA, 2 • i . f._ :•••!It•-•,', ;',,••,;,t,$.;;;Vii,-,ke.,,e,$;:„•,z, °,,,,y...4.1f",; ,',.‘'..,4 7,I LI, • -• 1 t:l''0•-■.:,•i.g...k...0"lik
,..; -..• ,• '.\.i ;, it•;;At...•A att-,^b'.• '''''' i'•1'4* ,0143 ' 'i•''le"f ' ' 1 I.' ., ' ' i,1Y ',' 't e,i1'') A '''••— '• ,i,11 ,,ivr•e`k'•-3• .• .$/144'NI '. ;' : ° i ' t.. I 'AI r '' 410 t'1
'' '', • ' .. 14,".f,i..," i,- '' ' ;,.:f.' i1.9,..;ki, '. , iii, t,1 .■'), V13.1,VI,Z/FV,V;1519p;;i4,/,,4. ,,,..•,.ir,,,. I:4 . ..,•,.•,,,,..../.,. .4,........),?.,•• ,,.%,• ,i,!..".:!67 ':,!:',v It i..1. ':,,,,,,. AREA 5 IA-I.,.;, .. ,,...t:•„,
: ••' •''', •• •:-',: i4,1%,''tY,-Oft Aiii..'. ; . i 3....,. i,„ ,„ ,..,:.1, 4,.11A #1 Amtnq,,,,•-k, 1, 114,)c4‘k,0,,i...,, ,..,t,..,.,..-'; -4\-,-,, . ,1?,;;•,,,,A.,.1,0,t,-;'''}i)141,.4,'' '1'11 ' 1,1 4 t' 1.:,VfS ;.y'
,--I
'‘‘.••. -.. :10P':..44i'll.d.d-, .} 1 't.*, "'''i,‘''''l'''.. '' ''1,4i '1Wdt 401.5tf,i : ' '10.41,00,44.4W ,!'' :'.1" :17(' f:''''OP4'::::1'''''i I'll'i.'''f.\11'.2'(ei, ''I A's '7.47-7—..; 1 '',..tt\'■PV!,1
-,..,&m.., ,..,11tb,\-i,,.; •a,q „iir,,,,,„, •,;1,,, 4, Ilp.,s liz„0. .,,,,1,":(,p,a4 a,,,i,1,i, VII ii,,N,,,u,ii.4,,,_,, 4,,,,k, , 4.,,,k 4f,;.+1,43, ,.,,,,,,e, .,,,,,. 1.44,,,,!,.,, ).;. 4.,1, , ,I i II im...,,,, 4 .. ,., mil ,1., ki.ia zit,,.,,„,,..v .
io A x kl,,
!0.,:,i.TA,..„04,0.,..---„.,.,,..„r.•,,,.. ,,,x,••• .„•,,. ..0,,..:1„, -,r,,•p ',IA. ,,i, •• •••114„440• (• ,.4? kpi,04,4f..;o0.1.,. 4 ,-,./ ,..i"--.14 Al', P"..5, ' I°1'14, °. Att,17‘i,. °.r14.-,4.,•. .•°°:, ;4:0'44'' , '1-1■Eli 64..:lt! A 1 13'f.'4,:VI 611\;.
' . 'Or'.iii#,A''' '''$‘.4, '..1.: :i/t V" -.' "411.g1 .'t .ii' °,•'' 7 1 if ':''''.1';‘''4'/41 fir4 0;4 ;;',' 1,; 41'ii.`' .V44i,'.S---A: ;" +t'f,,,y,,V.+4+05' .' .'',N.i'i''''4,4,'.'''," .-'.' - v'ge# '''1,-.`1,. 'fil ' '.11; tl,
::„tolifi*,•11 ,,,,(ti'4,• '7:,..:,‘..,,. ,„.,,I, li-,.,.,,, 4,$:'e,,,.,,::,,,-;„..,...,‘, ... ,,,,,i..,. ,,• , Jo .0 ',',,".",,, 1- W.,.I.,.4"; - ii.. ,---.? '74,4:::',•.,..t,... ,..,i, ' ' •- '" " / 4'kk,iii., 1,44f.W3,,„:-.: '.,;1:24‘
. if.0„, :....,,,*•,,.E.iir,,,,•,A..p•':;-.0*.-..^.440;," -14i' , - (4. ''''.41,,,,A 4.,t., . .IFIA,,,!ip 0 0'1.4,:..,• /164441,.,,,,, \,,,.6,-71-;,.. 4;11:1;,',,./6". ••if,','llti OPEN 1 A,,,.411,0,i 4r.,•,/,,t,rgor * ' , t'..tsA'• • •
,..,
, 1." ,.4, •q''t.,`"'.,,i,t.'fig.s.• -, st.-•• •,',s., ;4,e■r,,a,:t0.,,;, , .•!:•..e. ,I. ,,,,,.•0 •. ii, 'jr,,,.A;le" y, ut•-'..;,,, I, i,t15Ifir-.T.,..-.-,-• - : .. '0•,...,if.f.,`"sas',1,'‘s,..*•'\'.' '',"it );A:1145,;04mg , ‘,%•.4.si. , ., .
•s'"A' .-1,' .. 1 r'il..1'°'1 4 ls_,-..441114,i.,1"•.1%.,,,,,,1114:II„ -Iv..-'•.." 1 1.,'p:,:r.tr,,q,,,1 et,vest.L, 0-,.i 1.1i.''a. 'flP,At,,, t.,.... ..... t , .1.,, h, ,. ..„.,,,, ., SPA C E USE fklit; ,g ,..„,...o4...7,...1'-;••• ,' rill •, .. i
., . .....;;I:.ri,.1:11..1:1...1.1i........,.::..;
,..,' ,,',... ...., . ,, ,.4
‘
.1, , ,,i,44.,_ .,• • . .1... ,,2,4 0 40(, Ar„Vi•,'" .'• „. . s, ,.',... ." fr.,- ......,-r.,•:-... •',4,..•; .;.•.,
',..h.A1..c."filt4;"......,.../. 4. ..•.••.A.,,rt(4,„,c,„4,c-.4,i, J.,..,.. •,,.. ,:, . t,54,i,• p• • l'...• •.;,••,.•..;,:..,og!4•4. •:.:1 .
. I !
....•
'. Vii...1.-1 ti:* .,tviikb1,,,T.,,',.,:;., ni4,,ti.:,-,; . . .i',. ..„, A REA 3 , ,,,i,:',\ ..41-• •c,-t•.=.•••••,•!;.),,y, ::•.•.-• „%,,,,,, .P., it! ,,,,•• ,,2,0,,.. ,If:.•$.4; •,,,,T 44 ,,,•,,,v•, • .?hi:,'4.1.-r•i'"•• • 1.7.4t."‘J ', • ;i•
t,,.... 'Ir.) '14; •.ti ' ..-.;API-1:4'C„.y,.:40 44. "'" '*\:' \'°k•‘ .°1-7: . •:1 - ! '1' ':'41 ° a'•'41 ig.• ,.....;;•;.;31;A,..4. i...:' . ••-". f ' ','t: '.•. ' ',e '.'c /•A ,•,;. v, ......0.1%..... • 0.---- , .• •...1
'),p ,'.r ,..:,..A.1• . ,••.°-; ' i ;'"r:?°0 ').:Av,.,. .: •, ,.. .,.......:. .,. . .. .. ....,_,,, . ,
vt.:;.-'. ,14,., ,;,..,•,.,'..,..40,--,i-ti.,. 4:k.,':A:.v,oect•-• ,,,..-:.... ,4 i,.,..<--....-et,...twalf ).,. ... ..„.....,4, ---,..,-,-. ..
\
, •61.;1
•I-1
N;na; f,''.'10 ',,,'4.,$.0%_Prn.l'\,111,4' \v. .\c,':.;$. _..''7'... r;'e,,Pwc,'-:__;...,-.4ttiiiit'...:....0%' :4;• .'Le...i.i,'. ','"'.14-42: ,,.. ,r.. ,,••4 • ;-.T,IrA,. ,,,A . tv, i.A ,iii,,,,,,..„• -2,',,i,,•. ; . .4,. — ,......--IrLer,tt.47,,,..,,,,i..-.J.-..:... . ,.,.,
..",, -,-e- Ar1;.-?..,.•.•-q -.'4,--w-4s••••,‘,, ',,Nie,,:•,„t•-4, 7,,e,4,1,iy••••4.7..V.!?.-..i.i9,:ti.,,,,,{1101,-,1, .17.1.1::,...';4 :.zi" .,.... ,..) , . 3,....,:..,.:,.4., :.. , . ;11, fr, ,,,‘a:‘,:;:vi,(,,'■'.■""r:::,-,:,,..,:i.. ,..,,,...41:44.11n:7, r,...k,"::-.....:::„.....::: .1 'VI
'f:i:....',•A,‘ircgt M:,,,4 j"i t,1'''" -,%-i,';':1,,-;071.vu'' v, .04.9sk il, ,..!$t 43,,,,.,,,,,,!, 1.k.i'ii•iti.,,?':, :,, l'i,.',:,..... i k,-1•,,:- •,11• ..,:.7's,41,.';'-' „ : .: -,.:•,,.... ..: ,,-.1,:-;;;;.:;:;•:•,....••::..• ...f,A,:...i.:i.il',/,'f,ti. ,•:..,..,•,•::.••-......ci,„„4-44.ii.,i4
4
, •...,
..,:,. ..„.., .. „9,,,!, ,, ,,,,,„ .,,,t,„, , t , ,0, ,)! , s,,.....,,,,,,, ,."kfftg;Ali..4,0,...;.:.... ..,•. ...,..•• -. -,..._......,;;;;::.-. 7'-',;•:...„..., . ;,.,,,,,,..„ ,,..,.,.• .„,,,i,.... , „,.. ',I.,;•.,:o.Tv.,/
..,'.
•• v, .i, ,t ....,,,,.01,,,,•,.••;......?7....i,,01./.--4, v.,,',i,..;.4.0..,14,,.-f....., ,1 4 /.,, , ••,t 1/4/„.' No..5, .r..•,...,.::::T.:-.•••C"' ' —ow*.,,....•. .,• ;: , •:.,, . -, .. ; ,,. ,A°' ' ,, •L.I at.; •lt, $'Ik a
'.a•.''.% .: i. ' ,. 1.41.1.1. '.'11'. a' ..0 •'....N.4,‘ ,,■V'''X'...3,. ..N,',,.;:°.!,.,,,,iti.,q,..,'IA:i V%. , ',I, ;I, 1? '.n' 64r...I•P --•;z:.,.,,,•,...,-;..,t. ..., • • ' .,....-"...:;:'.. ..'3'4. 1;1' 0 AD• V' '.,.;•-.'"''..'''•' '"?. . §'Va,"!.' f'S .''a.4 ak. iiiii4t•1,'''',,:‘"' '. •4/1/86(UPDATES)- •:.'
:9:iit...,.‘ ,v,._.\:.,1401,.4-4,,,,,,„ ,.,y 1.i,,,,1!•,,..04..tiri..!1:403,,.9M....',A.,•\* $.,,,,k.e.,./411,;:01.,Itki•. .1,...k....,. .,,. . ,,,, ,,,.- ..-.....~. ._......,•:....•./.... ..,..,„ . .,.,... ,.44 ,. k, , ,4 ,,. ,t,I, , .1 c',.,,..L...,pe.,, 14,1, ,
101'4' 1 1,44'',0'io:., ' 't,4 ''':%'46:WIA,,'," '" .,, V ,'■ Al'i'!*,'N,p..a,;;.,„!..'''',,,. .i.;;:.•,:.,,if, ,..f.,,, • ' .,,,,...,•04.;,4....,:,,.,,,L,Ars.:„..6.51.r.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..o.,;„, ,.!,,, ,t.....,,,:, , ,,., ,,,, ,4,, ,.,,, . .., ,,. . , ...........,,, . , ..
4.,v,re. \,,:,,t.,,.,..:0,,,.,,H.,..t ).k,,,,,,ce'„,:,.k, .'..',.!'itv:i,',.,.': ...'.,;•.I.,?../„?....,....;;.t..".",:l .. ift.„....,ty.4.;ti-...-0..51. :4 ;),:17Ag'..4:4'...'..';'.:„...•-.--;t::,...:..c.,t'itig!.? ''`...2......,• 1 470.,,144'0, P.i. ' .ri,.- 't .‘..
t
......
.,.
.....
'......iiy..at-'tti 1 ••••ti Iiiittillt,,,` ;`,0!).4!!4',;:•;e74,,(;c:,,:.r•-•';,‘,i4.-.•.'14/,'',::.:.L...',„'y,44,001-i•Z'",,;-37;,,,,:4.,. .<1,„.7'5-47',,,,,,l't•'' ...,•' ,,14,':: ".',.,..4'...ig',,t..l.:ii.:4,:i',,••.;?,•2: •,;A-:.4,`.,,';!,•:;.,._ ...4*. :k;?,71,,,, .,ii/k,:.;•. CITY OF,DIJEI..IN ,.
'.:: ••••:;..fYliz :.,',,,rq '-' .., „.,t..,4. y.•14 •11—.•
—"'!\,:W;‘,.• '''' ,u('''',17',.''7,'1%,i,',-t..';',.'ii.;; :6',..'''''-.''''::'''''.::' ....-..i.:-:;4.i2,iTI'''7,-,;:1•%;°•''' itt-i'.':',71;;'-':7•77"7:',.,:..v....-.., ...'.2,-;A. 1'*i';''.111'7;;:•'''''.'',..r:.;:.:;;t4,e.....I."-...\ ..''''''4•'i ' • ''''''''' 4,, 4A' ' PLANNING DEPT.: • .
•
1.—A i.---- • . A•,:.:.t, ,4'!'a,..;',a.a..,.., 4,, - ,• • „,;• •?'.5%14.i... r` •'Va• ■ MO , ''','• ^-4,.;,''' • •.;•••..•,...!..4.a.• ' • .0' di Aro' s• '•':',.'1;y• . • °,4*.'t•,-,•.-,°A,',. -.. •' ' • ' •::,•;-•N ,..
V.•••••■••:-'•''' it ,k.:.!:lt:1;i:N' ','.. ' ' ',,,,:,,,V3e0.17."'"!'-:'"....":,-jP.r.7003. ---:.:,s401,01.44TU,Vf.,.'..;:,%:,•:-47-.., ...:',.4,t••;..r. .....:. r 4,.......•,,,t T, :. .::,... 4.:his no._+4 ',„ ' ,'„1,+ '''.4.3., -4..• . !
ohl."'': '' ' '. ''''tv —'''''''''''' '''U='.1..:4!",n-.;'•"1%.0 .,./..j1V4:i'lltar....it-t,',0K111!7"'''''''.R.IV,r0.7044).-'.._.- A'''rt,.., , .. - 1.:‘,6 , '. ...-•—•;;t:••• • :!'..,
• ..
..
,,,',7.4...:i ',,,,,,. '' .. --,r,. ).;:_,..;,;;;;,:::-,.:..."7 .---,, '''....ii• lort;r:1•7°-•,;• ••,,,. 'lifyi -1 "M'(CT • '',--,,s, '"Of• ' ... ..' ',,,' 1,1- .Iptki i....:,..,.....t,k. . ,,..:;-:-,. .. . , '. , ,1....0. ...,0--..,:-;,-,•. 'iiki..- .. ._ . :•.. --•: • . •
, ,,.. ..r;')". re."'.°Ir."... 49;471;i4..."7";:... '‘11311,‘,..41—-...1''.??,.1 4'1.,V;) 'als.:Arr
a .•
•'1-7,',-; ,z...-' ;:t!".-• ''Z'''t-P*7•".'.'" '•0#17' 14rfp',V;$157-g46" ''....g. -, v-",--A ..M^F,tv --- -:- 1•ii. ,'• :10.171.. ,.•''i.k.1,;,: ':`,..4'.
t
,.,,, , '...., -. 0. - A • ,• '
. .••
•
'..""'.. — .. . AREA 4• . ::-.,',..: :;11‘'s,,•;'":"1-7•Ii..CA:,..',:i''.. . , 1.1• ,‘.,', ....TSAH' 1140TmipNsAo:N
INC.
''''...4 ,...., ..i ,,.. ._ .,op•••0 , ,A, •,;0,,-,.,:„14.-"ssN:,L:,-A,,..- ••--, -7- -.- ',. „14 1 Pze.-1; .• 1,, ; ., ,-.4,-,-4v).•-. :7-24:,,....---Ir----.-7,--..7:7;•..,,,, . . ...-- ,:,.... ,.4.-sii....-,,N1 A.-,,!,,k, ,'
:''''';''-- — -'',1. •. •V■ V,if-t-7. ‘1. c o M ME RC IA L AS.BUILT ';',..60,,i't, N.:.1,,„.. ' "1.,:,...:..:.•: ...", ...3.:'•••.' • .0•,a.;•i:-..!t.:.:.....4.„.:.,......i...,';:,■.i.,,,)!Iti,N.,......:.„•,',?, ;.' .,,..,.1.•k -i,k, </•,,,/,,,,,plop.
0 OA Grove fio■d, Concord.'CaltIonti• .11.
''' .......rtn'iifr''‘'''‘..• '.\\ -144%j s---17-nlz. •p".7•","=""r. 1 10t011 ,1,'0 . It`1•,,,O;e1('1,i':'',.\'',V, \a‘r.iv,-;••f... i. .".•:....'!....°'...li)Pird; ‘. ot.A.;'Atif.11‘;'. ""ii"l''' '11; ' ‘A.4 ; -— ..:-...<3-33.21319 ' ' .
'10VarKA':_,.,,.'.• ••• . ..i`ki.,,,,tfi,;4..;:4,;,:„°,1',14.10::..`-1171V.‘ty,:n.e, '\41...1LAt..i. 1.0.' ‘Ili Ai, - -k,-441°.‘'• — • ---. .
. •
, .
•
----•.--,-,c,.. .,,-ik,,,,..\ \). ,..,.,, ,4\2.„1.f.,,.1,11„„Iy, %.,,tc:-.,:::::-.• ,....,...,.., ., 1.• . .r."••
. .
' • •
•
RESOLUTION NO. 81-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 83-064 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3
WHEREAS, Richard Jeha, property owner, proposes to have the
land uses permitted in Area 3 of the San Ramon Road financial
institutions, and offices; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin, on
November 28, 1983, held a public hearing on the planning
application PA 83-064 San Ramon Road Specific Plan - Amendment to
Area 3; and,
•
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the Specific
Plan amendment will be a detriment to or interfere with the
future general plan, should the new amendment ultimately be
inconsistent with the future general plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment will not
have a significant environmental impact; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment is appropriate for the subject
property in terms of being compatible to proposed land uses in
the area, and it will not overburden public services; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment will not have sustantial adverse
effects off health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to
the pub•lSc welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council amends
the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area 3 to permit limiter'
personal service, financial institutions, and offices, as listed
below, subject to the following conditions: •
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. For Shopping Centers Involving 4 Acres or More:
a. Up to 25% of the total gross first floor area of anv
development can be for personal service, financial institution,
or office uses, as defined in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November,
1983 .
AYES: Councilmembers Drena, Hecarty, Jeffery, and Mayor
Snyder
NOES: Councilmember Moffatt
ABSENT: None
Mayor
ZESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 86-050.1 SAN RAMON ROAD.SPECIFIC PLAN (AMENDMENT TO AREA 3)
WHEREAS, Richard Jeha, on behalf of Dublin Town & Country
Associates, requested on May 6, 1986, that the Dublin City Council consider
authorizing a Specific Plan Amendment Study of a portion of Area 3 of the San
Ramon Road Specific Plan (PA 86-044); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting of
May 27, 1986, authorized the preparation of a Specific Plan Amendment Study to
consider allowing occupancy in the Shopping Center by uses generally provided
for by the C-1, Retail Business District, specifically to consider allowing a
greater amount of personal service, financial or office uses at that location;
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects as
required by law for the Planning Commission hearing of June 16, 1986, and the
City Council hearing of June 23, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City
Council amend the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow occupancy in the Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center by uses generally provided for by the C-I,
Retail Business District, including, but not limited to, retail uses, personal
service uses, office uses and financial institutions as generally reflected in
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 86-27 and 86-28; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendatiofis and testimony as herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been previously adopted
for the Specific Plan Amendment Study and the associated Rezoning request (City
Council Resolution No. 53-86); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment to a
portion of Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment will not have a
significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment is appropriate for the subject
property in terms of being compatible to existing and proposed land uses in the
area, and will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the amendment will not have substantial adverse effects on
health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be
injurious to property or public improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council approves the
amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan by establishing a sub-area within
Area 3 of the Plan which encompasses the 4.8+ acre Dublin Town & Country
Shopping Center property (APN 941-040-007) subject to the following land use
restrictions which identify the uses permitted, conditional uses, and uses
specifically prohibited from being established within the referenced sub-area
of Area 3:
1a
•
Area 3A (Sub-area of Area 3, consisting of the Dublin Town & Country Shopping
Center) 4.8+ Acres
As with the area identified as Area 3, this area has good potential for the
development of retail shopper stores oriented to providing additional
comparison shopping goods for both Dublin and-nearby community residents. It
is the intent of this Specific Plan that the principal use of this area be
encouraged to be retail shopper stores. As noted below, development can be for
personal service, financial institutions, or office uses or similar uses as
typically encountered in a Retail Business District.
Permitted Uses
Retail commercial shopper goods establishments such as:
a. General Merchandise Stores
b. Clothing Stores
c. Shoe Stores
d. Home Furnishings Stores
e. Home Appliances/Music Stores
f. Hobby/Special Interest Stores
g. Gifts/Specialty Stores
h. Jewelery and Cosmetic Stores
i. Home Improvement Centers
j. Drug Stores
k. Auto Parts Stores .
and similar uses that offer comparison goods based on price and quality.
Eating and drinking establishments including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Restaurant
b. Cocktail Lounge
c. Donut Shop
d. Ice Cream Parlor-
e. Sandwich Shop
f. Specialty Food
g. Delicatessen
h. Bakery
i. ' 'Candy or Nuts
•
j. . t.ealth Food
k. Wine and Cheese with on-sale liquor license from State of
California
- Personal Service establishments including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Beauty Shop
b. Barber Shop
c. Shoe Repair
d. Cleaner and Dryer
e. Laundry
f. Figure Salon
g. Photographer
h. Formal Wear/Rental
i. Interior Decorator
j. Travel Agent
k. Key Shop
1. Dressmaking or Knitting Shop
m. Tailor Shop
n. Handicraft Shop
F
-2-
Office including, but not limited to, the following and restricted to a
maximum of 40% of the total gross floor area of the Shopping Center:
a. Optometrist
b. Medical and Dental
c. Legal
d. Accounting
e. Architect _
f. Employment Agency
g. Real Estate
h. Other Administrative and Professional Office
Conditional Use -
— Subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
a. Community, religious and charitable institution facilities and
uses.
b. Public facilities and uses.
c. Veterinary Office
d. Commercial recreation facility, other than a theater, if within a
building.
e. Tavern
f. Recycling Centers, when operated in conjunction with a Permitted
Use on the same premises.
g. In—patient and out—patient health facilities as licensed by the
State Department of Health Services.
Prohibited Uses
- All retail commercial uses defined as convenience stores, including:
a. Grocery Stores
b. Liquor and Wine- Stores
c. Drive—in and Drive-through Restaurants
d. Meat, Fish or Poultry Stores
and other stores which sell food and other household goods for
consumption in a short time.
• .- New and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service, service
stations.
- Residential uses.
— Industrial uses.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1986.
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Vonheeder
and Mayor Snyder
NOES: Councilmember Jeffery
ABSENT: None
0 or
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-
-3—
.44vw i9r4•14s,1,-44A4,04,-; 9?o tst /4
gwv ..;
// I Filktfjkil , p 1 b
ft ill liii. kW lulu Iff'
• 1
_.... "
4°r- •
6 ,
s
' • 710 piON
•
• -- '
# 41°
2 I. -- ci
- -
a a
. v...0 C.Wal-/ro5fWM/1/
' - ...-a. S.11.11. S . • • '
. .1. -
G/1/4417-721 14,T is-ira cj). , •ifi-O'V I-. c IV/1 5
.2. • S
a, vi -0N i•) A . vso_tzs-Yra
r7P0
-7-71/vg2 -1)PW°14.7 1,1-1 0 ill-"brIlijak (1‘..' •
•• VP • -,33o•D.D •
-01,1
..
\ - • -cmetitpifl
• , arni
\ --7)vs,zpti;1
kv-142sPrgi ---1-07 -witmG9 411 ' 1.-<:3 --al
SIN 4ijie 0,,
, .. ;,. 1-1- •' --ettY .
. . \ .-.
_ \ •. \ . OP 66
• 4iMil 4141149a •
/ dV W ,f.:;$" \.. . s. I , 0 a_zsVoi.
'5.l'N - . - - •
.. . . ., • - -
a- NL&1a , u132,35>
'Tint Vi:Nlif 14441
if .\
• _,,
•
•
•
Chart 1 - CURRENT LAND USE SUMMARY
Area 1
Map # Owner Approx. Use (Sq. Ft. if Applicable) Proposed Usage
Acreage
1-1 Dublin Springs 8.0 Springs Apartment Complex No change envisioned
Inc.
1-2 Union Oil Co. 0.7 Service Station No change envisioned
Area 2
Map # Owner Approx. Use (Sq. Ft. if Applicable) Proposed Usage •
Acreage
2-1 Morrison Homes 12.4+ Vacant - undeveloped Approval in place
for 174-unit
condominium tun project
Area 3
Map # Owner Approx. Use (Sq. Ft. if Applicable) Proposed Usage
Acreage .
3-1 Noret - 1.4 _ Single family residence & 33,000 ,- 4 building
outbuildings office facility
3-2 Rivers-Barton 1.5 Vacant - undeveloped - 225+ seat 7385+
sq. ft. restaurant
. 3-3 Commercial-Prop. 0.4 Commercial (6,125 + sq. ft.) Unknown
3-4 NichandrQs - 3.1 Commercial (8,500 + sq. ft.) Unknown
3-5 Dublin Town & 4.8 Dublin Town & Country Shopping No change envisioned
Country Assoc. Ctr. (3 bldgs - 52,100 + sq. ft.)
3-6 East Bay Iceland 2.0 Ice Rink (33,000 + sq. ft.) Unknown
Area 4
Map # Owner - Approx. Use (Sq. Ft. if Applicable) Proposed Usage
Acreage
4-1 Arbor Creek 0.4+ Martin Canyon Creek Flood control with
limited public and/
or private recreat-
ion use in form of
pedestrian and/or
bicycle walkways
Area 5 -
Map # Owner Approx. Use (Sq. Ft. if Applicable) Proposed Usage
.Acreage
5-1 Various Arbor 5.8 Arbor Creek Project - 84 MFR units No change envisioned
Creek Property
Owners
• •
F • -
A 11 A glAPIrk, T -It 1
1
,,:, . . ,,,g ,-, ,it-,:ig? v, ,
• C H &r 1•Cveketo L4 0 se-SdAttitlid
t
•
'ili
. ; .
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-2 ,
of the analysis, Laventhol & Horwath surveyed a random sample of
' 51 shoppers, and selectively interviewed 25 Dublin retailers. -,,_-
y,;
Shoppers were surveyed on Thursday, December 26, 1985 and on ii:i.r�_!8
Tuesday, January 7, 1986 between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at five ?L i{74
'T'�{; t'
• • retail centers located along Dublin ,Boulevard, Regional Street '.r *.13
I and Amador Plaza Road. Merchants were interviewed by telephone '
VZIEIATMAIII
throughout the course of this market study. • ,;B �''
II RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-1 Based on survey findings, area population growth and an ' Ili
analysis of income flows to the retail market area, Laventhol & ��
Horwath selected target categories for new retail development and �+
Laventhol & Horwath has analyzed current demand and supply projected the potential demand for retail space through 1995.
IIconditions in the Dublin market area to determine the appropriate is
scale of downtown retail development through 1995. Our analysis
I•
of the potential for new retail space began with an inventory of A. MARKET AREA DEFINITION
® existing and planned retail projects. Conversations with local `
officials, commercial real estate brokers and developers provided Based on the location of competitive facilities and
this information as well as a size range of retail space, lease established retailing patterns in the Tri-Valley region, the
ii
• I
terms and absorption rates. , ' Dublin retail market has been defined as the area encompassing
( the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon. This
Our analysis of demand for downtown retail goods and trade area definition recognizes that Contra Costa County cities
services focused on a comparative summary of 1985 taxable retail north of San Ramon represent a separate market, characterized by
11 sales in Dublin and the Tri Valley region and includes a profile • a somewhat more affluent population than the eastern portion of
11 of Dublin shoppers and merchants. To conduct this latter portion • , • the Tri-Valley region. +In certain retail areas, especially
0 '1 (� I
I : '
is '•ti. •,-. :i:I
1 k ) •!: ;!i' �9 , •I: a y, .1. tt ,( f •'i»!�.._ .:1�.d%.c4t 'G.1 .b.• .'/ "}�)' yy
'r: {•('h.W. .1, 'I d• 1 t'')�CI�.. .I •e. ': • `,i.� •I
�h•�it`i s i'p ',i",.�. S•%'Sr ;i••:-.'., ,�a ' . 'I.
N' I 1
:,1• 11, �K .1. 1
I:
Ir; '.hwl' 'r'f'
�i• ::i l' .li �
Ir. il.. .,G.'
I• .a'7,n..
+�!�� .+�4r.1'•,�i.r I .. r+��.� !i•':*� ka�_.;,�"•t;i,. •I�` .ICI'<..;;;,',y....,.t!` %�Isp, .•ti,1.it• +1:• , .��}:,
•
I
MRETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-3 1 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS 111-5
I t:
II
•
Ispecialty retail items, San Ramon may be considered part of the Standard lease terms are three to five years although some
Walnut Creek retail market area located to the north. ) leasing agents indicated a willingness to negotiate lease terms
based on tenant needs. Lease rates currently range from $0.40
' i• per square foot to $1.35 per square foot (triple net) . Most
B. RETAIL SUPPLY • rates fall within a range of $0.81 to $1.25 per square foot.
liThis variation in lease rates is related in part to the age of
An inventory of ten major downtown retail centers indicates the retail center. Several shopping centers built prior to the
�.
that approximately 72,910 square feet of retail space is Pi mid-1970's offer retail space at rates below $1.00 per square
Icurrently available for lease (see Table III-1) . An additional /' ' foot.
34,000 square feet is planned for new construction later this
$ year. _ • !
1 C. RETAIL DEMAND
$ Since 1980, an estimated 99,615 square feet have been added
1 to the Downtown. retail supply, with the greatest portion, To assess current market demand for retail goods and
approximately 85,600 square feet, constructed as recently as services in Dublin, Laventhol and Rorwath prepared a comparative
1 1985. Of this 1985 supply, an estimated-33,000 square feet is summary of 1985 taxable retail sales in Dublin and the Tri-Valley
vacant, indicating that the market absorbed approximately 52,600 region based on 1984 retail sales transactions data provided by
1 square feet of new retail space last year. The total estimated the California State Board of Equalization (see Table III-2) .
amount of retail space in Dublin is approximately 1,550,000 Sales estimates for each retail category were adjusted to 1985
square feet. This represents 27.1 percent of the total 5,710,000 constant dollars by a 2.8 percent inflation factor, the rate of
1 square feet of retail space estimated for the Tri-Valley market inflation for the San Francisco-Oakland area for the most recent
area. ` 12-month period as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in
December, 1905.
I
` 11
I 1 I `I.
1•.. l`7i.1'.,'j!. .l fir:.!.. * •.4r r', t.,.
.11-k•;.-
'!
,':y 1:,y r.;L. •i•l:'1','.4::■. a�.�'.1j7,!,'djiWlt,.f 1•.'�:.i,�:a..l, .w......1 , 1'+'•r •.. i .... ...
'
•• • TABLE 111 - 1
•
SURVEY OF MAJOR RETAIL. CENTERS •
• . CITY OF DIIIILIN ,
• . JANUARY 1906
Months
•
Total Vacant Lease Rate/ Lease Terms on '
.. c • '•:.,,• ' • Shopping Center/Location Year Built S1uare Feet Square Feet Month Years_ Market ,
lt�l
`i: �',;• .Existing Space) .y'i(! ••
Shamrock Village 1966 not available 2,000 $ .65 negotiable 36 ;��t;.•
Amador Valley Blvd. @ San Ramon Road
• AGE Center not available not available 23,000 .40 sublease until 2- 3
Village Parkway @ Amador Valley Road NNN 1996 �ti.' .
• 'Village Center not available not available 2,512 .90 1,0001 3 1 ,i(r ..!• '.ay'
Village Parkway NNN 1512. sublease
until 1992
it.:
Pak 'N Save Center " early 1970'a 104,000 9,340+ .81 3-5 or negotiable 6 :!r ,
6633 Dublin Blvd. NUN
•
Dublin Place 1977-70 300,000 2,020 520. 1.30 negotiable 520, 4- 5 : '
• Dublin Blvd. @ Amador Valley Road 1,500. 1.20 1,500, .5 ('•
I Show Biz•Pizza Place • . . 1978 12,724 • 0 .91 sublease until not applicable
7570 Amador Valley Road (space pre- 1997
• leased) "`
• Murco Center 1900 14,000 1,030 .87 1 1- 2
• 6715 Dublin Blvd. (plus 31,000 NN •
light industrial) '•
I
. Town and Country Center(1) 1905 52,115 30,000 .1.25 3- 5 6
San Ramon Road @ Amador Valley Road NNN
•
• Bacharach Development(2) 1985 29,000 • 2,000 1.25 5-10 6-12 :' •
. Dublin Blvd. @ Golden Gate Drive NNN
Dublin Business Center(3) 1905 4,500 1,000 1.35 5 4- 5
Dublin Blvd. and Sierra Court (plus 24,000
off iceL
Subtotal 516,339 72,910• v:',! •
Planned Space, �`
' Enea Project not applicable 34,000 34,000 1.25-1.35 3-5 or negotiable not applicable
7500 Dublin Blvd. @ Amador Valley Road (plus 6,000 •
restaurant)
. • Subtotal 34,000 34,000
' i TOTAL 550,339 106,910
b •
' I (1) Scheduled for completion, January 1986. •
(2) Scheduled for completion, February 1906. ':.
i (3) Scheduled for completion, March 1906. • ,..8
•
Source, Laventhol i Horwath, 1906. !.f'!1 ..
•
• I
. I .
1 .
RETAIL MARKET AN1II,YSIS • III-8
! RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-7
•
D. SHOPPER AND MERCHANT SURVEYS
IIEstimates of 1985 total annual sales indicate that Dublin '
captured over 36 percent of market demand for retail goods in the
Overall, survey results of shoppers and merchants indicate a .
Tri-Valley region. In constant 1985 dollars this share
•
healthy demand for retail goods in Dublin and general .
II represents $282,465,000. This capture rate is particularly
satisfaction with the retail environment. Dublin's command of
- - impressive sincg Dublin represented only 12.7 percent of the Tri-
the retail market firmly extends through the Tri-Valley region,
Valley population in 1985. The most significant levels of sales and includes cities along the southern periphery of Contra°Costa
•) as a percent of the Tri-Valley total were registered by the
• II County and the eastern portion of Alameda County.
categories of auto dealers and auto supplies (52.6 percent), home
furnishings and appliances (44.0 percent) and building materials
NShopper Survey Results ,
and garden supplies (43.8 percent). The dominance of these •
I . categories is due in part to the considerable supply of high- • .
i A fairly even distribution of shoppers reported driving to
volume chain outlets and department stores such as Gemco, Levitz,.
the Downtown from their place of residence in Dublin, Pleasanton,
Nervyn's and Montgomery Wards. Dublin's central location within San Ramon or Livermore (see Table III-3) . Of the total sample,
the area has allowed it to serve successfully as a center for
11
• approximately 25 percent reported living in Pleasanton and 22
i retailers within the regional market. percent in Dublin. Residents from San Ramon and Livermore •
represented 37 percent of the shoppers surveyed, with the
lin The weakest representation by Dublin retail stores appeared '
remaining 16 percent coming from neighboring cities in Contra
in apparel (22.1 percent) and eating and drinking places (27.0
II Costa and Alameda Counties. This varied representation of
percent). The proximity of Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton• is a
r' shoppers provides strong 'evidence of the Downtown's appeal as a ,
major influence on the competitiveness of these retail
• regional retail center.
. categories. To the extent that a wider selection of apparel and
•
eating and drinking establishments are added to the Dublin retail
The majority of shoppers surveyed were between the ages of
supply in the future, Dublin's percentage share of these retail •
,25 and 45, report a yearly rusehold income over $30,000 and live
categories can be expected to increase.
1�•• 1' 6r t f
• ar '' it 'rIJ� 1 ''t•• h{.rM• ! •t. i•ibVI:J vl1 t ,Ai:•,•s a' 1, I •,•
.
. I TABLE III-2 .• •
1985 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES BY RETAIL CATEGORY •;
• • i!
TABLE III-3
' URVEY: SELECTED SHOPPER CIIARACTERISTICS DY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ??,;_
'�`:. 'r DUBLIN SHOPPERS S
-,,,:x.1“1:::::.-',“-..: ; ra x,1.1
� '. , Percent •
ay•,,,. : San �; �J' ,of
tTz�r Total Total Dublin Pleasanton Ramon Livermore Other
13 10 9 8 !1'
S1 100.0% 1.i `
: Total number Y
15.7 :;(t, -.':.,..!.:::,..1:,..:-.
,..• �:;:.•.,.•
x. 17.6! i1 :..: ;,.•..,• : :,s'
-F 25.51 19.6! 4 �; r, :';::••,: ;^ ...
.;. Percent of total 21 6e 1.x}0;;,'• .. :.,1.7 ,::;;• :;
.,fsi�-
Age of respondent .
,. . . i 2 2 1 2 ;'
25 7 13.7% 2 4 5 6 5
• 25-45 26 31.4 3 6 3 1 3
1 45-65 i Over 65 2 3.9 - 1 1 - -
•
Pearl household income - - - - 1 `,
• Under $10,000 1 2.0 - - 2 1 `
• ..'. 4 7.8 1
$10,000-$20,000 8 15.7 3 1 2 1 1
$20,000-$30,000 15.7 3 11 2 5 5
Over $30,000 37 _ - - 5 5 "``'', •
• 1 2.0 ;;
No response '
-
•Household size _ - - 2
2 3.9 i - 1 One-person 11 21.6 2 5
• Two-person 9 8 6 9 5
More than two-person 37 72.5 - - 1 _
No response 1 2,0 •
Frequency of shopping visits 11 12 9 6 5
• week, or more 43 84.3 - 2 1 2 3
I
Once per ► 6 11.8 -
Once per month, or more 2 3.9 - 1 1 1
• Few times per year
..:t 0
•
• Source: Laventhol I. Ilorwath, 1986.
i
1 1 . .
1 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-10 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-13
. i
1 (
in a household with more than two persons. Of all shoppers respondents). Eight shoppers recommended a specialty retail
1 I• store that sells fabric, sporting goods, books or toys. Six
surveyed, 84.3 percent reported coming to Dublin to shop more 0 .
1 shoppers suggested new restaurants other than fast food; five
than once a week.
• recommended higher-end clothing stores, and three people
• 1 : suggested new places of entertainment, such as a dance studio.
When asked to indicate from a given list, a range of retail
t
1 goods and services they commonly purchase in Dublin, 46
I Under the category of public services, four shoppers
respondents reported purchases at restaurants, • 44 reported •
1 grocery purchases and 42 reported clothing purchases. Hardware suggested improved traffic•control•through better synchronization
and housewares, auto parts and supplies, and medicine or of traffic lights, and improved access in and out of retail
1 I• centers. All but two of the surveyed shoppers traveled to the
toiletries comprised the second category of goods most commonly I
Downtown by car. Only one reported any difficulties with
purchased in Dublin (see Table III-4) .
parking, a notable shopping convenience provided by Downtown
1 Dublin shoppers reported they are generally satisfied with I retail centers.
the supply of retail stores in the Downtown. When asked to rate
Merchant Survey Results 1
the quality and selection of merchandise as poor, fair or good,
38 respondents answered good. Given this same scale to rate the
Interviews with 25 Dublin retail merchants selected from the
appearance and feeling of shops and streets, 37 shoppers
1 responded good or very good, although several shoppers qualified Dublin Chamber of Commerce directory, helped to define the
1
geographic scope of the Downtown retail market and average sales
their answers and reported that traffic conditions in Downtown
( per square foot for certain categories of business. ;
streets did not rank as favorably as the appearance and feeling 1
of shops.
Of the total merchants interviewed (see Table III-6), ten
have operated their business at its current Dublin location for
When asked to suggest new retail stores or public services ,
for the Downtown (see Table III-5) , 12 shoppers recommended a more than ten years, while o..ght established their stores five
years ago or less. Seventeen merchants, or 68 percent of the
major 'department stove, in particular,. Scars Roebuck (10 1
1
I.
i .
p j.., �! 1 tt•
I ..'.,�' .• .. a1'+ ,.. . . , t 1 A.
•
. . • . .
-
•
-
:Fr
TABLE III-4
DUBLIN SHOPPERS' SURVEY:
SUMMARY OF SELECTED RETAIL GOODS AND SERVICES
PURCHASED IN DUBLIN
(Number Surveyed = 51)
Number of Percent of
Responses Total Surveyed
• Restaurant 46 90 .2%
Groceries , 44 86 .3
Clothing - 42 82 .4
Hardware or housewares • 39 76 .5
-
Auto supplies and parts 34 66 .7
Medicineror toiletries 32 62.7
Real estate, insurance or banking 24 47 .1
Beauty salon/barber shop 21 41 .2
Furniture 12 23 .5
Source: Laventhol & Horwath, 1986 .
}
•
y c
— �:f
Y-:
TABLE III-5
DUBLIN SHOPPERS' SURVEY:
SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW RETAIL GOODS AND SERVICES
(Number Surveyed = 51)
•
Percent of
Number of Totaled
Retail Good/Store Category Resnonses (1) Surveyed
Major Department Store 12 23 .5%
Specialty Store 8 - 15 .7
Restaurants (not including fast food) 6 11.8
•
Clothing Store .5 9 .8
Entertainment 3 5 .9
Public Services
•
Improved Traffic Control 4 7 .8
Improved Public Transit 1 2 .0
Improved Landscaping 2 3 .9
No response 15 29 .4
(1) Total number exceeds 51 since several shoppers provided
more than one suggestion.
Source: Laventhol & Horwath, 1986 .
t
•
' t - •
•
•
•
• ,..r� .'� •
•
•M.
TABLE 1II-6
DUBLIN MERCHANTS SURVEY:
SELECTED BUSINESS CHARACTERISTICS
(Number Surveyed = 25)
Number of Percent of
Responses Total Surveyed
Years in Business at Current Location
Under 5 8 32%
6 - 10 7 28
Over 10 10 . 40
Number of Employees
Under 25 17 68
26 - 50 4 16
51 - 100 3 12
Over 100 1 4
Methods of Advertisinq (1)
Newspaper 17 68
Yellow- Pages 7 28
Radi•a. 6 24
Television 4 16
Trade Journal 2 8
Square Feet of Retail Space
Under 2 ,500 9 36
2 ,501 - 10 ,000 4 16
Over 10,000 4 16
Not available 8 32
Tenure
Rent • 23 92
• Own 2 8
(1) Total number exceeds. 25 since some businesses reported using
more than one method of advertising. -
Source: Laventhol & Horwath, 1986. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. •
I a •
ill • fl •
RETAIL MARKET.ANALYSIS • III-15
! TABLE III-7
DUBLIN MERCHANTS SURVEY:
BUSINESS TRENDS AND PRODUCT AREA
total surveyed, employ 25 people or less; nine of the seventeen (Number surveyed = 25)
merchants occupy 2,500 square feet of retail space or less. With
the exception of two respondents, all merchants surveyed lease
Percent of
their store space. Total surveyed
Number
'. Approximate Gross Sales in 1985
III Survey results support earlier findings regarding market
1 Under $500,000 8 32%
area, and indicate that Dublin maintains a strong position in the it $500,001 - $1 million 2 8
Over $1 million 4 16
regional retail market (see Table III-7). Merchants reported . No response 11 44
,I
frequent sales to customers from Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon
Three-year Trend in Sales Volume
as well as Livermore, Castro Valley, Hayward, San Leandro, Walnut �•I '
�� Decrease 5 20
I Creek and Danville. • Steady 2 8
Increase 17 68 `
I No response 1 4
0 Retail sales over the last three years reportedly increased Customer Origin(1)
I for most retail businesses. Seventeen merchants reported growth 22 88
Dublin
in sales volume; two reported steady sales. The five merchants Pleasanton 19 76 •
San Ramon 19 76
I to report a decrease in sales attributed the decline to increased Livermore 12 48
Other (includes cities in
competition in the area. Alameda and Contra Costa •
ICounties) 18 72 ill
Data regarding sales per square foot is more limited than y
. '''-:
p
general reports of business performance. A summary of results �,
ill from 12 merchants follows: (1)Total number exceeds 25 (percent exceeds 100) since most
businesses reported more than one city as place of customer
N origin.
i •
Source: Laventhol 6 Horwwlth, 1986. •
1 ••,. i'. •,i �• {•d1 .'1: .1•.:•.:•�:. ',l.. .:; .:,t' • •�. �.i':' 1r .rl1.1. ;p: .i'' ':J.'.. ..: • ,•
•t '•1 ,1 .:e l• :i:.'^ ,�1'•I• 1. ••1.: '4'+ :l.' N.
') Ili' ;.��: •Y•
,1.
'L•
.ry' ,F;:' •i:.• '•:n. ..t., •,r1:L ':i.i .a ;,,•.;:.;;;ii",:dl..{,!!•f••�..:!•.•, .. .: .•
r • r. r .
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS
III-17 RETAIL MARKET ANAI,XSIS III-19
Estimated Average r � E. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
- Store CategorV Sales Per Square Foot
Restaurant $210
taurant �.�
•
Drug 175 Increased demand for retail goods and services depends
Home furnishings 110 primarily on two factors: (1) growth in market area population
Home appliances 400 :� p
Specialty 145
Hair Salon 80 and incomes and (2) recapture of sales which are currently made
' I by market area residents at establishments outside of the market
Of the merchants who provided an estimate of 1985 gross � I area: Focusing on the latter, Laventhol 6 Ilorwath projected
1i demand for retail space through 1995 based on an analysis of 1985
sales, eight reported retail sales between $100,000 and $500,000. .
These stores characteristically occupy retail space in the range injections and leakages.in the Dublin market area.
of 800 to 4,000 square feet. Two merchants reported sales
between $500,001 and $1,000,000: four merchants reported gross L In this analysis, sales "leakages" are defined as the net
sales in excess of $1,000,000. Retail space among businesses in outflow of retail expenditures from the market area. Evidence of .
this final category ranges from 7,200 to132,000 square feet. 1:. leakages indicates an area of unmet demand and an opportunity for
Uincreased retail development in Dublin. "Injections" represent
Merchants consider a business location in Dublin to be an the net inflow of retail dollars by consumers residing outside
asset primarily because of the City's proximity to major J the Dublin market area and signal categories of competitive
highways, and new residential development throughout the region J strength.
1
(see Table III-8) . Good parking facilities are also considered a L
business advantage, along with low operating costs and favorable All categories experienced net injections in 1985 with the
. f.1
lease rates. exception of specialty and other retail which experienced a net
1] leakage of $34,417,000 or 40.4 percent of its estimated annual
• Perceived disadvantages were less frequently cited than were sales (see Table III-9) . Injections are most substantial in the
li
advantages, but included inadequate foot traffic, inadequate Li ' categories of home furnishings and appliances (28.6 percent),
access to streets and freeways, and poor building maintenance. II general merchandise (28.4+ percent) and auto dealers and auto
i1
1 ,:. !,;..;!.:••...A....1-•,,p:„.,1.4.•1 •• ..1, is, ;, ••i 'a •i 1 4.4%1 I: ''t"':t1:•.:;. .- ,1 ; ''5fir' .'..;i..Si•.°':'( r.
:.}...',...r:4-•i-i,;‘,0;1 �• . .r. �Y,:','i' il,�'!;+';IInL...rrf... :Xc�".�..li '7,�. )�.•
.s':P;.;%.*:''':.'i•alt.J:f.: 1.( .1...),. .r. 1!/,•A. ..J...:n. s .#..,,.. y..{:' f
fir'' 1• rr• .1r:e" ..e��.r.: . • .,r7 .•
TAIILE III-8 I : ,
DUBLIN MERCI,ANTS SURVEY, MAJOR ADVANTAGES AND
i DISADVANTAGES OF CURRENT BUSINESS LOCATION ..'
(Number surveyed - 25)
Advantage Disadvantage ;
. Proximity to strong retail center 9 No disadvantages 7
Proximity to freeway 6 Inadequate foot traffic 4 f'i�• :. . .
.
Proximity to main streets 6 Inadequate freeway access 2 I(;'.
Good parking facilities 6 Inadequate street access 2 I• :
. • Favorable lease agreement 5 Inadequate building maintenance 2 . •
Rate of regional population growth 4 Neighboring businesses 2
• Increased residential development 3 Other 7 j •
Well-established in community 2
Good visibility 2
• Other 6
is•
. • ,) .
.1
•
•
.
Source: Laventhol & Horwath, 1986.
•
i I I l I • I .' ..I ......1 t. . l I I I (. , ,... ■ I I 1 I i -
Lri •
•
:-.....,....t.,' I
'1• .. •'.fit• '.
TABLE I1I-9
1985 ESTIMATED INJECTIONS AND LEAKAGES BY RETAIL CATEGORY ""''
DUDLIN MARKET AREA °l•''.
(000's Constant It311 collars) :l"l`�+
4 . 4' Estimated Annual j
in ectlon •,1Vi
Estimated Expenditures Net Sales (Leakage) ...,. ,;
Annual By Tri-Valley Injection as Percent of
Sales (2) Residents(i)_ (Leakage) Annual Sales
Store Category t
Apparel
$ 39,307 $ 33,191 $ 6,116 15.64 _'' ` ".
General merchandise 127,417 91,275 36,142 28.4 I .
Drug
23,652 18,669 4,983 21.1
• Food 77,341 64,308 13,033 16.9
Eating and drinking places
89,333 87,817 1,516 1.7 ;.1'.
Home furnishings and appliances 46,456 33,190 13,266 28.6 .'s.l
Building materials/garden supplies
49,015 44,945 4,070 8.3
Auto dealers/auto supplies • 150,470 112,019 38,451 25.6 •
• Service Stations 81,042 76,062 4,980 6.1 '
209 119
5'
8 ,626 (34,417) (40.4)
• Specialty and other retail � I• � ••�
'
TOTAL $769,242 $681,102 $ 88,140 11.5 ;' •
1
1 defined as the 1985 Tr' population, 138,600. . i, y',`
( 1 Market area define Y
(2) Sales estimates based on 1984 taxable sales in the Dublin market meal adjuatedto 1985 content dollars by 2.84 inflation factor in each retail •,; ;
• category. ',
(3) Spending patterns of market area residents are assumed to be the same as those of residents statewide. Per capita expenditure estimates are ::,..
multiplied by 1985 Tri-Valley area population.
• Sourceet State Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California During 1984. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections '851
• • Laventhol i Horwath, 1986..
•
•
•
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS III-23
RETAI). MARKET ANALYSIS III-?1 I - ..
. ,_1
!•I square foot of gross leasable space for eating and drinking
supplies (25.6 percent). Injections represent the lowest portion .-
of total sales in the categories of eating and drinking places establishments, the total increase in expenditure potential
ii
corresponds to a
• (1.7 percent), service stations (6.1 percent), building materials market area demand for 726,000 square feet of
retail space by 1990 and an additional 550,000 square feet
and garden supplies (8.3 percent), food (16.9 percent) and
• between 1991 and 1995 (see Tables III-11 and 11I-12).
apparel (15.6 percent).
- Based on this pattern of income flows in the market area and Assuming Dublin captures 25 to 33 percent of market area
survey results regarding the Dublin retail environment, eating activity in comparison goofs retail, the City's net retail space
and drinking places and selected categories of comparison goods requirement through 1990 is projected to range from 04,000 to
, 1
have been identified as areas of unmet demand within the market 110,880 square feet. Between 1991 and 1995, Dublin's retail
,
area with potential for growth in Downtown Dublin. Target ji space requirement is expected to range from 114,000 to 150,480
categories under comparison goods retail include apparel, general square feet. '
merchandise, home furnishings and specialty (see Table III-10). Li
Projected demand for eating and drinking facilities assumes
Based on regional population growth and increased aggregate
Li a slightly lower capture rate in light of current and projected•
income, the expenditures potential of these target categories has competition from neighboring cities, in particular, Pleasanton.
been projected through 1990 and 1995. Total expenditure Assuming Dublin captures approximately 25 to 30 percent of market i;'
potential for comparison goods is expected to reach approximately . iJ area demand for this category of retail goods, 33,250 to 39,900
$319 million by 1990 and $376 million by 1995; eating and �. ' it square feet is the projected retail space requirement between
drinking places is estimated to reach approximately $114 million 1986 and 1990 and an additional 25,500 to 30,600 square feet
by 1990 and $135 million by 1995. ( i between 1991 and 1995.
Given an annual sales support requirement of $125 per square I To the extent that the City improves adequate freeway
foot of gross leasable space for comparison goods and $200 per access, maintains adequate parking, furthers beautification
• 1
•
ive' y[,.' '•I°. • .A . 1.:• :y, •1,x) '>' .,, ,• , 's' 1.
',. is°,y, ,> .�i. .�l.;11 7j: n,•, •;i: Sih,.lily4:. `J,t:l+''i:(.Ley.rd: „w•14,4_,• .Y,�;;1''• ;.;:� •' .,. ;,. c, „ •.
l .a,;. ,y ..t .•,,ti:�rttyy� %iY•r�I,:rY,; �• •�'�..".., •?�. •t.�.:K r.,k..�.:1,.., �,,:.
� 1 i'i rc•
•e•Iv '�! t...1:..7� •I'i J'�'4` ~N, (i,. .r i.
v' 7T=
TABLE III-10 - ` ' •
PROJECTED EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL I1 !'.•-,.•
• ' FOR ALL RETAIL CATEGORIES
�.' .,,�•, .� DUBLIN MARKET AREA (rr�,,fib;. ; ,;
1905 THROUGH 1995 .i., , ! ? •
1905 1990 1995 ':
Population(1)
170,600 166,900 180,400 �: • •
•
• Per Capita Income $ 14,600 $ 15,800 $ 16,500
•
Total Personal Income (000's) (2) $2,023,560 $2,637,000 3,100,600 • •
• Expenditure Potential by Retail ;',
Category (000's) ( ) • _ ' ''•.
$ 33,160 $ 43,213 $ 50,941
•
Apparel
• •General Merchandise 91,191 110,836 140,088
Home Furnishings and Appliances 33,160 43,213 50,941
Specialty
87,046 113,434 133,721 •
Total-comparison goods $ 244,557 $ 318,696 • $ 375,691
•
• .i
• Eating and drinking $ 87,737 $ 114,334 $ 134,702
•
(1) Compound annual growth rate projected at 3.79 percent for 1905 to 1990 and 2.45 percent for 1990 to 1995.
i
(2) Population multiplied by per capita income. •
• (3) Assumes 34.1 percent of per capita income' in allocated to retail expenditures and the following ::
percentage allocation of retail expenditures: apparel 4.01 general merchandise 13.21 home furnishings �.;• ;..r;..
and appliances 4.0%1 specialty 12.6%1 eating and drinking places 12.7%.
•
Sources Association of Day Area Governments (ADAG), State oar of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California '
•
During 1984. Laventhol c Ilorwath, 1986. 0 0
• • 1.
•
•
•
. 1
i I 1 � '1
TABLE 111-11
•
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR COMPARISON GOODS RETAIL SPACE
,: CITY OF DUBLIN
1905 'rIRO00U 1995
i .
lj, : (000n Constant 1905 Dollars)
• 1
1905
1990 1995 .
•
I Comparison Good Expenditure Potential, .
otential, $310,G9G $375,691 Dublin Market Area $244,557
I 1905-1990 1990-1995 . •
{ Increase in expenditure potential $ 74,139 • $ 56,995 •
i Supportable square feet of epace,(1) 45G
"i ''i for Dublin market area (000s) 593
• ';;I Lees existing vacant and under ( 257) -
construction (000s)
Net retail demand (000s) 336. 456
Net demand for retail space in Dublin ,
(square feet)
25 Percent Captures ' 84,000 114,000
33 Percent Capture: 110,000 150,480
•
•
(1) Assumes $125 average annual sales per square foot of GLA fo'r all categories.
•
Source: Laventhol & Horvath, 1986
'
: ur•I.1.
h..; i. •`
`'rid,• %•''
h.
• 1 e
. '; •I • .
•
l I I I I .. l I
•
is
i
TAIILE III-12 ; ,
• • PROJECTED DEMAND FOIL COMPAIRISON GOODS, EATIN1 AND 1)11INKING FAC11,I'1•1I S •• CITY OF DUBLIN — ••
1905 TUIIOD(�U 1995
(OOOs Constant 1905 Dollars) '' '
1905
1990 1995 ' '
'
Eating and drinking expenditure $114,]34 $134,702
• ' potential, Dublin market area $87,737
1905-1990
1990-1995 •:'
•
Increase in expenditure potential $26,597 $ 20,448 .i:i;':
Vii,
1 Supportable square feet of space,(1) 133 102
for Dublin market area (000s) :.'
•`
Net demand for retail space In Dublin I" '' '•
• (square feet)
. 25 Percent Capture: 33,250 25,500
• 30 Percent Capture: 39,900 30,600
.
. i,
. I
• (1) Assumes $200 average annual sales per square foot of GLA eating and drinking places.
. Source: Laventhol & Iiorwath, 1986 •
•
.
i
•
•
•
. fl.
. i
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS 1II-26 ' I RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS
efforts and aggressively markets the Downtown as a site to ' , By diversifying its retail supply to include restaurants
develop new retail facilities, Dublin can expect to capture other than fast food, apparel stores and specialty shops while
approximately one-third of total market area demand for retail . I still preserving a competitive edge in those retail categories
goods and services. In particular, a marketing plan that aims to supplying basic goods and services, Dublin can expect to improve
diversify the Downtown retail ' supply is essential. The its competitiveness in the regional economy and satisfy an
development of restaurants (other than fast food), apparel stores expressed interest by consumers and merchants to introduce more ,
and specialty shops together with the preservation of the City's variety to the downtown retail supply.
existing competitive edge in retail categories that supply basic ; {
goods and services would improve Dublin's competitiveness in the
•
regional economy and satisfy specific demand expressed by i
consumers and merchants. . + i .
Based on this pattern of income flows in the market area and U
survey results regarding the Dublin retail environment, specialty U
t
retail represents the greatest area of unmet demand within the f.1
Dublin/Tri-Valley market area. Although promotional department 11 stores such as Payless, Montgomery Ward and Mervyns capture a . •
sizable portion of market demand for retail goods and contribute II
significant sales injections to Dublin and the Tri-Valley, their �J
potential for further expansion or growth in Dublin is limited, 1 + .
` given constraints on the supply of unused or uncommitted land and
the limited level of unmet demand within those retail categories. II
Increased competition from nearby cities will also tend to limit 1 ,
further growth potential in Dublin.
0 LI I
I
•
Vii .�, .� l.l:' ,:(:. dy1I; ';•p. 1: ..4 '.t .a ,.u�r. `` :,'. :F.:r,.{';•% :�1,t'' .r' .. ,
.. :�-�`•1r 7;C•.a,•L'.�ti .I;�i a%��.)1�.,•r..!.0 -. ,.4• 'ii• 't:':;,.
:a .• 'b5...,{��a:t!t;n.4.,, Sp'+,,t. ,:r�-•'3.(.. ;'.cr,1�'•.. •,.:i•.,1•:^'r' ,3.;."t', ,.,e..l,...
i
.
.1
;I ' I OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS IV-? .
I !
.
•
i II
• I within the market area. However, it was excluded since its
. I
supply of office space is relatively small and it is
i I characterized by R&D (research and development) buildings, rather
. i than pure office buildings of the type that predominate in the
. ;I i .
market area.
:1
. .
t - .
San Ramon is dominated by major tenants such as Chevron and
' I PacTel who have relocated from throughout the region to the first
class office environment offered at Bishop Ranch. Developments
pFFICE MARKET A.N t�ySIS L1V 1 i
I ti in Pleasanton have been aggressively marketed to Bay Area firms
who are either relocating and/or expanding, and who generally
214._ have smaller space requirements relative to companies relocating
In this section, Laventhol & Horwath examines major trends '
•
Li to San Ramon. Dublin historically has benefited from its
in office development in the Dublin market area, building U
proximity to the intersection of I-580 and I-680, and has •
primarily upon a review of development and absorption activity, a F
�' J
attracted tenants such as the National Food Processors
• projection of future demand based upon growth in office-using • u
Association and Lucky who are retail in nature and benefit from
employment sectors, and an assessment of Dublin's potential to
ti the central regional location. At the same time, Dublin has
capture a share of the market area demand.
' i I drawn the more local oriented tenants and those desiring .
I9L. proximity to major Dublin retail services.
1 1f
tt 1 I •
A, MARKET AREA DEFINITION Itl-
Until recently, the demand for new office space was
The office market area is defined by the cities of Dublin, t
�I generated almost exclusively by the local serving businesses in •
• Pleasanton and San Ramon, although each has its own unique
i1 `I the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and San Ramon. However, in
characteristics and draw. Livermore was considered for inclusion
11' recent years the market has been stimulated by rapid population
yl �� 1I
;I 1
II
I
:4•, 1,1 '. •Vii' ••,,i,!i:.n:l,ij.•{.I+s;n i.,'1'-::1 :k 1
. ,S� .'y;. � t.T" ii•
S i,iQt,!t,: •: ,.. i, .. ' 1.:;;'.:11: !:,:•
• 1 ■.
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS Iy-g
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS IV-6-
11
.
ci This vacancy rate is particularly high as a result of the recent
growth throughout the region and, significantly, by increased
developer and user interest in sites in San Ramon and Pleasanton. addition of the office component at Sierra Trinity Park in
jl September 1985.
Overall, the market area is unique and can be expected to
B. OFFICE SUPPLY
experience future uncertainty as a result of large single users
1
Approximately 7.1 million square feet of office space
such as PacTel and Chevron that significantly impact the market
currently exists in the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and San supply. Aggressive marketing efforts by developers and leasing •
Ramon (see Table IV-1) . There is a wide range of types of office agents can be expected to continue to focus on attracting other
. Ii
•
• space within the market area. Overall, office space in Dublin
major tenants.
j offers fewer amenities and is of lesser quality than projects in f•i
L
Pleasanton and San Ramon. This is a function of age of the A broad range of office rental rates exists throughout the •
1 buildings, land values, which are higher in Pleasanton and San 11 Downtown, from $0.70 (triple net) to $1.50 (full service) per
Ramon, and the overall office neighborhood environment. square foot per month. Lease terms typically range from three to
(1
U five years although certain properties offer negotiable terms
Most office development in Dublin is concentrated on the (;i based on tenant needs. Absorption of available space varies
L.east side of the Downtown along Village Parkway, Amador Plaza widely, from less than one month, to one to two years. The
Road, Sierra Court and the east end of Dublin Boulevard. 1 ) lesser quality of the older office space in Dublin has detracted
from its ability to attract new tenants given project amenities
__ A survey of nine major office buildings in the Downtown 'I offered in San Ramon and Pleasanton.
reveals a supply of 569,949 square feet (see Table IV-2) ,
II
representing approximately 8.0 percent of the market area's
supply. Approximately 210,131 square feet is currently available
for lease, yielding a Downtown vacancy rate of 36.9 percent.
. i ! ' 1
..t 0
. . i i
t' •G '+i:'J'1{• '• r;:''--J'l'Srii l•LI. !2 :•. .'✓i `'S�.t,y.,.'(M.y V! `.I.• .. .
.z:1' ;�l` 'ii .."Fq; .�...(..I�..f. ���u:�•`� 'j. ,� .�E'1� ;i:,w•. IL:.}c .. i 1 •
�'Z '-j Vii• .I I. 1 'l'•
• 49j.1�l��11 : • .I. .. ,. .''I�'�;z1..�./1.1 ..�:J•�P .. '•,+• ...'tl:.n:7 ` 1 1.
. , • -... _
•
TABLE IV -1
EXISTING OFFICE SPACE SUPPLY AND VACANCY ,..•
EXI i'.'..i
. DUBLIN MARKET AREA [' '. •
JANUARY 1906 't'`
(000's of square feet)
. : r.'r '
Existing
Percent Under Construction Total
'• Total Vacant Vacant Total Preleased/Committed Vacant/Available
"`' i City IK''„.:'.::
• Dublin 509 (1) 114 19.38
176 0 290 Y ''.
Pleasanton 3,100 918 29.6 844 79 1,683 l',I• ,
•
• San Ramon 3,400 509 14.9 2,400 1,700 1,209
• Total 7,089 1,541 23.0% 3,420 1,779 3,182
•
•
•
• • (1) Includes 569,900 square feet identified in Table IV-2.
• Sources: Coldwell Banker, January, 1986; Laventhol & Ilorwath. .
•
•
.
. 1
•
. r• 1 , 1 ;. . . • I • ,
•
TABLE 1 V - 2
•
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN • • !
SURVEY OF MAJOR OFFICE, BUILDINGS
JANUARY 1906 •' _'
''; Months ,f;
Total Vacant. !.ease Rate/ [.ease Term on Size Range r..
Building Name/Location Year Built Square Feet Square Feet Month (Years) Market (Square Feet) ;:.•'irS:•
' Existing Space: '.,�. • .!
6500 Village Parkway 1973 •
15,600 1,040 $1.15 3-5 not available not available ' ;•t•
full service r •. �'
72,000 4,600 $1,05-1,15 3-5 2 400- 2,800 '•,•:?•
Crossroads 1975-1979 ; '.r
6375-77 Clark Avenue full service
Regional Plaza 1900 75,000 4,000 $1.25 negotiable 12 600- 1,400 Cull service
. •Ifr. •, ..
7950 Dublin Blvd, I ;
Heritage Pack 1980 100,072 16,000 $1.50 5 months free rent 11,000: 0 196- 5,000 . ,
11887 Dublin Blvd. with 3-year term 5,000: .5
•
E 81-82 80,000
nea Office Building 19 3,000 $1.25 1-5 not available 460-12,000 •
• 6670 Amador Plaza Road .
I;
Trinity IV 1984 36,120 31,031 $.70 negotiable 1.5 2,500- 5,160 •
6085 Sierra Court NNN
•
Amador Plaza 1984 33,657 16,100 $1.25-1.35 3-5 12 average 1,500 ;
7567 Amador Valley Blvd. '
Sierra Trinity Park 1985 144,000(1) 132,000 $.75- .85 negotiable 2-3 1,350+ -1
• Sierra Court @ Sierra Lane NNN
and Trinity Court
7000 Village Parkway 1984 13,500 2,360 full$ .00-l.lOe not available 1,250: 1 average 260 y
•
SUBTOTAL 569,949 • 210,131
.
Planned Space:
60 000(2) 60,000 $1.10-1.25 negotiable not available 150+ li
Automation Electronics 1986 60,000(2) •
). ' 11501 Dublin Blvd. (40,000 NNN i.1 -. r
potentially •
pre-leased) •
TOTAL 629,949 270,131 :
(1) Plus approximately 48,600 square feet for light industrial uses; estimated 33,000 square feet currently vacant. '
(2) Does not include 40,000 square feet for new corporate headquarters scheduled for completion July 1986. • '
•
• Source: Laventhol k Horwath.
, , •
0 �� :: Vi ` •
,!• '
,. ;
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS IV-7 .
TABLE IV - 3
11 PROJECTED DEMAND FOR OFFICE SPACE
DUBLIN MARKET AREA
r.
■ i 1986 THROUGH 1995
C. OFFICE DEMAND
f ! 1986 1990 1995
Laventhol & Norwath has estimated the demand for new office
Office employment(1) 22,200 32,500 46,700
space in the market area (see Table IV-3) . This demand is •
1906-1990 1991-1995
derived from employment projections for those industry categories.
Increase in office
expected to' require office space over the next ten years and employment 10,300 14,200
historic growth trends for Dublin and Alameda County. Typically, • Square feet per
employee 250 250
• these categories include business, legal and accounting services ,
Projected demand
and finance, insurance and real estate (F.I.R.E.) firms. (square feet) 2,575,000 3,550,000
Total demand at 90
( percent occupancy
Total market area demand is projected to equal 6.8 million .� (square feet) 2,861,000 3,944,000
square feet over the nine year period 1986 to 1995 (see Table IV- (Less existing
, (,I vacancy) (1,541,000) ( 321,000)
• 3). This includes a 10 percent vacancy allowance to accommodate L!
(Less under
firm mobility and/or expansion. As a result of the 1.5 million (.) construction and
Li not committed) (1,641,000)
square feet of existing vacant office space and the approximately
Projected net
1.6 million square feet under construction and not preleased, the 1 demand (square
feet) ( 321,000) 3,623,000
office market cannot expect to require any new speculative office
space through 1990. This does not preclude the possibility of CI
(1) 1986 office employment estimate based on State of California
other new build-to-suit relocations to the area. However, i ! , Employment Development Department data. Office employment
projected to grow at 10 percent per annum through 1990 and 7.5
prevailing supply• will adequately accommodate all currently `' percent per annum through 1995 based on historic growth trend in •
expected demand.
,Service and other sectors and ABAG Projections '85.
�' Sources: Laventhol & Ilorwath, January 1986; Coldwell Banker;
. • McMasters & Westland.
From 1991 through 1995, Laventhol & Norwath projects a `i
demand for an additional 3.6 million square feet. These I ,I •
,
0 0 ;
i i i
•
•
I.. •)i••! ! fi.;•.. ,�i,. i,''•'•.1'.,:.)11 1•
ft't�+..:i', o4:'f, .,,•r..;L�'. 11, fi i!. .h,f t.:)���• .t v, �,.:�('�,c; !j :'i• ,
I
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS IV-9 OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS IV-10
1I
estimates reflect an annual projected increase in office I . projects in adjacent communities place Dublin at a
employment of 7.5 percent compared to the 10 percent rate through disadvantage.
1990. I ' •
, - Dublin's image is that of a retail center rather than a
location for first class office space. Leasing agents
D. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES in the area note that the mix .of non-office land uses
surrounding existing office buildings detracts from the
Analysis' of Dublin's potential for office market development downtown office appeal. .
indicates limited demand during the next several years for new ,
prime office space, due to a general softening of the market as a [: In light of these considerations, Laventhol & Horwath
result of oversupply in the region and increased competition from II I estimates that Dublin can capture from three to five percent of
larger, more developed markets in Pleasanton.and San Ramon. • projected net demand through 1995. For the period 1906 through •
I
U 1990, net demand was projected to be negative, suggesting that no
Historically, downtown Dublin captured approximately eight II additional office space should be constructed. However, the
U
percent of total office development in the market area. It is opportunity may still exist to attract some new office demand to
reasonable to expect this rate of capture to decline over the 1H Dublin during 1986-1990 based upon the City's central location,
next decade based on the following factors: relatively low land costs and proximity to shops and restaurants.
HSuch development is likely to occur only in the event that
- Office development currently under construction and ; . ` significant preleasing takes place. Under the conditions of the
ro osed in San Ramon and Pleasanton will reduce
•
p p currently overbuilt market, the development of speculative office
Dublin's share of the total market to 7.2 percent. ' space would not be market supportable.
- The higher quality office product, ease of automobile l •I Laventhol & Horwath projects that for the period from 1991
access and more attractive office settings of the new to 1995, Dublin's capture of demand is estimated to be
0 d
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS IV-11
OFFICE MARKET ANnJLXSIS • IV-12
approximately 125,000 to 165,000 square feet of the estimated 3.6
- substantive progress on the extension of BART to
Downtown Dublin.
million square feet of demand. This conclusion is based on
Laventhol & Borwath's estimate of a declining share of the office .
Together, these efforts can be expected to contribute toward
market for Dublin and is further supported by the findings of .
office leasing agents that Dublin captured 4.4 percent of all • strengthening Dublin's competitive position and potential for•
office space absorbed in the market area in 1985. success in the area's office market. •
1 The overall projection can be favorably influenced through
public policy and public and private investments that include the
following: .
- construction of a new off-ramp from Interstate 680 into •
Downtown Dublin;
- additional landscaping and other beautification efforts
in and around the Downtown area; .:,.:
- aggressive marketing to potential build-to-suit tenants '
that prefer lower land costs, proximity to the I-580 ; ,
and I-680 interchange and availability of and proximity
to major retail chains and eating and drinking outlets;
' and
I I
•
E
A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NE monk
•
COLOWELL BANKER
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
ONE KAISER PLAZA
CROWAY BUILDING.SUITE 1150
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
December 13, 1985
Dear Office User: •
For your reference we have enclosed the most recent edition of Coldwell
Banker's East Bay Office Newsletter. It contains data compiled from our
ongoing survey of the office market.
We hope this information will assist'you in making real estate decisions. If
we can be of further service- to you and your company, please contact me or any
of our office specialists.
•
Best regards,
COLWWELL BANKER
CO. ERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
/ . /
riff ' h H. Adams
MW:34.
enclosure
F
. ]
Ofzpi ce occ.P sc 1 /r/R9
i
1
:.., . ..... �...... . 'viol tuay 155u�
,...,c BAC shareholders, Angeles. �yS
`• • ., the acquiring ^roup or - .' gJu -,(' . A. categories. Inc
• 1 ,iour'it. Interior Design,
` .ell I Windt lP' disputed. that developers . - Marketing and
�� i- Here is a low t
. neglects tall business' office needs business execs.
- business exert.
•By Laura •Evenson • cent of firms occupy 7,500 square feet or less ••
Y and employ 30 or fewer people. purchases Of ✓
Many downtown real estate agents disagree Developers like to build large spaces • It's easy to be
with two recant studies that accuse office because they're cheaper to construct,and de-- fill out the co u:
developers of neglecting small businesses. mand for them used to be great. But the For further info
The two studies,one by Knowlton Realty Knowlton Realty survey suggests that
and the other by Grubb&Ellis Co.,say that developers may be relying too heavily on past • 391-6400.
office developers should be catering to the history in projecting who their tenants will ' . -
needs of small businesses that require less be. _ _ _ —
than 10,000 square feet. • "Much of the demand during the late
"At present,there is a very limited supply 1960s and early 1970s was derived from • Yes, please inc,
— of small-floor-size space,and from 1988 on- large retail banking and similar users,"says - Directory unde
ward,no buildings now projected for corn- the Knowlton Realty survey.Of the 83 San
pletion have small floor sizes,"says William Francisco office buildings constructed since
J. McCubbin, vice president and district 1959,only 15 have rentable spaces averaging FIRM NAME:
manager of Grubb&Ellis Commercial, less than 10,000 square feet,says the study, ADDRESS:
• Brokerage Services. and only three of those are in the downtown..
And while 585,000 square feet containing core. CITY
• average spaces of 10,000 square feet or less But needs have changed,the study says.
will become available during 1986 and 1987, "We suggest that the demands of the small CONTACT:
• a shortage thereafter"will severely tighten user, which include convenience,identity,
the market for this category of space,unless , security and energy efficiency,become para- PHONE:
more of this type of building comes on the mount in the leasing decisions of the 1980s."
market,"he says. Many downtown real estate brokers, Brief Description of
While 3 million square feet of office space however,disagree with the surveys'conclu- -
is under construction in the Financial sions—both the contention that small spaces
—
District, little or none meets the size are hard to find and the claim that few large _
specifications the majority of tenants want, users are in the market. •
the Grubb&Ellis survey says.It notes that 71 "The small user has more choices than it
percent of firms with offices in the Financial has ever had,both in new construction and
District occupy less than 15,000 square feet rehabilitation of older buildings,"says Ken-
and employ 60,or fewer people,and 54 per- please turn to page 21 •
Space available for many small businesses 1
i •
• continued from page 2 11,000 square feet. In addition,he says, a
neth T.Sproul,partner in the Rubicon Group number of owners of smaller,older buildings
• in San Francisco. "If you're looking for have begun to rehabilitate their properties to , Please publish 1
• - 10,000 square feet and want to be north of provide modern office interiors. 13 times (3 mos.)
• Market, I can probably show you 35 Downtown Plan restrictions that call for
.. i 6 times (6 mos.
• buildings that would meet that criterion. slimmer buildings,the tapering of building ( mos.)
Both surveys pointed out that many small tops and setbacks for sunlight access have • fi 12 times (12 mos
j businesses prefer buildings with smaller floor also encouraged smaller floor sizes,say the I Charge to my crE
sizes. "In larger structures, they are lost," brokers:And the rush to develop large sites 1 Number
says the Grubb&Ellis survey. "Customers before the Downtown Plan took effect last
and clients have difficulty locating them,and year has left little room to develop many new I Enclosed is my chec
there is little opportunity to establish a special large office buildings. ' 11
t identity within a floor occupied by many dif- . "Just where are you going to find room for
N 1 ..ferent companies." a 20,000-square-foot floor plate?"says Carol
• Sproul disagrees.He points to a number of Gilbert,vice president of Rubloff Commer- i .' --" •
' new buildings that provide smaller floor cial Brokerage in San Francisco. 1 -• •0 , •
' - sizes, such as 90 New Montgomery, a Gilbert also points out that the size of the •
15-story building with floor sizes of 8,000 average small user has grown. "In•1970, a- - ' � N01"�O
square feet;due to open in 60 to 90 days,and user of 5,000 square feet used to be con-
88 Kearny,a 21-story building that recently sidered a large tenant,"she says."Average
opened with floor sizes ranging from 9,500 to tenant sizes now are much larger." Mt I�
:j.,1 --_ ._-- I. L, .,' -. .1.."'"NVE 1 Tatsianolluoo axe lliq amp suoistnoxa atfl•xanamul-j_^
4• - - -
• i
r, 4
:_f.
'E
L
. H.
..;:...t0-,- :, •tb• :-*"
i
:--:
•=;;;•:-."..:;.,;:::r4:1'3:.:::.;=*-:',1..:,■:,;:i.:-_,-, ..;,.;,...:--,..,..,-f •E t B _
..
,.:::,,,,.:,....,;.„..,..„•,..„.„.,,.:.,„:,4'--,..,:-:;z:;•:..,: _ ,
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES -•-
.. „..
Summer/Fall 1985 Office „..:
.... .
,,
.....,
. :..!
•
.......
Contra Costa Experiences Record Growth Pattern Continues in Oakland =,.'
Absorption...Again Metropolitan Area -
During the first six months of 1985, forty-two office buildings Growth in the Oakland Metropolitan area continued at a
(5,000 square feet and larger) totalling 3,196,482 square feet moderate pace during the first six months of 1985, with two ��
were completed in the Central Contra Costa area. A total of buildings containing 625,000 square feet supplementing the .-
15.034,725 square feet now exists in 309 office complexes. area's existing inventory.The market now consists of 18,662.056
Absorption hit a record high with 2,069,276 square feet being square feet in 376 projects(10,000 square feet and larger).As of .s
absorbed during the first half of 1985 compared with 1,503,988 mid year,566,579 square feet have been absorbed with 20.6%of •
square feet during the entire 1984 calendar year.3,786.016 square the total existing space remaining vacant. Average weighted
feet of existing office space remained available at mid year. rent for the Oakland Metropolitan area remained the same at `
Average weighted rent for this space ranged from$1.43 to$1.80 $1.44 as compared with December of 1984. Y
No.of Total Available Current No.of Total Available Current
City Bldgs. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Asking Rent City Bldgs. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Asking Rent
Walnut Creek 77 3,560,185 1,142,358 $1.30-$2.58 Oakland 130 9,557,795. 1,795,234 - $1.25-$2.10
(Downtown) - (Downtown) -
Walnut Creek 20 1,856,345 273,941 $1.15-51.95 Oakland Airport 39 1.796.871 216,798 $1.10-$2.00
(Ygnacio Valley) Emeryville 8 1,101,000 361,990 $1.65-$2.65
Pleasant Hill BART 9 525,600 38,854 .$1.30-$1.85 Berkeley 29 1,184,461 87,479 $1.10-$2.00
Pleasant Hill 12 451,164 48,614 $1.12-$1.75 Richmond 10 247,500 108.675 $1.30-$1.75 '
Concord & North 46 1,916,482 422,925 $1.00-$1.80 Alameda 18 1,016,828 402.648 $1.25-$1.85
Lamorinda 47 • c-816,747 49,999 $1.00-$2.25 San Leandro 38 829.613 91,095 $1.10-$1.75 .
Danville/Alamo 17 . c.276,930 10,663 $1.35-$1.85 Hayward 43 1.258.852 404,444 $1.10-$1.50
Sa'n Ramon 23 2,127,239 617,890 $1.10-$2.05 Fremont/Newark/ 61 1,649.136 392,860 $1.25-$1.70
Pleasanton/Dublin/ 58 3.504,033 1,180,772 $1.00-$1.80 Union City
Livermore EXISTING SPACE 376 18,662,056 3,857,223
EXISTING SPACE 309 15,034,725 3,786,016
•
7.2 Million Square Feet Underway in 1..1 Million Plus Underway in Metro
Contra Costa County Oakland and So. Alameda County
The Central Contra Costa area continues to experience rapid Presently 1,696,815 square feet involving 19 projects are under -
growth with forty-two buildings representing 7,295,909 square construction in Oakland and Southern Alameda County.At the -
feet under construction.However,it is down in comparison with end of June. 751,762 square feet had been preleased leaving `.•"
9.485,146 square feet at the end of 1984.Over half of the office 383,254 square feet uncommitted. Average weighted rent ''
space under construction is being built for owner/users. ranged from $1.35 in Oakland (Airport) to $1.89 in Oakland ,
(Downtown).
No. of Total Available Current �2
City Bldgs. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Asking Rent No. of Total Available Current
Walnut Creek 6 586,790 477,790 $1.95-$2.65 . City Bldgs. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Asking Rent - - -
2.
(Downtown) Oakland 7 1,143,013 866,213 • $1.40-52.50
Walnut Creek 0 0 0 0 - (Downtown) .?
(Ygnacio Valley) Oakland Airport 1 35,000 26,128 $1.35-
Pleasant Hill BART 2 213,000 208,286 $1.30 0 Emeryville 0 0 0 N/A e
Pleasant Hill 0 0 0 0 Berkeley 5 152,000 96,720 $1.00-S2.00 -
Concord & North 10 1,789,203 545,875 0 Richmond 0 0 0 N/A
Lamorinda 2 54,656 21,614 $1.45-$2.00 Alameda 1 32,000 32,000 $1.35-51.67 -
Danville/Alamo 0 0 0 0 San Leandro 0 0 0 N/A
San Ramon 8 3,676,088 811.643 0 Hayward 3 109,500 98,500 - $1.35-51.90
Pleasanton/Dublin/ 14 976.172 934,592 $1.10-$1.80 Fremont/Newark/ 2 225,302 194.000 $1.30-51.75
Livermore Union City .
UNDER 42 7,295,909 2,999,800 UNDER 19 1,696,815 1,313,561 •
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION
f .
F -
-
•
Natior al Market Perspective . Absorption Comparison 1980 to Mid
The national downtown office vacancy index extended the 1985
•
moderate upward trend that has been a consistent pattern since City/Area 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
December of 1982. This quarter's rise to 16.1% marks the
highest vacancy rate measured since this index was started in Ctrl Contra816,612 1,195,946 1,360,450 1,592.676 1,530,988 2.069,276
1978.As before,the increase in office vacancies in most major Costa Co.'
downtown markets is the result of continuing high levels of Oakland' 316,149 408,221 532,888 830,699 842.659 544,616
construction of new office space. Despite a healthy level of Alameda •
absorption in the second quarter of 1985, new office space So.Alameda197,330 197,397 234,787 235,776 534,332 21,963
construction added to the amount of vacant office space in County -
downtown buildings.
The national vacancy index for suburban office buildings • Includes Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area of Alameda
- increased again in the second quarter of 1985 to 19.7%.This is County.
0.8%above the rate reached in the previous quarter and is a full •
1.0%point higher than the vacancy rate when the index was first
initiated in September, 1983. Construction of new suburban
. office space continues at an accelerated pace, driving the Mid 1985 East Bay Volume
national average upward in spite of generally healthy levels of During the first half of 1985,Coidwell Banker participated in 142
absorption in most suburban office markets throughout the lease transactions in the East Bay culmunating in 661,074.37
country. Of the new space completed during the second square feet. Land and building sales remain active as 9 sales
quarter, 32% was precommitted at the time the new office comprising 1,299,23.2 square feet have been completed.
buildings were ready for occupancy.
At mid year,the national metropolitan area office vacancy index
increased to 18.7%.This is an increase of 0.9%over the previous
quarter and marks a new high since the suburban office Office Building Specialists
vacancy index was initiated in September, 1-983. The second. Coldwell Banker Commercial Real Estate Services has a total
quarter increase in metropolitan area vacancy_rate is by far the
largest quarterly increase exhibited by the index in the past two sales staff of 2154 people with 718 individuals specializing in
years. The metropolitan area index is a combination of the office buildings. The Commercial Group operates solely on
suburban and downtown indexes and thus it reflects the behalf of its clients from 82 offices.In the Bay Area commercial,
concerted upward movement of its two components. offices, 65 sales people specialize in the sale and leasing of
Office building comp,Jetions continue to sustain the current office space.The 24 person East Bay Group is described herein.
upward trend in the national downtown vacancy rate while •
. projected suburban offfCe building completions are expected to
produce similar vacancy rate increases.
MATHEW D. ALEXANDER
„sr, Matt, an Oakland resident, is the current
Coldwell Banker K . Office Data Bank Controller for the Oakland
OFFICE VACANCY INDEX 30,, 1985 UNITED STATES "' r office.Matt is a graduate of the University of
June 30, 1985 — .; Berkeley, with a degree in English. As the
' • Office Data Bank Controller, he maintains
30 The Index of downtown areas increased in June to 16.1% contact with 2.400 tenants involving over
and the Index of suburban areas increased to 19.7%
18,000,000 square feet.
25
20 – r •
JAMES G. PETERSON
Jim,a San Francisco resident,is a graduate of
California State University, Chico, with a
10 7' 3 degree in business administration. As the
Contra Costa Data Bank Controller, Jim
5 .4*. maintains data on over 1750 space users,and
I keeps an accurate inventory on over 15,000,000 •
square feet of office space.
S D M J S D M J S D M J S O M J S ;emu;;?• ",
—B1 82 83 84 85-
• DOWNTOWN NATIONAL ❑ SUBURBAN NATIONAL r [.•,
•
- c' ! - W h 1: [
• .936
201 North Civic Drive,Suite 240 • Ordway Building,Suite 1150,One Kaiser Plaza
Walnut Creek,California 94596(415)930-0044 Oakland,California 94612(415)874-1900
Information conlamed herein has been°blamed from the owner oI the property or Irom other sources that we deem retrable
We have no reason to doubt its accuracy Out we do not guarantee 4 -
•
A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK
.COLDWCL OF OC E o U-a Ja
- BANK`sto - 7a-=`
. •.
Coldwell Banker
OFFICE.VACANCY INDEX OF THE UNITED STATES
June 30/ 1986
O/0 The Index of downtown areas increased in June to 16.8%
30 and the Index of suburban areas increased to 23.3%
25
20
15
10
• 5 Y
S D M J S D M J S D M J S D M J S
82 —1 I— -- 83---11----84--11---- 85 --11— 86
® DOWNTOWN NATIONAL ❑ SUBURBAN NATIONAL
NOT COPYRIGHTED.Permission crar.:ed to reproduce with credit to Ccldwe!I Banker.
National Overview
Downtown—The national downtown office vacancy index Suburban—The national suburban office vacancy index
rose slightly to 16.8%in the second quarter of 1986.The climbed to 22.3%in the second quarter.The increase of 0.8
rise of 0.3 percentage points resumes a seven-year long .percentage points marks the seventh consecutive quarter
upward trend after three quarters of holding steady at in which vacancy has risen.Although absorption remains
16.5%. New office space completions continued to cause healthy,the on-going construction of new suburban office
the increase in vacancy despite strong demand in many of space continues to push vacancy rates upward.
the nation's downtown areas.
F .
F -
t ' A r,T,,,,.,,_,,,, ,.;.„ ] /5
L, a-4g tikilei ;1
cc oat)Mac/ 6 - 30-f0
ciNANC1AL NEfv'O _ nn11 nnNl(C
National Market Perspective
Downtown Markets
After three quarters of flat vacany rates,the national down- Continued investment in new office space despite the high
town vacancy index crept up to 16.8%in the second quarter vacancy rates has been stimulated by a number of factors.A pri-
of 1986.The quarter was marked by mixed performance in the mary factor is the increasing share of institutional capital in real
downtown office markets surveyed-increases and decreases in estate.While this has been occurring over the past few years,insti-
vacancy rates were fairly evenly split.Although somewhat lower tutional investors'"deep pockets"allow them to accept short-term -
than in previous quarters,new office building completions are still deficiencies in anticipation of acceptable yields over the long term. -
relatively high,causing continued upward pressure on downtown Another important factor is investors'expectation of being able -
vacancy rates. to capture more than their"fair share"of the market by building
Though overall downtown office construction has dropped a superior product in terms of construction quality,location,or
substantially since the early 80's,construction activity has amenities.While there are many reasons for continuing construc-
remained high enough to keep downtown vacancy rates rising. tion in the face of record high vacancies,the most significant
Many CBDs still have a great deal of construction in progress to appears to be the ready availability of funds from large institutions.
further sustain the rising vacancy trend in coming quarters.Some There were twelve cities that had significant increases(one
of the downtown areas with several major projects scheduled to percentage point or more)in vacancy rates in the second quarter.
be completed in the next two years are:Chicago,Dallas,Wash- The highest increases were in:San Diego(up 4.4 percentage
ington,D.C.,San Francisco,Manhattan,Toronto,and Kansas City. points to 27.9%),San Antonio(up 3.4 to 30.4%),Oklahoma City
Demand for new office space has remained relatively steady (up 2.8%to 25.2%),Boston and San Jose(both up 2.1 to 21.3%
in the past two years.Leasing commitments for under-construction and 26.2%,respectively).All of these cities had new office space
office space have stayed roughly level,averaging about 40%at completed in the quarter,driving their vacancy rates higher.San
completion,although the national vacancy rate has increased Diego had very strong suburban absorption,but could not offset
nearly four percentage points in the same two-year period.Most the completion of 1.25 million square feet of new office space.
demand for new office space has been supplied by large financial San Antonio and Boston also had good absorption in the quarter.
institutions and by related professional and business services. Only one city had a significant decrease in vacancy.
Many downtown areas are seeing a great deal of leasing activ- Nashville's vacancy rate dropped 2.8 points to 24.0%.The
ity,but this activity has not necessarily resulted in corresponding Nashville suburbs showed very good absorption with only mod-
- growth or decreasing vacancy.The abundance of new office space erate new construction completions.Other suburban areas that-
available has led to relocation within the CBDs as many users experienced strong growth and declining vacancy were:Phoenix,
move from older,less prestigious office space into new buildings, Fort Lauderdale,Tampa,St.Louis,and San Francisco.
taking advantage of generous tenant improvement allowances and
modern amenities available.In the process of moving within a mar- Metropolitan Areas
ket,many tenants lease less space than they leave behind because The national metropolitan vacancy index increased 0.6 per-
of better space-planning.Therefore,several major markets report centage points to 21.1%in the second quarter.Seventy-five percent
good leasing activity without the benefit of increased occupancy of the areas surveyed experienced increases in their metropolitan
levels or declining vacancy rates. vacancy rates.Metropolitan vacancies were predominantly driven
Nevertheless,fifty percent.of the downtown areas surveyed up by the increases in new suburban space constructed.The
had decreases in their vacancy rates in the second quarter.Most of national metropolitan vacancy index is a composite of the down-
the decreases were very modest,less than one percentage point, town and suburban vacancies in each area and thus portrays the
the biggest being in:Tampa(down 3.2 percentage points to 23.8%), overall status of the office market within an entire metropolitan area.
Los Angeles(down 2.6 to 15.9%),Sacramento(down 2.4 to 13.6%), .The only metro area to experience a significant decrease in
San Jose(down 1.3 to 2t.7°10),and Indianapolis(down 1.1 to 8.3%). vacancy was Tampa(down 1.4 to 25.6%).Leading the metropolitan
All of these markets experienced strong absorption in the second increases were San Antonio(up 2.8 to 28.4%),Oklahoma City(up
quarter. 2.5 to 25.6%),and San Diego(up 2.3 to 24.3%).
The highest vacancy increases were in cities that saw rela-
tively large additions to their office bases coupled with little or no
absorption.The exception was Nashville(up 3.5 to 21.4%),which
had very good absorption but still could not offset the addition of a
very large building to the downtown market.Other increases were:
St.Louis(up 5.5 to 16.5%),Orlando(up 3.1 to 20.3%),Oklahoma
City(up 2.2 to 26.2%),and Philadelphia(up 1.6 to 10.8%).
Suburban Markets
New completions of suburban office buildings continued to
drive the suburban vacancy rate upward in the second quarter of
1986.Construction once again outpaced absorption in most of the
suburban areas surveyed.Office building completions and absorp-
tion of office space have both remained fairly constant from quarter
to quarter on a national level since the beginning of 1985.
Since the beginning of 1984,multi-tenant office space occu-
pancy has increased 8-10%per annum.This substantial rate of
growth has been supported by healthy gains in office-based
employment with the tendency of companies to locate their labor-
intensive operations in the suburbs.Therefore,rising vacancy is -
not a product of sluggish suburban growth,but rather the product -
of aggressive investment in the construction of new office space.
Construction of suburban office space has not slowed appre-
ciably since the suburban vacancy index was established in the
fourth quarter of 1983.The amount of new future office space in the
index cities climbed rapidly during 1984.Construction has since
leveled off just under the peak and remained steady,uninhibited by
increasing vacancy rates. -
} 1
Coldwell Banker Office Vacancy Index
Vacancy at June 1986
OAKLAND-EAST BAY
30
• Downtown 19.3% ❑ Suburban 27.4%
25
20
15 n
0
S D M J S D M J S D M J'*• S D M J S
-82--I T°-83-- -84-J 85--I I-86-
- NATIONAL AVG. DOWNTOWN o NATIONAL AVG. SUBURBAN
•
f ,
r .
•
4
r• _
J • 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214
rte. t`-' Pleasanton Ca. 94566
(415)463-0611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 23, 1986
TO: Lawrence L. Tong, Planning Director
Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner -
FROM: Chris D. Kinzel
SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis of Area Three of
the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
As requested,•TJKM has undertaken an analysis of the traffic issues related to the
land generally north and west of the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and
San Ramon Road.
Access to this area is of special concern primarily due to the adjacent San Ramon
Road arterial and the desire to consolidate driveway access to a minimum number
of well designed locations along the San Ramon Road frontage of the four
properties within Area Three.
In preparing the recommendations contained in this analysis, TJKM has taken into
account the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, the improvement plans for San Ramon
Road and current development proposals for various properties within Area Three.
TJKM had earlier analyzed the traffic impacts of development in this area, and
has sized the intersection in order to accommodate development from Area Three.
The intersection will also accommodate traffic from other proposed development in
the area and through traffic along both San Ramon Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard. For this reason, it appears that the San Ramon Road/Amador Valley
Boulevard intersection is able to accommodate foreseeable land uses to which Area •
Three could be developed. Consequently, the -traffic concerns of TJKM in this
area are related to access and circulation as opposed to congestion or traffic
impacts.
In the various proposals that have been made to date there are essentially two
driveway locations proposed for access from Area Three to San Ramon Road. The
first driveway proposed would be located on the south side of the Hayward
Fishery holdings which would place the driveway in alignment with an existing
easement. This driveway would be located approximately 170 feet in advance of
the signalized intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road.
The other driveway is located near the north end of the Moret property
approximately 470 feet north of the signalized intersection. From a traffic -
standpoint, neither of these driveways is at a good location. The driveway on the
south side of the Hayward Fisheries is too close to the major signalized intersection
and would require exiting traffic from the driveway to, on occasion, make
hazardous movements just to proceed southerly on Amador Valley Boulevard. On
the occasion where drivers exiting this driveway wanted to make either a left turn •
to Amador Valley Boulevard or a U-turn to proceed north on San Ramon Road,
such a movement would be potentially quite hazardous.
•
PLEASANTON-SACRAMENTO•FRESNO•CONCORD
E a TThCHMRIT
rj-KM c sotr• 4613 .8b
/VJEMOgo �M�
}
r _
. M1 The driveway at the north edge of the Moret property is located on San Ramon
Road in advance of the special auxiliary lane being constructed to facilitate •
driveway movements in and out of the•Area Three properties. Thus, access into
.and out of the Moret property at the proposed location would be made from a
moving traffic lane on a relatively high speed, high volume arterial.
Considering the location of the signalization intersection, the planned length of the
auxiliary lane, and the parcelization of properties, the optimum location for a -
driveway appears to be at the property line common to the Moret parcel and the
Hayward Fisheries. This location would provide a driveway approximately 340
feet in advance of the intersection, which is a sufficient distance to allow traffic
exiting the common driveway to either make a right turn, proceed straight
southerly, make a left turn or even a U-turn at the signalized intersection.
Such a driveway should be of a high standard construction consisting of
'approximately a 35 foot width with street type opening with curb return radiis of
approximately 25 feet. This would proyide a driveway somewhat comparable in
characteristics to the driveways recently constructed for the residential
development north of Area Three and the shopping center south of Area Three.
It is recognized that this particular location is at odds with the preliminary site
plans that have been developed for the parcels and does not align itself with the
easement on the south side of the Hayward Fisheries property. It appears this
issue of the misalignment with the easement and the driveway can be handled with
proper design of the on-site circulation. There will need to be on-site circulation
connecting the various parcels possibly necessitating a roadway or aisleway parallel
to San Ramon Road. Should this occur, such an aisleway should be located at least
50 feet west of the San Ramon Road curb line so that blockage of such an
aisleway would not normally occur unless there are more than two cars waiting to
exit Area Three. .
In addition to the driveway provided on San•Ramon Road to Area Three, there
will need to be access points provided on Amador Valley Court. There appears to
be a general agreement as to the location of two access points to Amador Court,
one appterjcimately 120 feet west of San Ramon Road and an additional location
about 310-feet west of the first location. Both such access points would traverse
the current Nichandrous holdings. These two locations are satisfactory to TJKM.
TJKM will be happy to respond to any questions you or any of the property
owners may have regarding these recommendations.
CDK/nlc
cc: Lee Thompson V .
157-032M 1 CK
-2-
•
f .
F -
•
L 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
(415)463-0611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1986 ,.
TO: Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner AUG 1 8 1986
FROM: Chris D. Kinzel
C JS!`;d PLANNING
SUBJECT: Site Plan - The Fishery
In your July 30, 1986 letter you requested our comments on the driveway design
for The Fishery in the Dublin site plan.
The raised median near the driveway is very important to restrict left-turn
movements and possible blockage of the interim intersection just adjacent to San -
Ramon Road. Therefore, an access scheme similar to that shown in the
July 3, 1986 staff study drawing should be followed.
To allow convenient "in" movements, the entrance portion of the driveway should
be 24 feet wide from San Ramon Road to the first north-south aisle way. The
portion of the entrance aisle adjacent to the median should have a minimum width
of 14 feet. The median should be four feet wide to accommodate traffic signs.
The exit aisle way should be at least 14 feet wide adjacent to the median. Curb
return radii of approximately 25 feet should be provided for the driveway, for
both the entrance and exit sides. The east nose of the median should extend to
within about ten feet of.the west curb line of San Ramon Road. See the attached -
Sketch.
Please contact me or Ty Tekawa if there are questions. We would like to review
the final prawings.
•
P
•
rhm
Attachment
cc: Lee Thompson
•
PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO•FRESNO•CONCORD
•
•
•
•
•
•
k
4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
(415)463-0611
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
AUG 18 11986
DUBLIN PLANNING
F-tS I2.=? 2a/
cLe...55
P a°905 At •14' 14'
\*.4'
14, 24' S,
►o/
pr-rl -2 Alu o tJ R.0 A-0
•
g-c¢- 6�
PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO•FRESNO•CONCORD
•
(
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION •
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
.Meeting Date: August 18, 1986
TO: • Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment -
Study covering the 1.4+ acre Moret property and,
as directed by the Dublin City Council at its
June 23, 1986, hearing, the remaining acreage in
the 13.0+ acre Area 3 portion of the San Ramon
Road Specific Plan above and beyond the Moret
property and the 4.8+ acre Dublin Town & Country
Shopping Center property. The properties in
question include: 1) Moret holding (7436 San
Ramon Road); 2) Rivers-Barton holding
(7400 San Ramon Road); 3) Commercial Property,
Ltd. holding (7372 San Ramon Road);
4) Nichandros holding (7360 San Ramon Road) ; and
5) East Bay Iceland, Inc. holding (7212 San
Ramon Road).
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PLANNING PERMIT: San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study to
consider adjustment of the uses allowed in Area
3 of the Specific Plan and to also consider
- adjustment to the development criteria for the
individual properties in Area 3 of the Plan.
PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Roy J. & Ula D. Moret
129 San Wedge Place
• t. ' Walnut Creek, CA 94598
r.
2. Ronald Rivers
22701 Foothill Boulevard
Hayward, CA 94541
3. Commercial Property, Ltd. -
931 Camino Ramon
Danville, CA 94521
4. J. C. & L. K. Nichandros
7360 San Ramon Road
Dublin, CA 94568
5. East Bay Iceland, Inc.
7212 San Ramon Road
Dublin, CA 94568
• APPLICANT: City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
. Dublin, CA 94568
F .
AiiACIMET ,
8-i8-8&7 5rirWf �/ 17
',or-fair Aff-4?-r /imewrfs
•
PROPERTY/ZONING/APN: Properties within the Specific Plan Amendment
Study includes the properties in the Area 3
portion of the Plan currently zoned C-1, Retail
Business District (excludes the PD, Planned
Development District - Dublin Town & Country
Shopping Center property), including:
1. - Moret property, 1.4+ acres
(APN 941-040-1-2)
2. Rivers-Barton property, 1.5+ acres
(APN 941-040-2-14)
3. Commercial Property, Ltd. property,
0.4+ acres
(APN 941-040-2-10)
4. Nichandros property, 3.1+ acres
(APN 941-040-2-3, -2, -7—and -3)
5. East Bay Iceland, Inc. property,
2.0+ acres
(APN 941-040-5-1).
LAND USE AND ZONING
SURROUNDING AREA 3 OF SAN
RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: North - PD, Planned Development District -
Martin Canyon Creek and Arbor Creek
Condominium and Townhouse Development
. (Area 5 of the Plan)
East - San Ramon Road with C-1, General
Commercial District uses lying beyond
to the east.
South - R-S-D-20, Suburban Residence Combining
District - The Springs Apartment
Complex (Area 1 of the Plan)
- West - PD, Planned Development District -
Vacant lands carrying approval for a
174-unit multiple family residential
• project (Area 2 of the Plan)
ENVIRONMENTNAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declara-
tion of Environmental Significance which finds
that the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on the environment.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
The City Council approved the San Ramon Road Specific Plan in June of
1983. The subject properties are a portion of Area 3 of the Plan and are
designated for development for retail shopper uses. The Plan established
design and land use regulations to direct the development of the various
parcels within the Specific Plan. The Plan was prepared in response to the
need for specific development guidelines in an area where property ownership
was fragmented into small holdings and which faced access and internal -
circulation problems.
The Specific Plan identified Area 3 as the area with the best potential
for the development of retail shopper stores oriented to providing additional
comparison shopping goods for both Dublin and nearby community residents. The
area's location along a major street, its proximity to the Regional Shopping
Center (Stoneridge), and the fact that the site is situated along a direct
route to and from Interstate 580 for a large area give the properties in Area
3 a development potential not found elsewhere in Dublin.
On November 28, 1983, the City Council amended the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan. The amendment allowed Shopping Centers of four acres or larger
in size in Area 3 of the Plan to be partially occupied by personal service,
financial institution or office use in addition to retail shopper uses. As
indicated above, the Plan originally provided only for retail shopper uses in
Area 3.
-2-
On June 11, 1984, the City Council approved the PD, Planned Development
District Rezoning and Site Development Review (PA 83-042) for the 52,100+
square foot Dublin Town and Country Shopping Center.
On June 23, 1986, the City Council further amended the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan allowing occupancy in the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center
by uses generally provided for by the C-1, Retail Business District. The
approach taken by the Council was to establish a Sub-Area in Area 3 of the
Plan which encompasses only the 4.8+ acre Dublin Town & Country Shopping
Center property. With approval of this Plan Amendment, the land use regula-
tions for the shopping centers were relaxed to provide unlimited occupancy by
personal service or financial uses, and to allow up to 40% occupancy by office
uses.
The current Specific Plan Amendment Study was authorized by the City
Council on April 14, 1986. Under the Council's authorization, the Study was
to cover only the 1.4+ acre Moret holding at the northern edge of Area 3. The
Study was authorized to allow a review of the merits of establishing office
uses on the Moret property.
The action taken by the Council on June 23, 1986, regarding the Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center property, included direction by minute order to
expand the scope of the Moret Study to include the remaining portions of
Area 3 (above and beyond the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property).
ANALYSIS:
This section of the Report has been formatted to follow the text
headings utilized in the text of the current San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
For each heading, Staff attempts to provide background information to update
the original text (e.g. , to advise of development actions taken since the
adoption of the Specific Plan). The text headings discussed within this
Report include: A) Existing Conditions and Land Use, B) Economic Demand for
New Uses, C) Land Use Plan, D) Circulation System, and E) General Development
Criteria. Discussion on headings A and B is limited to providing updated
information or elaboration on the current Specific Plan text. No amendment to
these two portions of the Plan are recommended. Discussion on headings C, D
and E also provide an updating or an elaboration of the current text, but
continue to provide recommended amendments to the Specific Plan in response to
development actions taken since June, 1983.
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LAND USES
At the present time, the Specific Plan Area is made up of ten separate
property holdings. These holdings are utilized as noted in Figure 1
(Land Use and Zoning Map) and Chart 1 (Current Land Use Summary Chart).
Since the Specific Plan's adoption in June, 1983, the following changes
have occurred.
Area 1 - No change.
Area 2 - Morrison Homes gained approval for development of a multiple
family residential project for 174 units on 12.4+ acres (unexercised to
date).
. Area 3 - Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center was approved and
constructed, creating a 52,100+ square foot center over the 4'.8+ acre
holding.
Area 4 - No change beyond flood control improvements installed in
conjunction with the JMH, Inc. - Arbor Creek in Area 5.
Area 5 - JMH, Inc. gained approval for development of a multiple family
residential project for 84 units on 5.8+ acres (built and occupied) .
With the above actions, a total of 23+ acres of the 31.4+ acres of
vacant or marginally developed lands which existed when the Specific
F Plan was adopted in June, 1983, have received development entitlements.
Development entitlements on 10.6 acres of that total having been
exercised to date. With those actions, and with the pending development
-3-
proposals involving the Moret holding and the Rivers-Barton holding,
there remain only three properties in the Plan Area that have not been
developed to date, do not hold a valid development entitlement, or are
pursuing development entitlements. All three of those properties are
located in Area 3 of the Plan, and all three are currently partially
developed. The three holdings are the Commercial Property, Ltd. holding
(0.4+ acres), the Nichandros holding (3.1+ acres), and the East Bay
Iceland holding (2.0+ acres).
B. ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR NEW USES
The Specific Plan provided analysis to evaluate the economic viability
of the Plan's three land uses: Retail Commercial, Office, and Multiple
Family Residential.
Supplementing this material is the information contained within the
Draft Market Analysis Report prepared for the Downtown Improvement Plan
Study by Laventhol & Horwath. Two sections of that Report provide up-
to-date analysis of the retail Market and Office Market in the Dublin
Market areas. Portions of those sections of the Report have been
included with this Report (see Attachment #13).
Within the materials supplied for the Moret Specific Plan Amendment
Study, the project proponents indicate that the development proposal for
the 1.4+ acre site is being designed to fill the need of the small to
mid-range office uses that desires to own its own building and have
specific identity. It is envisioned by the project proponents that the
4-building, 33,000+ square foot complex may ultimately see each building
being owned individually with the landscaped and parking areas held in
common ownership.
Information supplied by the project proponents for the Moret holding
supporting the economic demand for office use is limited to citations of
surveys indicated the large percentage of firms who could occupy small
to mid-range office developments and a copy of information from Coldwell
Bankers indicating East Bay Office absorption figures (see Attachment
#14). A June 30, 1986, update from Coldwell Bankers entitled "Office
Vacancy Index of the United States" indicates that new suburban office
construction continues to drive the suburban vacancy rate upward (see
Attachment #15). The report indicates that since the beginning of 1984,
• multi-tenant office space occupancy has increased 8% to 10% per annum.
As such, the accompanying rising vacancy levels are seen by Coldwell
Bankers as not being a "product of sluggish suburban growth, but rather
the product of aggressive investment in the construction of new office
space." The June, 1986, Office Vacancy Index for the Oakland-East Bay
Area, as calculated by Coldwell Bankers, stands at 27.4%, which sits
above the Current National Average Suburban Vacancy Index.
C. LAND USE PLAN
The two amendments to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan that have to date
been approved have served to amend this section of the Plan to
accommodate a modified range of land uses in the Dublin Town & Country
Shopping Center property. The second amendment prompted creation of a
Sub-Area for Area 3 of the Plan, which encompassed the 4.8+ acre
Shopping Center.
As indicated elsewhere in this Report, only a small portion of the Plan
Area has yet to be developed or does not currently have, or are
pursuing, a development entitlement. Those remaining areas are located
in Area 3 of the Plan and therefore any amendments to the Land Use
Section of the Plan can be limited to Area 3 wherein Permitted Uses,
Conditional Uses and Prohibited Uses are detailed.
Development in Area 3 was initially envisioned to be for Retail Shopper
Uses. The two Specific Plan Amendments adopted which dealt with the
Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center initially expanded the range of
allowable uses to include up to 25% occupancy by Personal Service,
Office and Financial Uses and then effectively opened the occupancy of
-4-
the Center to any uses typically allowed in the C-1, Retail Business
District. A "cap" of 40% occupancy by office uses was retained under
the Plan Amendment.
Acknowledging the lead provided by recent City Council actions involving
the Specific Plan, the following options appear available in response to
the development proposal to establish office uses on the 1.4+ acre Moret
property:
Option I - Adjustment of the allowable land uses for the 1.4+ acre Moret
property creating a new Sub-Area for Area 3 of the Plan
Under this option, an amendment to the Plan owuld be adopted to create a
• second Sub-Area in Area 3. The new Sub-Area would cover the 1.4+ acre
Moret property and provide for the development at this site which is
"predominantly" office use in nature. As applied to the preliminary
plans submitted for this property, this approach could be formulated to
require retail type occupancies on the first floor of new structures
(either. all four proposed structures - approximately 33% or 11,000+
square feet of the 33,000+ sq. ft. proposed, or for just the structures
fronting along San Ramon Road - approximately 16.5% or 5,500+ sq. ft. of
the 33,000+ sq. ft. proposed).
Option II - Adjustment of the allowable land uses for the 1.4+ acre Moret
property expanding the area covered under Area 3A of the Plan (Sub-Area of
Area 3, consisting of the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center) to include
the Moret Property.
Under this option, an amendment to the Land Use Section of the Plan
would be adopted to incorporate the 1.4+ acre Moret property into Area
3A of the Plan (Sub-Area of Area 3, consisting of the Dublin Town &
Country Shopping Center). Under the Land Use Regulations established
for Area 3A, development of the Moret property could include up to 40%
occupancy by Office Uses, unlimited occupancy by Personal Service or
Financial Uses, and a wide range of Retail Shopper Uses. This approach
would serve to generally apply the Land Use Regulations of the C-1,
Retail Business District. As applied to the preliminary plans submitted
for this property, this approach would most likely require Retail
Shopper, Personal Service and/or Financial Uses for the front (easterly)
portion of the property and allow Office Uses to be developed on the
rearr_.(westerly) portion of the site.
Option III - Adjustment of the allowable land uses for the bulk of the
"unstudied" portion of Area 3 (the 8.2+ acre remainder of Area 3 after the
Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property is excluded).
Sub-Option IIIA: Adopt an amendment to the Land Use Section of the
Plan, applying a 25% "cap" for each property in this portion of Area 3
to allow partial occupancy by Personal Service, Office and Financial
Uses, irregardless of property size. This approach would obviously not
accommodate the proposed development scheme which has been forwarded by
the project proponents for the Moret property. Irregardless of the
approach taken by the Planning Commission and City Council on the Moret
property, Staff recommends this option be adopted for the remainder of
Area 3 properties to amend the current Land Use Regulations which still
call for 100% occupancy by Retail Shopper Uses.
Sub-Option IIIB: Adopt an amendment to the Land Use Section of the Plan
similar to that described in Sub-Option IIIA, but with a "mechanism" to
allow consideration of occupancies on individual properties which exceed
the 25% "cap" on Personal Service, Office or Financial Uses. This
"mechanism" could simply be allowing requests to be considered on a
case-by-case basis for new development proposals reviewed under the
Planned Development Rezoning request that is filed. For sites that have
already been developed, the "mechanism" could be provision of an option
to file a Conditional Use Permit request to allow occupancies of
Personal Service, Office or Financial Uses in excess to the 25% "cap".
F
F Of the amendments under consideration by this Study, the requested
changes to the Land Use Section of the Plan are the most substantive.
Staff recommends that the Commission conduct the public hearing on the
-5-
Study and provide Staff direction on how they feel this Section of the
Plan should be reformatted. For discussion purposes, and to potentially
facilitate an action by the Commission, the Draft Resolution prepared by
Staff outlines the following changes to the Land Use Section of the
Plan:
- Creates a new Sub-Area for Area 3, covering the 1.4+ acre Moret
holding which would apply Option I outlined above by providing
development to this site which is "predominantly" Office Use in nature.
- Amends the existing Land Use Section for the remaining portion of Area
3 (covering the 7.0+ acres after elimination of the Dublin Town &
Country Shoping Center property and the Moret property) to apply Sub-
Option IIIA to those lands by applying a 25% "cap" for each property,
irregardless of size, to allow partial occupancy by Personal Service,
Office and Financial Uses.
D. CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The bulk of the "Key Items" identified in the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan's Circulation Element have been put into place, or will be
developed with the improvements proposed under the San Ramon Road
Improvements - Phase II project. The work completed to date includes:
- Creation of an extension of Amador Valley Boulevard. •
- Road improvements along Silvergate Drive (for that section of San
Ramon Road abutting the Arbor Creek project - Area 5. of the Specific
Plan.)
- Road improvements along portions of San Ramon Road (including partial
frontage improvements along the Arbor Creek project - Area 5 of the
Specific Plan and frontage improvements along the Dublin Town &
Country Shopping Center project - Area 3 of the Specific Plan).
- Road improvements at the intersection of Donlon Way and Dublin
Boulevard, and the completion of Donlon. Way road improvements north of
Dublin Boulevard (done in conjunction with the Public Storage and
Northwood Homes office projects - which lie outside the Specific
Plan).
- The `remainder of the roadway improvements listed as "Key Items" in the
Circulation Element (the widening of San Ramon Road, work at the
intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, and the
installation of signals at the intersection of San Ramon Road and
Silvergate Drive) are anticipated to be provided by San Ramon Road
Improvements - Phase II project. That work is anticipated to be
accomplished within six to eight months.
With the San Ramon Road improvements forthcoming, only two "Key Items"
of the Plan's Circulation Element will remain to be provided. Those two
items are:
- Restriction of the number of direct access points from adjacent
properties to Silvergate Drive, San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard.
- Provision of a pedestrian/bicycle system for the Plan Area.
As regards the first item listed, restrictions of access points along
the frontages of Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard have been
secured, as well as restrictions for the San Ramon Road frontage along
the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center property. Direction on the
number and location of driveways for the bulk of San. Ramon Road frontage
has been provided in detail through the analysis by TJKM dated April 23,
1986 (see Attachment #16). This information serves to supplement and
elaborate upon the TJKM Consultant's March, 1983, Traffic Report by
providing direction for the number and location of driveways for San
Ramon Road north of Amador Valley Boulevard and for the number and
F location of driveways extending off the north side of the recently
installed Amador Valley Boulevard extension.
-6-
As regards the second item listed, the Morrison Homes multiple family
residential project approval provides for the creation of pedestrian/
bicycle access extending from the eastern terminus of Shadow Drive
through that 12.4+ acre property along Martin Canyon Creek and on out to
the cul-de-sac established with the extension of Amador Valley
Boulevard. It was anticipated that subsequent developments on the Moret
and Rivers-Barton properties would allow the extension of the
pedestrian/bicycle access proposed along Martin Canyon Creek.
It is Staff's recommendation that any Specific Plan Amendment approved
for Area 3 of the Plan include an amendment to the Circulation Element
of the Plan to incorporate the recommendations outlined in the April 23,
1986, TJKM Report. Those recommendations can be summarized as follows:
•
- Restrict access to San Ramon Road to the development of a single
"shared driveway" between the Moret property and the Rivers-Barton
property.
- Development of the "shared driveway" with a 35 foot width with 25 foot
curb radius returns and a restriction of any on-site circulation
connection to the driveway within 50 feet of the San Ramon Road curb
line.
- Development of two "shared driveways" on the north side of the Amador
Valley Boulevard extension respectively located 120+ feet and 430+
feet west of San Ramon Road.
- Refinement to the location and nature of pedestrian/bicycle easements
from Shadow Drive through to San Ramon Road.
E. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
This section of the Plan is the third area of discussion where Staff
would recommend specific amendments to the current Plan. The
recommended amendments fit into one of three categories: 1) amendments
to reflect changes that have occurred in the Plan Area subsequent to its
June, 1983, adoption; 2) elaboration of dimensional development criteria
in the eight sub-categories listed in the current Plan; and
3) amendments in the form of additional sub-categories to the eight
current sub-categories creating sub-categories 9) "Existing Vegetation -
Project Landscaping, and 10) Project Architecture. Provided below is
• discussion on each of the eight existing sub-categories in this section
with an indication of modifications and/or elaboration of the
development criteria currently provided. Also provided is discussion on
the two proposed additional sub-categories and draft proposed language
for inclusion into the General Development Criteria Section of the Plan.
1. Zoning - Staff recommends that no change be made to this sub-
category of the General Development Criteria. Staff feels it
remains appropriate to require a Planned Development zoning
request to be filed for all new development proposals. Staff
feels the Planned Development zoning process is necessary to
assure that all future development conforms to the identified
objectives for the Specific Plan which were adopted by the City
Council and include:
- Alleviation of special access problems by designing future road
locations and access requirements.
- Promotion of larger scale, integrated development by
encouragement and requirement of the combination of smaller
lots.
- Coordination of development among multiple property owners.
2. Compatibility of Uses - Staff feels the current text in this sub-
category lays an adequate framework for the scope of analysis to
review compatibility of land uses of projects at the development
plan review stage.
-7-
•
In light of the proposal for office development on the Moret
property, which increases the likelihood that multi-story
construction will occur at that site, Staff recommends the
following language be incorporated into this sub-category of the
General Development Criteria Section of the Plan:
Applications for Planned Development Zoning in
Area 3 of the Plan involving commercial lands
adjoining existing or planned multi-story
construction shall have included as part of the
development plan review application plan sections
to detail the proximity and relationship of the
relative land uses.
In light of the development of the Dublin Town & Country Shopping
Center and the "back-door" orientation it presents to the adjoning
East Bay Iceland, Inc. property to the south, Staff recommends that
the following language also be incorporated into this sub-category
of the General Development Criteria Section of the Plan:
Redevelopment of the East Bay Iceland, Inc.
property shall reflect a site plan layout which
attempts to maximize the coordination between its
planned uses and the adjoining Dublin Town &
Country Shopping Center property to the north as
regards building location and orientation,
vehicular and pedestrian cross access, landscape
treatment and use of ancillary structures
(location and design). -
3. Circulation Improvements - As indicated earlier in this Report,
previous traffic analysis to the Specific Plan Area prepared by
TJKM has been supplemented by the preparation of a focused review
of the portion_ of Area 3 of the Plan located north of the Amador
Valley Bouelvard extension. Staff recommends that the Findings and
Recommendations of that April 23, 1986, Memorandum be cited in this
sub-category of the General Development Criteria Section of the
Plan. The additional text recommended to be added to the Plan to
-reference the supplementary traffic analysis is as follows:
r_-
r_. Circulation improvements established in conjunction
with the development of the portion of Area 3 of
the Plan located north of the Amador Valley
Boulevard extension shall reflect the Findings and
Recommendations of the TJKM Memorandum dated April
23, 1986 (see Appendix B) .
In addition to these adjustments, Staff recommends that direction
be given for the future use of the 51-foot + width stem extending
westerly from San Ramon Road to Area 2 of the Plan (the Morrison
Homes property) and running along the south side of the East Bay
Iceland, Inc. property. With the Site Development Review Permit
approval for the 174-unit Morrison Homes project, direction was
provided for the future use of this 51-foot + strip. Staff
recommends that the general direction outlined in that condition be
incorporated into this sub-category of the General Development
Criteria Section of the Plan to underscore the desirability to
incorporate the property stem into one of the surrounding
developments. The suggested language is as follows:
Development of the 0.4 acre stem remainder
(346+' x 51+') extending easterly to San Ramon Road
from the southeast corner of Area 2 of the Plan
shall be subject to the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning process and shall be developed as part of
a coordinated site plan tying the stem either to
the Morrison Homes-Kildara Project and/or to the
F
•
adjoining properties located north or south of the
F
•
stem.
-8-
4. Physical Constraints - The current plan text points out two special
physical development constraints present within the Specific Plan
Area (location within a potential geological hazard area and the
flooding potential due to the presence of Martin Canyon Creek). No
amendment or elaboration to the- current Plan text is recommended by
Staff other than inclusion of a statement which indicates that
geologic reports which cover undeveloped or marginally developed
properties in Area 3 of the Plan may likely require on-site sub-
surface trenching. The additional text recommended to be added is
as follows:
Geologic Reports prepared in conjunction with the
Development Plan requests covering undeveloped or
marginally developed properties in Area 3 of the
Plan may require on-site sub-surface trenching to
assess potential geotechnical hazards.
5. Noise - The current Plan text indicates that anticipated future
noise levels along perimeter streets will result in noise exposures
in excess of acceptable commercial and residential noise levels.
Staff recommends that a statement be incorporated into this Sub-
Category of the General Development Criteria Section of the Plan
which indicates that preparation of an acoustical study may be
required for any new commercial or residential developments to
precisely determine existing and future noise levels and which
outlines specific construction and design measures that will need
to be taken to provide the appropriate noise attenuation. The
additional text recommended to be added is as follows:
Acoustical Reports may be required to be prepared
in conjunction with the building permit process
for any new commercial or residential developments
in the Plan Aera. Where required, said studies
shall determine existing and future noise levels
and shall outline specific construction and design
measures that will be taken, as necessary, to
provide the appropriate noise attenuation.
6. ' 1 Setbacks - The current text provides direction for setbacks between
new development and adjacent existing residential areas. Direction
should also be provided for setbacks between the planned
residential development in Area 2 (the Morrison Homes-Kildara
Project) and future commercial development in Area 3 of the Plan.
The Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center was developed with a
mixture of 13-foot and 23-foot setbacks along the west property
boundary (adjoining Area 2). The approved plans for the Morrison
Homes-Kildara Project in Area 2 will observe a typical setback of
60+ feet from the project's east boundary. The unit proposed at
the northeast corner of that project is the one exception to that
Standard, where a 20+ foot setback is proposed.
Based on current and proposed development plans, it appears that a
15-foot setback between new commercial developments in Area 3 of
the Plan and the adjoining easterly boundary of Area 2 of the Plan
will provide the absolute minimum separation of the two land use
areas. Staff recommends a 20-foot minimum setback dimension
continue to be observed for this area unless a lesser setback can
be demonstrated at the development plan review stage to retain
visual and acoustic privacy for existing or future residential uses
in Area 2. The additional text recommended to be added is as
follows:
Building setbacks for new development in Area 3
adjacent to the easterly limits of Area 2 can be
reduced to 15 feet if it can be demonstrated that
•
} visual and acoustic privacy for existing or planned
planned residential uses in Area 2 can be provided
with this lesser setback standard.
-9-
As regards the setback standards between the Moret property and the.
Arbor Creek project to the north (Area 5 of the Plan), Staff
recommends that the standard remain flexible and be determined at
the time of design review for the Moret property. The building
location(s) utilized should maximize the privacy of the residential
development to the north while using a building location that makes
best use of the existing vegetation canopy in the Martin Canyon
Creek Corridor.
The additional text recommended to be added is as follows:
The setback standard observed at the northern limit _
of Area 3 shall be determined at the time of
development plan review. The building location(s)
shall be such to maximize the privacy of the
residential development at the north side of Martin
Canyon Creek and shall take into consideration the
existing vegetation canopy in the Creek.
7. Parking Standards - No change in this sub-category is recommended
by Staff.
8. Height Limits - No adjustment in this Sub-Category is recommended
by Staff.
9. Existing Vegetation - Project Landscaping - The presence of Martin
Canyon Creek corridor through the Specific Plan (Area 4) provides a
natural buffer strip between land uses and helps provide definition
and uniqueness to the area as a whole. Direction through the
Plan's General Development Criteria Sections should be established
to underscore the goal of retaining all major trees within the
Creek corridor and to provide direction to have project
architecture of new structures adjoining the Creek corridor
designed and located in such a manner to make best use of the
existing foliage. Existing trees located outside the Creek
corridor should also be viewed as an important existing design
feature and should be retained wherever feasible.
Project landscaping should be provided which serves to promote good
r_. transitions between adjoining projects and land uses. The overall
design of project landscaping should serve to provide a desirable
environment and serve as a design feature to provide conceputal
compatibility with the immediate environment of the site.
To provide for the items discussed above, Staff recommends that the
following text be added to the General Development Criteria Section
of the Plan as a new Sub-Category labeled "Existing Vegetation-
Project Landscaping".
9. Existing Vegetation - Project Landscaping -
To the greatest extent feasible, the existing
vegetation within the Martin Canyon Creek corridor
extending through the Plan Area shall be left
undisturbed. Said vegetation shall be utilized and
enhanced to serve as a natural buffer strip between
land uses in the Plan Area and as a design element,
with use of appropriate building design and siting,
to compliment and enhance new development adjoining
the Creek area. Existing, mature trees located in
the Plan Area which are located outside the Creek
corridor shall be retained as feasible and
incorporated into the project design of new
developments. Project landscaping shall be of a
design, mass, scale and relationship to promote
harmonious transitions between adjoining projects
and land uses and to create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for
} • occupants, visitors and the general community.
Project landscaping shall serve as a design feature
to provide conceptual compatibility with the
immediate environment of the site.
-10-
•
10. Project Architecture - Staff recommends that some generalized
Architectural Design Standards be incorporated into the General
Development Criteria Section of the Plan as a new Sub-Category •
labeled "Project Architecture". The following text is recommended -
for inclusion into the Plan.
10. Project Architecture - The following:Design
Standards shall be considered and applied, as
applicable, to new development in the Specific
Plan Area:
A. Consistency and compatibility with.
applicable elements of the City's General
Plan.
B. Conceptual compatibility of design with the
immediate environment of the site.
C. Appropriateness of the design to the site
and function of the project.
D. Promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different
designated land uses.
E. Compatibility with future construction both
on and off the site.
F. Expresses an appropriate sense of identity
with its function.
G. Creates an internal sense of order and
provides a desirable environment for
occupants, visitors, and the general
community.
. H. Utilizes materials, textures, colors, and
details of construction which are an
appropriate expression of its design concept
and function and are compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures and
functions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the Commission proceed
with the public hearing as follows:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing.
2) Hear Staff presentation.
3) Hear Applicant and public presentations.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5A) Consider and act on two draft Resolutions.
1) A Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration of
Envjronmental Significance.
2) A Resolution regarding the Specific Plan Amendment
Study, or
5B) Provide direction to Staff for modifications to the Draft
Resolution regarding the Specific Plan Amendment Study and
continue the item to the hearing of September 2, 1986.
•
•
-11-
•
•
ACTION: Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the Planning
Commission adopt the attached Resolutions (Exhibit A approving the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 86-049
and Exhibit B recommending that the City Council amend the San
Ramon Road Specific Plan for Area 3). If the Commission feels
adjustments to Exhibit B are necessary before they take action on
the Specific Plan Amendment Study, Staff recommends the Commission
provide direction to Staff and continue the item to the hearing of
September 2, 1986.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Resolution approving the Negative Declaration of -
Environmental Significance for PA 86-049.
Exhibit B - Resolution recommending the City Council approve the San
Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment.
Background Attachments:
1) Written Statement from Project Proponents for Moret property
requesting authorization of a Specific Plan Amendment Study (Letter
of May 6, 1986).
2) Site Plan for proposed Office Project on the 1.4+ acre Moret
property.
3) Site Plan for proposed commercial development (The Fishery at
Dublin Restaurant) on the Rivers-Barton property.
4) Site Plan of Dublin Town & Country Shopping Center with
accompanying Tenant Occupancy Summary.
5) Excerpt of City Council Minutes of meeting of April 14, 1986,
detailing Council's minute order for preparation of San Ramon Road
Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Moret holding.
6) Excerpt of City Council minutes of meeting of June 23, 1986,
detailing Council's minute order for expansion of the Moret San
' I' Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study expanding the Study to
include the remaining lands in Area 3 of the Plan.
7) Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for San
Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment.
8) Copy of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
9) Resolution No. 81-83 approving an Amendment to Area 3 of the
Specific Plan dealing with occupancy by Personal Services Uses,
Financial Uses or Office Uses in Shopping Centers with a minimum
size of four acres.
10) Resolution No. 54-86 approving an Amendment to Area 3 of the
Specific Plan adjusting uses in the Dublin Town & Country Shopping
Center to allow uses generally provided for in the C-1, Retail
Business District.
11) Figure 1 - Land Use and Zoning Map
12) Chart 1 - Current Land Use Summary
13) Portions of Draft Market Analysis Report prepared by Laventhol &
Horwath
14) Office Occupancy Information from Coldwell Bankers, supplied by
F Project Proponents for the Moret Property
15) "Office Vacancy Index of the United States", June 30, 1986, Report
by Coldwell Bankers
16) TJKM Consultants Memorandum dated April 23, 1986
-12-
•
SUBJECT: PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Amendment Study covering the 1.4+ acre
Moret property and the remaining acreage
in the 13.0+ acre Area 3 portion of the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan above and
beyond the Moret property and the Dublin
Town & Country Shopping Center property.
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey advised that the subject properties include the Moret, Rivers—
Barton, Commercial Property Ltd. , Nichandros, and East Bay Iceland, Inca .
holdings. He stated that the text of the Staff Report followed the same
format as the text within the current San Ramon Road Specific Plan, and
elaborated upon the following five sections within the Plan which required
consideration as related to the Study: A) Existing Conditions and Land Uses,
B) Economic Demand for New Uses, C) Land Use Plan, D) Circulation System, and
• E) General Development Criteria: Mr. Galley reviewed each of the sections
listed, discussing in—depth- the three options provided within the Land Use -
Plan Section of the Staff Report. •
Mr. Roy Moret, Property Owner, expressed appreciation to the Staff for the
comprehensive presentation and for the positive tenor of their recommenda-
tions. He`-stated that he had two main areas of concern, including:
1) requirement of provision of:a shared driveway with the adjoining Rivers-
, Barton property; he said assurance had been given by the City Council for the
installation of a driveway on the southern half of his property; and 2) he
• indicated opposition to the requirement for inclusion of retail sales in .
future• developments in Area 3 of the Plan, stating anticipating that future
developers would return to make an appeal to the Planning Commission for
relief from this requirement.
Myron Crawford gave an overview of the approach taken by the Planning Team for
review of the subject project. He stated that originally the proposal
included a proposed entrance on the northern portion of the property. He
advised that because of access constraints to the property, he did not believe
the area could feasibly be developed with retail shops. As a result, the
Planning Team was pursuing a proposal for office development at the subject
property. He showed a copy of the original parking layout and discussed
traffic problems related to the subject site. He indicated support of Staff's
Option I, presented in the Staff Report, but stated concerns regarding the -
precise language in the Draft Resolution. He referred to the following items -
of concern:
1. On page 2 of the Draft Resolution, he requested that the word "allowed"
(making occupancy of Retail Shopper, Personal Service and/or Financial Uses
optional) be substituted for the word "provided" (which would make some level
of occupancy by those uses mandatory).
•
Regular Meeting fir PM 71 � _ J
, 4 t
g XC � of Pe 8-fig--8Co
•
•
2. On page 2 he also requested that the phrase "and restricted to 70% of
the total gross floor area of the Commercial Facility" under Permitted Uses be
deleted from the Draft Resolution. Mr. Crawford indicated that the design of
the buildings would be such that retail shops could potentially be located on
the first floor of the buildings, while the second and third stories would
house office—type uses. He advised that the requirement of limited occupancy
by Retail Uses was a major problem for the project proponents.
3. Mr. Crawford questioned the necessity of the first paragraph of Sub—
Category 2 — Compatibility of Uses on page 4 (regarding multi—story
construction) of the Draft Resolution. He said it was his understanding that
this had been covered in the existing text of the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan.
4. Mr.. Crawford expressed concern regarding the last two paragraphs on page
. .3 of the Draft Resolution (detailing requirement for shared driveways).
5. Regarding Sub—Category 5 — Noise on page 4 (requirement for preparation
of Acoustical Studies), Mr. Crawford said he thought this had been adequately
addressed by the existing text of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
6. Regarding Sub—Category 8 — Setbacks on page 5 of the Draft Resolution,
Mr. Crawford expressed concern regarding the proposed method to determine
setback standards.
Mr. Jess White, reiterated the concerns expressed by both Mr. Moret and
Mr. Crawford. He stated that he thought the project proposal for the Moret
property was somewhat unique in that it was geared for an owner/user type of
tenant, and great flexibility (in terms of the types of uses permitted) would
be needed-in-approaching potential tenants. He said that it was not the
Owner/Devel-oper's intent to compete with the major retail or office complexes,
but to provide an opportunity for smaller groups which need access to the
freeway, good identity, flexibility, and had the desire to own their own
buildings.
Mr. White also expressed concern about the shared driveway, indicating his
calculation that about six parking spaces would be lost if this requirement
was imposed.
Mr. Gailey gave an overview of the general traffic circulation concerns in the
subject area. He advised that the Traffic Consultants, TJKM, were involved
from the outset of the Specific Plan Amendment Study. He reviewed the
findings and recommendations made by TJKM. Mr. Galley indicated that Staff
felt TJKM had provided very concise input and that their concerns must be
given careful consideration.
Michael Johnstone, 5927 Almaden Lane, Oakland, Project Architect for The
Fishery, advised that the Developer he represented was willing to either
provide the shared driveway or develop with a separate driveway.
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Raley, Mr. Johstone indicated that the
Fishery did not have a viewpoint related to the pros or cons of the Moret
proposal. He said he thought whatever uses were decided upon for the Moret
property would be compatible with The Fishery.
•
Mr. Bob Scrak, General Manager of East Bay Iceland, provided background
information regarding the anticipated long range use of the East Bay Iceland
property. .
Regular Meeting PCM-6-100 August 18, 1986
(
On motion by Cm. Raley, .seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), the public hearing was .closed for the purpose of making
recommendations to Staff and continuing the item to the next Planning
Commission hearing.
Cm. Petty indicated that he agreed with Sub-Option III-A outlined on page 5 of
the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey advised that a mix of Option I and Option III-A were reflected in
the Draft Resolution prepared by Staff.
Cm. Raley stated that he thought the goal of the Specific Plan was to
designate the subject area for retail shopper uses.
Cm. Burnham indicated his agreement with Cm. Raley.
Mr. Moret reiterated his concern regarding the requirement of development of a
shared driveway. He also stated that by pursuing Sub-Option III-A, it would
eliminate his option to make the development anything close to his original
proposal.
• The Commission directed Staff to revise the Draft Resolutions to reflect Sub-
Option III-A and continued the item to the Planning Commission meeting of
September 2, 1986.
•
r
. r.
f •
•
•
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTARY STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 2, 1986
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
t, ��111
SUBJECT: PA 86-049 San Ramon_ Road Specific Plan Amendment
Study covering the 1.4+ acre Moret property and,
as directed by the Dublin City Council at its
June 23, 1986, hearing, the remaining acreage in
the 13.0+ acre Area 3 portion of the San Ramon
Road Specific Plan above and beyond the Moret
property and the 4.8+ acre Dublin Town & Country
Shopping Center property. The properties in
question include: 1) Moret holding (7436 San
Ramon Road) ; 2) Rivers-Barton holding
(7400 San Ramon Road) ; 3) Commercial Property,
Ltd. holding. (7372 San Ramon Road);
4) Nichandros holding (7360 San Ramon Road) ; and
5) East Bay Iceland, Inc. holding (7212 San
Ramon Road) .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Specific Plan Amendment Study was initially considered at the Planning •
Commission meeting of August 18, 1986. The Staff Report prepared for that
meeting outlined specific recommended amendments to three of the sections of
the existing San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
In response to the recommended changes outlined by Staff for the Land Use
Section of the Plan, the Commission directed Staff to revise the Draft
Resolution prepared for the August 18, 1986 meeting to reflect the following
changes, 1) delete text which would have provided for the formation of Area 3B
(Sub-Area ofc.Area 3 of the Plan, consisting of the 1.4+ acre Moret Property)
which would.4ave allowed that portion of the Plan to be developed
"predominantly" by Office-type uses, and 2) provide text amending the Land Use
Plan Section of the Plan to permit limited occupancy (25a maximum) by Personal
Service, Financial and Office Uses, regardless of property size.
The Commission indicated consensus support for the recommended text changes to
the other two sections where amendments had been proposed by Staff (the
Circulation System Section and the General Development Criteria Section) .
The Draft Resolution regarding the Specific Plan Amendment Study has been
adjusted to reflect the Planning Commission's direction (see Exhibit B) .
•
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on August 18, 1986, Staff Report and the above Staff Report, Staff
recommends the Commission proceed as follows:
FORMAT: 1) Reopen public hearing.
2) Hear Staff presentation.
3) Hear Applicant and public presentations.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
. 5) Consider and act on two draft Resolutions.
1) A Draft Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration
of Environmental Significance for PA 86-049.
•
2) A Revised Draft Resolution regarding the Specific Plan
F Amendment Study, for PA• 86-049. .
•
ATTACHMENT '
/9
• UV OW
•
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolutions (Exhibit A approving the Negative Declaration
of Environmental Significance for PA 86-049 and Exhibit B
recommending that the City Council make specific amendments to the
San Ramon Road Specific Plan) .
•
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Draft Resolution approving the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for PA 86-049.
Exhibit B - Revised Draft Resolution recommending the City Council make
specific amendments to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Amendment.
•
•
•
•
• r.
•
-2-