Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.2 Gateway Project Prometheus Dev. (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Written Communications from residents regarding Prometheus Development' s Gateway Project in San Ramon REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Attachment 1 : Letter from William McCauley Attachment 2 : Letter from Mr. & Mrs . Jarchow Attachment 3 : Letter from Mr. & Mrs . Merrill Attachment 4 : Memo to File regarding Prometheus Development ' s Gateway Project Attachment 5 : Location Map and existing subdivision diagram Attachment 6 : San Ramon Planning Commission Staff Report RECOMMENDATION: 1 ) Hear Staff presentation and comments from residents and developer 2 ) Direct Staff to continue to work with developer, San Ramon, and residents in identifying potential impacts and obtaining adequate mitigation measures FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Several residents have written letters and called about the Prometheus Development Gateway Project in San Ramon. The proposed project includes a 111, 000 square foot neighborhood retail shopping center and 140 single-family residential dwelling units on 85 acres at the northwest intersection of Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon. The shopping center would include a Lucky Super Market relocated from Dublin and a Walgreens Drug Store. The shopping center would be located across Alcosta Boulevard from several single family residential dwelling units on Augusta Court and Southwick Drive in Dublin. The residents have expressed concerns about the potential impacts from the proposed project and the need for adequate mitigation measures . --------- - ----------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Wm. McCauley Mr. /Mrs . Jarchow �U Mr. /Mrs . Merrill Todd Regonini, Prometheus Development Phil Wong, Planning Services Manager, San Ramon David Choy, Associate Planner Agenda/General File t f Background In October and November of 1989, San Ramon adopted the Westside Specific Plan and EIR (Environmental Impact Report) . The Westside Specific Plan designates the land uses on the site for a 110, 000 square foot retail/commercial center and for single family residential development. The proposed project was filed for processing with the San Ramon Planning Department in August, 1990 . The project was routed to some agencies for comment in December 1990; however, the City of Dublin was not given an opportunity to comment on the proposal . On May 6 , 1991, the Dublin City Offices received the San Ramon Planning Commission agenda for May 7 , 1991; however, the Planning Department did not receive the agenda until May 8, 1991 . On May 7 , 1991, Mrs . McCauley called the Planning Department after receiving a public hearing notice for the May 7 , 1991 San Ramon Planning Commission meeting. Once learning about the item, the Planning Staff immediately contacted the San Ramon Planning Staff and confirmed that the item was on the Planning Commission agenda for that evening. ' Staff was able to change some schedules to attend the May 7, 1991 hearing, monitor the testimony and gather information about the project. The San Ramon Planning Commission continued the item until June 4 , 1991 . Actions Taken The Planning Staff has taken the following actions : 1 . Discuss potential issues with several residents (Mrs . McCauley, Mr. McCauley, Mr. Shoft) . 2 . Contacted and met with San Ramon Planning Staff to discuss the project and review the project files . 3 . Begun discussion with developer regarding mitigation measures . 4 . Gathered project related reports and information from the San Ramon Planning Staff and developer. 5 . Requested a copy of the Final EIR for the Westside Specific Plan from the San Ramon Planning Staff . 6 . Requested a set of the project plans from the developer. 7 . Started to review and analyze potential project related impacts and mitigation measures . Potential Issues The Planning Staff has identified the following issues and concerns : -2- • 1 . Traffic : Including effects and mitigation measures on Alcosta Boulevard/San Ramon Road-San Ramon Valley Boulevard intersection; the I-680 hook ramps; and related project circulation. 2 . Noise: Including effects and mitigation measures of noise from shopping center customers and delivery trucks . 3 . Aesthetics : Including visual effects and mitigation measures as viewed from Alcosta Boulevard and adjacent residences . 4 . Construction Impacts : Including dust, noise, traffic and other construction related effects . 5 . Geotechnical : Including consideration of the Calaveras Fault setback area. 6 . Environmental Review: Including review of potential impacts and adequate mitigation measures . If the environmental review is found to be inadequate, Dublin could request San Ramon to correct it. If San Ramon did not correct it, Dublin might have some legal recourse that could delay the project but not permanently stop it. Staff also notes that the potential relocation and loss of the Lucky Super Market is an economic development issue that the Downtown Specific Plan Review Task Force may want to address . Recommendation Staff intends to complete its review of potential issues and adequate mitigation measures and then provide input and comments as needed to the developer and the City of San Ramon. Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to continue to work with the developer, San Ramon, and residents in identifying potential impacts and obtaining adequate mitigation measures . -3- 6,;AY 2 21991 From: William L. McCauley 8786 Augusta Ct. CITY. OF &WBUN Dublin, Ca 94568 To: Richard C. Ambrose May 22 , 1991 City Manager, Dublin 11782 Green Dr. Dublin, Ca 94568 RE: ITEM FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - IMPACT OF PROPOSED SAN RAMON SHOPPING CENTER ON DUBLIN RESIDENTS Dear Mr Ambrose: A matter of importance requires the attention of the Dubin City Council. This matter is the proposed building of a shopping center on the corner of Alcosta Blvd. and San Ramon Blvd. This prospect is distressing especially when considered from the prospective of a Dublin resident watching development in another city. Our community in Dublin is adjacent to the proposed site and will be very much affected by it as the project is currently configured. Before enumerating my concerns I wish to request, along with others who have already written to you, that this matter be part of the agenda of the City Council meeting taking place on Tue May 28 , 1991. No other established residents, either in San Ramon or Dublin will be so impacted by this proposed development. Its negitive effects will be felt almost entirely by dublin residence. Since Lucky's grocery will move from its current Dublin location to San Ramon, Dublin merchants will be adversely affected as well. My wife and I attended the public meeting held in San Ramon on May 7th, 1991. In that meeting we listened to a developer (Prometheus of San Mateo) detail a highly developed plan to build a 111, 000 sq. ft. shopping facility along with other improvements including a 500 car parking lot. He (the developer) also described a 140 home residential development immediately to the north of the shopping center. He went on to detail all the many considerations for this residential neighborhood including ample set backs from the shopping facility "(Both horizontal and vertical) , as well as sound walls and placement that would minimize any effect from the shopping facility. He provides his proposed San Ramon homes with a view of the hills and constructs it in such a fashion as to prevent any commercial traffic from having to pass it for any reason. At the same time that Prometheus enumerated all the substantial considerations for their residential development,they had not a single consideration for the residence of Dublin! Prometheus imposes on the established Dublin neighborhood to bear the brunt of all the very things that they aviod as detrimential to their own development. While Prometheus speaks of the benefits to San Ramon, he represents that he has already spoken with Dublin residential neighborhood organizations, a statement far less than candid. As a matter of fact Prometheus many times bent and stretched the imagination of all listeners to be led to their self serving conclusions. In discussion of the points of concern please include: Page - 1 ATTACHMENT f /_2 ~%1 -w TRAFFIC We forecast 80% of the increase in traffic will be compelled to use Alcosta. This amount, in absolute terms, will be enormous! AIR QUALITY WILL SUBSTANTIALLY DECLINE - WE WILL HAVE DIESEL FUMES FROM DELIVERY TRUCKS - CARBON MONOXIDE FROM CARS - THE 140 PROPOSED HOMES HAVE ONLY ALCOSTA FOR ACCESS - EVAPORATION OF VOLITILE BLACK TOP SOLVENTS NOISE WILL INCREASE - SEMI'S AND OTHER TRUCKS WILL BE REQUIRED TO SHIFT GEARS - TRUCKS VIBRATE GROUND (ACOUSTIC DISTURBANCE) - SHOPPING CENTER NOISE FROM ACTIVITIES (24 HOURS) - PARKING LOT CLEANING MACHINES MOTOR BLOWERS & SWEEPERS - DERELICK & VAGRANT TRAFFIC FROM HIGHWAY WITH ASSOCIATED CRIME INCREASE LIGHTS DISTURBANCE - LUCKIES IS A 24 HOUR WELL ILLUMINATED PARKING LOT WILL INCREASE AMBIENT LIGHT LEVELS. - TRAFFIC VIA HEADLIGHTS WILL SWEEP THE AREA LOSS & CHANGE OF VIEWS - PARTICULARLY TO RESIDENCE NEAR OR ON ALCOSTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS - THE WILDLIFE WILL BE IMPACTED. - DEER, HAWKS & OTHER BIRDS Z WIDLIFE. HEAT CAUSED BY ACRES OF BLACK TOP WITH WIND PATTERNS. DUST , DIRT AND TRASH ACCUMULATIONS. WHERE IS THE EIR REPORT?? ECONOMICS - LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUES HOOK RAMP - THERE HAS BEEN MENTION OF A HOOK RAMP TO BE BUILT TO SERVICE SAN RAMON BLVD FROM 680. THIS APPEARS TO BE UNREALISTIC. CALLED CAL TRANS & THEY CONFIRMED UNREALISTIC. - PHYSICAL DIFFICULTIES - UP TO THE CITY OF SAN RAMON LIMITED ACCESS SOME OF THE STUDIES SPECIFICALLY SHOW ZERO TRAFFIC FROM SOUTHWICK SUGGESTING THEIR POSSIBLY CLOSING OFF ACCESS. WHERE ARE OUR TOWN REPRESENTATIVES??? SEVERAL OF OUR TOWN REPS WERE CALLED AND FOUND TO BE ONLY MODESTLY INFORMED. OUR TOWN PLANNER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING LAST MAY 7 ! ! AFTER WE INFORMED HIM HE SENT A REP. Page - 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROMETHEUS HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED OUR CONCERNS BY SHOWING THE CARE AND LENGTHS THEY HAVE GONE TO PROTECT THEIR 140 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL. VACANCY - THE VACATED LUCKY WILL BE A BLIGHT AND WILL ATTRACT UNDESIRABLES. THE CITY OF SAN RAMON AND THE DEVELOPER KNOW THE LIST OF CONCERNS THEY DO NOT YET KNOW THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT! We contend that this proposed development, in its current configuration, will create such a hardship to the residence of Dublin as to exceed any reasonable threshold of human residential habitation. Please help! Sincerely William L. McCauley Page - 3 MAY 17, 1991 MR. LARRY TONG PLANNING DIRECTOR R E C t I V E D CITY OF DUBLIN 100 CIVIC PLAZA MAY 2 0 1991 DUBLIN, CA 94568 DUBLIN PLANNING DEAR MR. TONG, MY WIFE AND I RESIDE AT 8681 SOUTHWICK DRIVE IN DUBLIN, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY WERE INFORMED OF A PROPOSED 10 ACRE SHOPPING CENTER AT THE CORNER OF ALCOSTA AND SAN RAMON ROAD. FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED FROM NEIGHBORS (INCLUDING A COPY OF THE SAN RAMON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF 5-7-91) IT APPEARS THAT THIS PROJECT IS WELL UNDER WAY . MOREOVER, WE ARE IN A QUANDARY OVER THESE STEALTH METHODS AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY NO INPUT HAS BEEN SOLICITED FROM THE RESIDENTS WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS PRCPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MY OWN INVESTIGATION HAS PROVEN THAT THE CITY OF DUBLIN WAS ALSO IN THE DARK ON THIS PROJECT AND RECENTLY LEARNED OF THIS THROUGH A CONCERNED DUBLIN RESIDENT AND NOT FROM ANY FORMAL MEANS FURNISHED BY THE CITY OF SAN RAMON. WOULD YOU PLEASE INFORM US AS TO THE POSITION THAT THE CITY OF DUBLIN HAS TAKEN ON THIS PROPOSAL AND AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT APPEARS THE CITY OF SAN RAMON HAS BEEN LESS THAN EARNEST IN DISCLOSING THIS PROJECT AS WELL AS NEWLY DISCOVERED ZONING CHANGES TO ACCOMODATE THIS DEVELOPMENT. TO THAT END, I AM MOST CURIOUS TO SEE A LEGITIMATE E.I.R. THAT WOULD BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE WHO WILL GAIN FINANCIALLY. RESPECTFULLY, MICHAEL A. AND LAURIE A. JARCHOW CC: MAYOR/CITY OF DUBLIN CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCIL FILE ATTACHMENT �. �l ;>F�) 1 RECEIVED ly1 AY 01 1991 Lir`f +�r c,L�=;►..tcl I)UBLIN PLANNING The Honorable Peter W. Snyder, Mayor May 16, 1991 City of Dublin City Hall P.O. Box 23110 Dublin, California 94568 Dear Mayor Snyder, I am writing to inform you of a situation which is of great concern to my neighbors, my family and to me. We live at the north end of Augusta Court in Dublin. The rear of our properties face Alcosta Boulevard; in fact, our rear property lines are coincident with the Dublin City limits and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. It has come to our attention, only recently, that Prometheus Development Company and the City of San Ramon have, for the last three years, been planning a 10 acre shopping center at the northwest corner of Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Valley Boulevard. This shopping center will include two major tenants, Lucky's and Walgreens, as well as other smaller retailers and service providers. The primarily access to this proposed shopping center will be from Alcosta Boulevard. In addition, a IL10 house subdivision is�planned immediately north of the proposed shopping center. The proposed shopping center, quite obviously, will dramatically increase the traffic, noise, pollution, etc. along Alcosta Boulevard, particularly with Lucky's being a 24 hour store and �tiifli large trucks making deliveries at all hours of the day and night. Clearly, this project will lulve numerous significant negative impacts on the residents of northwest Dublin, particularly those of us whose properties are along Alcosta Boulevard. We are, of course, most unhappy about this situation. However, we are even more unhappy about the fact that the developer and the City of Scin Ramon have worked together on this project for three years without so much as even advising the closest residents, those of northwest Dublin, that such a project was even under consideration. We were completely uninformed of this proposed project until we received a flyer in late April announcing discussion of the project at a May 7, 1991 San Ramon Planning Commission meeting. During our attendance at the Planning Commission meeting, vie ATTAC .� discovered that the developer and the City of San Ramon have planned a project, which of course benefits greatly all surrounding areas of San Ramon, but gives absolutely no consideration to the residents of Dublin. We, as individuals and as a neighborhood, feel that this impending situation is intolerable for the following reasons. o The proposed project will significantly diminish the quality of life of those residing in northwest Dublin. • Those persons who will most severely feel the negative impacts of the project have had no opportunity to participate in the planning process. e The proposed project represents an attempt at expanding the tax base of the City of San Ramon at the expense of Dublin residents. It is my opinion that the Councilmembers of the City of Dublin, as our elected representatives, have a duty to approach the leaders of the City of San Ramon and demand that those persons who will be most impacted by this proposed project have a loud and clear voice in the planning of a project which will have a major impact on their neighborhood. Therefore, we respectfully request your assistance in this matter. I have enclosed a flyer circulating in the neighborhood which announces a proposed get-together on Sunday, May 19 at 2:30 at the Big Old Oak Tree et the corner of Southwick and Alcosta Boulevard. You are certainly welcome to attend if you so desire. Sincerely yo rs Michael J. Merrill Lisa R. Merrill 8798 Augusta Court Dublin, California 828-801 1 - Home 402-7080 - Business ATTENTION NEIGHBORS P The attached materials describe a 10 acre shopping center with a 500 car parking lot proposed for the corner of Alcosta Boulevard and Son Ramon Road, as well as a 140 house subdivision immediately to the north. This development will have a severe impact on the traffic, noise, view and general quality of our neighborhood, particularly since one of the shopping center tenants, Lucky's, will be a 24 hour store. The project developer, Prometheus Development, and the City of San Ramon have concocted this project with absolutely NO input from, or consideration for, the residents of this area of Dublin or the City of Dublin. Therefore, we will have a gathering of concerned residents on Sunday, May 19, 1991 at 2:30 p.m. This gathering will take place at the Big Old Oak Tree at the corner of Southwick and Alcosta, directly across from the proposed project. The developer may or may not attend. PLEASE MAKE PLANS TO ATTEND!!! The City of San Ramon clearly intends to approve this project and we are in the I I th hour of the decision making process. This could be our-only opportunity to save the future of our neighborhood! For more information, call: Bill & Laimdoto McCauley Mike & Lisa Merrill 8786 Augusta Court 8798 Augusta Court Dublin - 829-4268 Dublin - 828-8611 1 n g ission p 0 arX ® � � _ staff report San Ramon date— May 7, 1991 CAI 110INIA 1 �O I A t l D item— 8.1 f i I e — TM 7336, DP 91-002 Gateway Commercial Retail Center and Subdivision Project Planner: Pamela J. Hardy, Associate Planner T I, TNTRODUCTION A. Request Vesting Tentative Map and Development Plan approval to subdivide and develop an 85 acre +/- portion mthe c al retatail center°and 140 ns�single-family ly detached houses 111,000 square foot on 7,000 and 10,000 square foot lots. B ti n This 85 acre site is located at the northwest corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard intersection and within the Westside Specific Plan Area. The proposed 111,000 square foot commercial center will be located at this intersection and the requested residential subdivision will be immediately to the west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. A new public street known as Roadway "A" will be extended north from the end of Alcosta Boulevard across this site to provide access to both the commercial center the and residences. Eventually Roadway A will be extended to the north as an important 'spine' roadway within the Westside Spevitic Plan Area when the adjoining properties develop (APN's: 209-120-012 and -013). C. Api�1_ leant Owner Joseph hiartignetti, Jr. Laborers' Union Trust Prometheus Dev. Co., Inc. c/o hie Morgan 8: Company 2600 Campus Drive, Suite 200 #1 Bush Street, Suite 800 San Mateo, CA 9-4403-2524 San Francisco, CA 91' 109 Attn: Daniel O'Donnell 8 . 1 AGENDA C i We • •• • „ �. s� e - _ ! y Project Site 't '`�=ate:_ . ,,.••, � ate?.'.�� \ •,�.: • r� 1 Planning Services City of San Ramon San Ramon Vicinity Map to Accompany DP91-002 (Gateway) N San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Alcosra Boulevard A. P. #209-120-012, 013 CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM i Date: May 22 , 1991 i To: File: San Ramon: Prometheus Development: Gateway f ; From: David Choy, Associate Planner Subject: Vesting TM 7336 , DP 91-002 - Gateway Commercial Retail Center and Subdivision located at the northwest corner I of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon In October and November of 1989 , the City of San Ramon approved the Westside Specific Plan and EIR. The Westside Specific Plan established a retail/commercial land use designation for an approximate 10 acre site on the corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard. The remaining land to the north and west was designated for residential use. i At the May 7 , 1991 regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Ramon, a request by Prometheus Development Company, Inc. for a Vested Tentative Map (7336) and Development Plan (91-002) was considered for an approximate 85 acre portion , of the Laborers' Union property located at the northwest corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon, bordering the northern boundary of the City of Dublin. The proposed project includes a 110,000 square foot commercial retail center and 140 single family residential lots. The proposed application was submitted to the City of San Ramon Planning Department in August of 1990. The project was routed to affected agencies for comments in December of 1990 . The City of Dublin, however, was not included in this review process and, therefore, was given no opportunity to comment on project related impacts. The Dublin Planning staff has the following concerns regarding the proposed Gateway project: Traffic - Project will require modification to the interchange configuration at Alcosta and San Ramon Valley Boulevards, including freeway hookramps/off-ramps and street alignments. The City of Dublin is concerned that the project may be approved prior to the determination of specific project related improvements . ATTACHMT J-/ 1 3 pAles Noise - Alcosta Boulevard will become the major access road for development within the City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan area. In addition, the retail center, which will be anchored by L.ucky's , will operate 24 hours per day. Delivery trucks will access loading docks off of Alcosta Boulevard. Several existing residences within the City of Dublin are located at the north end of Augusta Court and back onto Alcosta Boulevard. The extent of noise impacts on these residents resulting from the proposed development should be identified and mitigated, if necessary. Aesthetics - The buildings proposed within the retail center have been placed around the perimeter of the site. This design allows the buildings to face into the center. The applicants propose to finish the back of the buildings to avoid blank wall elevations. Visual and aesthetic effects of the project as viewed from Alcosta Boulevard and adjacent residences should be identified and mitigated, if necessary. In addition, impacts resulting from light and glare from the 24 hour commercial retail center should be identified and mitigated, if necessary. Construction Impacts - Measures should be taken to ensure that dust resulting from grading is controlled. Also, hours of construction operation should be regulated to minimize impacts on surrounding residents. Geotechnical - In conjunction with the proposed project, a Geotechnical Study was prepared for the project site. A fault setback zone has been established around the existing Calaveras Fault; within which no construction will be allowed. Environmental Review - The City of _San Ramon conducted an initial study based on the proposed project. It was determined that no .new significant impacts would result from the project. The San Ramon Planning staff will rely on the mitigation measures specified in the Final EIR adopted for the Westside Specific Plan. The City of Dublin has not seen the FEIR, and has requested a copy from the City of San Ramon. The Dublin Planning Staff will review the FEIR to ensure that the environmental review and mitigation measures are adequate . This project was continued to the June 4 , 1991 regular meeting of the City of San Ramon Planning Commission. The Planning Commission directed the applicants to provide relief from noise impacts on existing Dublin residents.. The applicants have stated that on Friday, May 17 , 1991 , they met with Dublin residents in the vicinity of the project to discuss potential impacts . The applicants have also begun contact with the City of Dublin Planning Staff to assist in the mitigation of project related impacts on Dublin residents . cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Members R. Ambrose, City Manager L. Tong, Planning Director M. O'Halloran, Senior Planner /gtwymemo TI es `• � V\�`�`� 'i I ten. Project Site ��� �rQ• �..a 61, ZM � '*z.`'�7i:,'.�i�l .n ,-'�•.'' �; :.,'\•.' '-tom� ....._ ,'. No $GALE �• rte_ ,�- �{ V. Z �:C9;:�• _ --!- �:� �� �- has. ..y: ,r',S-\��'•.:,..,' . [,o CATS°t4 MAP ATTACDENT 500, ( Z, pAges) TO - E `. L7I17� ss,�r_1 Os TA BL VO. 0 N T E R OI�i8 so SSM1Z/ �� CONTF?A COSTA COUNTY FZ2(25)•.x � •.5.N.5. �� 6 - � y Dc t���•. ss,� ZO 7 /O 2 c � /Z 1 30 ��h `� y - �� V /3 Q a ,3/ OI#3 i M 27 �- 05. Zlo /5 ±! ore 32 ti Q � \ 3 sss,, 33 Z5 16 \` , �\ BL OCK A SStit!� �► 34 J /0 .. Z4 Q /7 1 ty m SuBD�v�s � o� 19 D t � C��A ►� SS,��,9 � 37 x , ZO rplanning commission staff report date- May 7, 1991 San Ramon CAL I F OR NIA p item 8.1 0 ORATED 9 f i I e — TM 7336, DP 91-002 Gateway Commercial Retail Center and Subdivision Project Planner: Pamela J. Hardy, Associate Planner I. INTRODUCTION A. Request Vesting Tentative Map and Development Plan approval to subdivide and develop an 85 acre +/- portion of the 426 acre Laborers' Union property, to construct a 111,000 square foot commercial retail center and 140 single-family detached houses on 7,000 and 10,000 square foot lots. B. Location This 85 acre site is located at the northwest corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard intersection and within the Westside Specific Plan Area. The proposed 111,000 square foot commercial center will be located at this intersection and the requested residential subdivision will be immediately to the west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. A new public street known as Roadway "A" will be extended north from the end of Alcosta Boulevard across this site to provide access to both the commercial center the and residences. Eventually Roadway A will be extended to the north as an important "spine" roadway within the Westside Specific Plan Area when the adjoining properties develop (APN's: 209-120-012 and -013). C. Applicant Owner Joseph Martignetti, Jr. Laborers' Union Trust. Prometheus Dev. Co., Inc. c/o Nic Morgan & Company 2600 Campus Drive, Suite 200 n 1 Bush Street, Suite 800 San Mateo, CA 94403-2524 San Francisco, CA 94109 Attn: Daniel O'Donnell AGENDA 8 . 1 ATT�MIISI�llilr /� �aO__, II. REQUIRED FINDINGS As the Commission is aware, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Plan approvals require the following specific findings: Vestina Tentative Map 1. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Development Plan 1. That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed development; 2. That the proposed development will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the neighborhood; 3. That the proposed development will not be injurious or detrimental to the general welfare of the City; 4. That the proposed development will not be inconsistent with the policies and goals established by the General Plan; and 5. That the proposed development is architecturally compatible with other developments in the same vicinity, both inside and outside the district. III. GENERAL Tai tFORINIATION A. General Plan/Westside Specific Plan The Westside Specific Plan designated-the southern half of this site for the future construction of a 110,000 square foot retail/commercial center, and the remaining areas to its north and west for single-family residential development on lots of a minimum size of 10,000 square feet and 7,000 square feet to the west (and uphill) of Roadway A and along San Ramon Valley Boulevard respectively. A density range of 4.2 units per net acre is generally designated by the Westside Specific Plan for the lower elevations closer to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, while up to 6.--' units per acre is generally shown to the west of Road%Vay A public par:: extending from San Ramon Valley Boulevard towards the ridgelines and open spaces areas to the west is shown on the Land Use Plans (f=igures Y. I and 4.2) for this sire. The Commission should refer to these plans and reyie.y the recommended land us: patterns. 2 B. Zoning As discussed briefly above, the Westside Specific Plan has designated the southern half of this project site for commercial retail development, and the remaining areas for single-family residential development at a density of up to 4.2 units per net acre west of Roadway "A" and up to 6.2,units per net acre adjoining San Ramon Valley Boulevard. The Westside Specific Plan Community Design Guidelines establish the development standards for this project (the required lot sizes and width, building setbacks, percentage of graded pads per lot, etc.). These standards are outlined later in this report. C. CEQA Status In October of 1989, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted for the Westside Specific Plan. This EIR provides a detailed analysis of impacts resulting from development in the Westside Area and identifies specific mitigation measures which will reduce project-wide impacts (such as traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure) to an insignificant level. The EIR anticipated that additional environmental review could be required for specific development applications if impacts were identified during the project review that were not originally considered in the EIR. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) stipulates that where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been previously prepared, no additional or supplemental environmental review is required unless new information not previously evaluated by the EIR or Negative Declaration is found. An Initial Study of this application has resulted in a determination that there are no new or unanticipated project impacts that there not considered under the certified EIR and therefore no additional environmental review is needed. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR are still applicable as well as any conditions of approval which implement these mitigation measures. = A Traffic Report, Geotechnical Investigation, Noise Assessment, and visual analysis was submitted with this specific project design and reviewed by Staff in determining compliance project conformance with the certified EIR mitigations. As explained later in this report, the Staff has forwarded the Noise :%ssessment to the City's consultant and the Commission will be advised of his findings rezardinQ the adequacy of this report at the hearing. :. v D. Site Description The 12 acres at the southern half of this site which is proposed for the commercial center is a relatively level meadow area with native grasses and some trees. To the north lies a southwest trending knoll extending to San Ramon Valley Boulevard and beyond that a gently rolling pastureland. At the northwesterly most corner of this site 3 there is a southwesterly trending minor ridgeline with twenty percent slopes or greater. Vegetation is this area is mostly native grasses with a few scattered oak tree clusters. A California Special Seismic Study Zone (which is sometimes referred to as the Alquist-Priolo Zone) is established along the Calaveras fault which traverses the project site in a north-south direction; no residential development is allowed within this area. E. Surrounding Land Use To the east lies San Ramon Valley Boulevard and to the south lies Alcosta Boulevard. Further to the south is a single-family residential neighborhood located within the Dublin City Limits. The north end of the site is bordered by the undeveloped Ashworth property (a nine acre parcel), and to the west lies approximately 350 acres of the remaining Laborers' Union property. A majority of the Laborers' Union property is undeveloped except for the training facility which is accessed from the end of Alcosta Boulevard via a private driveway. A regionally visible northwest trending major ridgeline lies just to the north and west of the project site traversing the Laborers' Union property (the to west of the minor ridgeline near the northwest corner of this project site). This major ridgeline is heavily vegetated with oaks and provides a backdrop to the project site. Although not readily apparent, a creek exists approximately 100 feet or more to the west of the project site (behind the uphill estate lots). IV. BACKGROUND In December of 1988, the applicant filed the necessary applications with the City to develop this 85 acre site with a commercial retail center and 177 single-family lots. Subsequently, in February of 1989, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Westside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report in anticipation of the Westside Specific Plan preparation. After much consideration, the processing of this application was postponed to allow the completion of the EIR and Westside Specific Plan. In doing so, the applicants stated their intentions to design the project so-that conflicts with the adopted plan would be eliminated. During the months that followed; the applicants provided written comments regarding both the EIR and Specific Plan. Following the EIR the Specific Plan adoption in October and November of 1989, an amended project design was submitted to the City for a 110,0(}0 square foot comn;erc:ai center and 172 single-family residential lots on the subject site. f=ollowing this submittal, Staff advised the applicant that the specifics of the interchange configuration at Alcosta and San Ramon Valley Boulevards (which includes freeway off-ramp and,street realignments) must be resolved between the City, Caltrans, City of Dublin and all other affected pubiic agencies since this project could be significantly altered by these roadway realignments and improvements. On August 2, 1990, the current application was filed which was revised from the previous plan to respond to Staff's recommendations related to grading and view impacts. T'-,- significant changes included a reduction in the number of residential units from 177 to 140 4 units, internal roadway reconfiguration (to lessen paving and improve circulation along Roadway A), the inclusion of a 100 foot wide open space area along the north property line, and a break in the perimeter sound wall along San Ramon Valley Boulevard (to permit view corridors). Other changes included sound wall undulations and staggering the residences along San Ramon Valley Boulevard to add visual interest and variety. The City is presently working with the applicant to refine the Project Study Report (PSR) which will ultimately determine the Alcosta/InterState 680 interchange design which is required under the Westside Specific Plan Circulation Policies. The City is also in the process of preparing a Plan Line Study which will determine the future San Ramon Valley Boulevard alignment and widening. The status of these studies and how they may affect the project are discussed in greater detail later in this report. V. APPLICATION PROCESSING As the Commission is aware, the Government Code requires all public agencies to process and take actions on development applications within prescribed time limits. The required six month review deadline for this project was in February of 1991, but the applicant agreed to extensions so that additional information such as a project traffic report, noise assessment, and visual materials could be prepared and analyzed. Action must be taken at this hearing in order to comply with the required review limits, unless the applicant agrees to a continued public hearing date if requested by the Commission. The development guidelines which govern this application are established by the Westside Specific Plan; therefore, the Commission should review the Westside Specific Plan with particular attention to the policies discussed in the Land Use; Circulation; Open Space and Conservation; Community Design; and Westside Design Guidelines sections. A summary of the applicable Westside Specific Plan policies are attached to assist the Commission in its review. This application is not subject to the regulations contained in Ordinance No. 197 (Save our Hills Initiative) because it was filed and deemed complete in accordance with Government Code (which again regulates application processing) before the Ordinance's effective date. However, the Resource Conservation Overlay District (RCOD) regulations (prior to Ordinance No. 197) referenced in the Westside Specific Plan apply. VI. PROTECT DESCRIPTION Site Lay-Out A 111,000 square foot retail commercial center will be constructed at the northwest corner of the Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Valley Boulevard intersection on approximately 12 acres of land. This commercial center will consist of a single-story multi-tenant retail building, three free-standing building or pads and 501 off-street parking spaces. 5 The 140 residential lots on the remaining 73 acres will be developed with detached single- family houses. The 108 lots along San Ramon Valley Boulevard will be a minimum of 7,000 square feet and 32 "estate" lots uphill-from Roadway A will be a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. A majority of the larger estate lots are located on slopes of 20 percent or greater and within a 50 foot vertical minor ridgeline setback established by the RCOD. As noted earlier, improvements within the Calaveras fault line setback is limited to streets, parking areas, open spaces and parklands. Circulation The retail/commercial center at the southerly most portion of the site will be accessed by three driveway entries -- two along San Ramon Valley Boulevard and one from the future Roadway "A" extending from Alcosta Boulevard. A loading dock/service entry will also be accessed from Roadway "A". The northerly most driveway into the retail/commercial center from San Ramon Valley Boulevard will be directly opposite the future Interstate I-680 "hook off-ramp" which is currently being designed (see the discussion below). Roadway A will serve as the primary access to the new residential lots, however, a right-in and right- out only street extending from San Ramon Valley Boulevard approximately mid-point of the site will connect with Circle "E" road. This street is not shown on the subdivision map or preliminary development plan, but is attached as a detail drawing per the Dougherty Regional Fire District requirements for a secondary emergency access route into the subdivision (the attached Fire District memos discuss this roadway further). Roadway "A" will have two travel lanes with a bicycle lane and sidewalk along one side; parking will not be permitted on either side of this street. The residential streets extending from Roadway A will have sidewalks and parking along both sides.except for those areas where houses are located along one side only. An emergency vehicle access road ("EVAR") will extend from the end of the_upper most street across the public park area. This EVAR will only be used for emergency purposes. Pedestrian walkways will connect the residential neighborhoods with the commercial center and the adjoining parklands. Eventually, direct access to a regional trail system extending across the Laborers' Union property to the west will be available. The proposed street design is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan Circulation policies, however, the Commission should note that the Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended that at least t«elve parallel street parking spaces be installed on Roadway A at the public park on Parcel E (see the attached memo). As noted earlier, the Westside Specific Plan requires improvements to the Alcostallnterswte 680 interchange to avoid future capacity and circulation problems. It,.should be clar,ned that these improvements were not necessitated by this project, but the project planning and design must consider these improvements. The final interchange design and the San Ramon Valley alignment will depend on a Project Study Report (PSR) and Plan Line Stud`. At this time, it is anticipated that a new southbound ramp hooking to San Ramon Valley Boulevard just north of Alcosta Boulevard will be installed along with other ramp configurations as generally shown on Figure 5.2 of the Westside Specific Plan. Presently, Staff is reviewing a PSR with Caltrans in addition to the Plan Line Study. Although the specific 6 improvements and precise streets alignments are not designed at this time, Staff believes the "future right-of-way acquisition" designated on the project plan will be sufficient. Park /Open Space Park and open space areas totally 25.9 acres,are distributed throughout the project site. Of this, 6.4 acres (Parcels C and E) will be improved as an active parkland area which exceeds the San Ramon Parkland Ordinance requirements of 1.3 acres for a project of size. Parcel D will be an open passive park area with substantial planting and a pedestrian trail which will connect the residential lots with a regional hiking trail crossing the Laborers' Union property to the west. The remaining Parcels A and B will be planted as a buffer along the street and the commercial center. It should be noted that a substantial amount of the park and open space areas lie within the fault zone setback. All of the areas designated for park and/or open space will be dedicated to the City and improved by the applicant as outlined in the attached Parks and Community Services Commission memo. For clarification, the City will maintain the public parklands (Parcels C and E) as well as the remaining open space, but a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District will be required to help cover the maintenance costs of Parcels A, B, and D. A breakdown of the designated park and open spaces are as follows: Parcel Designated Use Acreage A Open Space 2.30 ac B Open Space 10.01 ac C Mini-Public Park 1.46 ac D Open Space 7.07 ac E Neighborhood Public- 4.97 ac The Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed this project and supports the proposed parkland and open space design and locations. Although the Westside Specific Plan Land Use Plans (Figures 4.1 and 4.2) show a park area near San Ramon Valley Boulevard, the Parks and Community Services Commission felt that a more internal park system proposed by this project was more appropriate to serve the development. The Commission did not feel that this would be a significant deviation from the Specific Plan since it was illustrative in nature. The designated 25.9 acres for parklands proposed by this project exceeds the eleven acre park area shown on the Westside Specific Plan Illustrat,e Land Use Plan (Figure 4.2) for this site. Architecture/Floor Plans The layout of the retail/commercial center is linear, using a combination of differentiating traditional shapes, angles, and towers to create visual interest. The exterior materials are stucco, with earth tone building colors, and concrete tile roofing. A columned arcade runs the entire length of the center as a pedestrian promenade. 7 The residential development shows four different house models which are presented at this time on a preliminary basis only. Of these four plans, one model is single-story while the remaining three plans are two-story. Each house will have a three-car garage, however only one model will have a "side entry" garage. Residential Development Standards The following are the minimum development standards that are required of all development within the appropriate categories. Standard single-family lot of a minimum 7,000 square fee t (see Figure 7.6): Lot Width: 65 foot minimum Setbacks: Front yard - 20 ft. min. Rear yard - 20 ft. min. Side yard - 10 ft. min. Medium single-family lot of a minimum of 10,000 square feet (see Figure 7.7): Lot Width: 80 foot minimum Setbacks: Front yard - 20 ft. min. Rear yard - 20 ft. min. Side yard - 10 ft. min. Flat, graded areas for both building and yards should not e-rceed the following percentages: 7,000 s.f. lot: 75 percent graded pad area of total lot (or 5,250 s.f: for both the house and flat yard areas). 10,000 s.f. lot: 65 percent graded pad area of total lot (or 6,500 s.f. for both the house and flat yard areas). VII. ANALYSIS Commercial/Retail Center The proposed 111,000 square foot commercial/retail center is consistent with the land use and community design policies of the Westside Specific Plan, and the overall site plan appears to meet the applicable Code requirements regarding building heights, building and landscaping setbacks, and off-street parking. As noted earlier, the off-street parking plan, the architectural details and landscaping features will be reviewed at the Final Development Plan phases by the Commission and/or the Architectural Review Board. The circulation plan (driveway locations, access lanes, etc.) has been accepted by Staff. In its review, the Commission should note that a substantial landscaped buffer is provided along San Ramon Valley Boulevard varying from 20 feet to 30 feet (which will be retained after the future San 8 h interchange improvements and associated street realignments and/or widening projects. These landscaped setbacks exceed the Westside Specific Plan requirements. Staff is aware of some community concerns over the economic viability of this new retail/commercial center particularly in light of the Alcosta Mall renovation being undertaken through the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency. To this issue, a market feasibility study was prepared by the applicant.during the Westside Specific Plan preparation which lent support for the commercial land use classification assigned to this location at that time. Staff will respond further on this matter during the hearing if requested, and calls to the Commission's attention the attached letters which support the retail/commercial center. Residential Subdivision There are a number of potential issues which will require the Planning Commission's consideration in determining the consistency of the residential subdivision with the Westside Specific Plan policies. The discussion which follows attempts to address the primary issues identified by Staff which could ultimately affect the density and/or design of the subdivision. Staff requests that the Commission consider these potential issues as well as any other issues either discussed by the Commission and/or during the public testimony, and then provide direction, if needed, to the applicant and Staff regarding any modifications. Land Use Density & Development Patterns: (7,000 sq. ft. lots) The proposed residential development of 140 single-family lots has an overall density of approximately 4.2 units per net acre which is well below the maximum 6.2 units per net acre limit allowed under the Westside Specific Plan; therefore, the project meets the Westside Specific Plan's housing goals in the San Ramon Valley Boulevard Area with respect to density. This density is computed on the 33 net developable acres which excludes the retail commercial site and all areas which are either situated within the seismic zone, on slopes exceeding twenty percent, and which are dedicated public streets. The residential development pattern is generally consistent with the Specific Plan in that the majority of the lots (a total of 108 lots) are concentrated in the lower elevations, adjacent to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, while fewer and larger "estate" lots (a total of 32 lots) are located to the west of Roadway "A" . This "feathering" of densities towards the rural areas is encouraged under the Specific Plan to allow a better transition into the open space areas and protect hillside views where possible. A possible deviation from the Westside Specific Plan may occur in that a par` exteeding from San Ramon Valley Boulevard uphill towards the ridgelines has not been provided. To this issue, the applicant responds that the ample open space and parkland areas within the project allows unobstructed view corridors to the hillsides above San Ramon Valley Boulevard and therefore is consistent with the intent of the policy. To assist the Commission in evaluating whether the project meets this policy, several computer generated drawings have been prepared (and previously forwarded to the Commission under separate cover) to demonstrate how the parks and open spaces, when coupled with a 100 foot wide view corridor at the north property line and a 50 foot wide view corridor approximately 9 mid-point of the subdivision (the break in the sound wall) will provide the view corridors and visual breaks as required under the Westside Specific Plan policies. These drawings are taken from several important view points within the immediate vicinity and from across the freeway which were recommended by Staff. The Commission should be aware of the applicant's position that a park adjoining San to Ramon Valley Boulevard, although generally shown on the Westside Specific Plan Land Lase Plans across this site, is not practical or desirable from a functional and design standpoint for several reasons. First, the applicant notes that the net developable area is signiticandy reduced by the seismic zone, San Ramon Valley Boulevard realignments, the new fre_­,vay hook ramps, and the Roadway A construction. As a result, establishing a park (in addition to the 100 foot wide strip at the north property line) would make it impossible to meet the required residential density ranges (and minimum lot sizes) established under the Westside Specific Plan guidelines. Second, the applicant notes that the graded pad elevations for the residential area must be built up substantially higher than San Ramon Valley Boulevard (approximately 30 feet) in order to provide adequate drainage, sanitary sewer service, and meet the City's 3:1 graded slope requirements. Lastly, the applicant notes that building up the graded pad elevation for the residential subdivision along San Ramon Valley Boulevard as proposed will actually help screen the buildings and the new paved streets when vie xed from a distance -- in other words, providing a more gradual slope stepping down to San Ramon Valley Boulevard will only expose the paved streets and residences more. Despite the absence of a park area extending to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Staff suggests that the open spaces and parks which are distributed throughout the project will meet the intent of the Westside Specific Plan by allowing views to the major gddelines above the project site to remain unobstructed when seen from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is acknowledged that development will to some degree lessen hillside views, but it is the degree to which these views are limited and preserved which must be addressed. As discussed previously, the Parks and Community Services Commission supports the park and open space design presented by this project as being consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. Staff does have a concern that the landscaped area along San Ramon Valley Boulevard will appear inconsistent with the surrounding hillside terrain and suggests that additional contouring be explored in this area to provide a more natural appearance. This may require some relief from the 3:1 slope requirements in order to allow variation �:d undulations. Develooment on Steen Terrain: 10,000 so. ft. Estate Lots The Open Space Element of the General Plan prohibits development on slopes greater t'.-:an 20 percent. A majority of the estate lots located to the west of Roadway A are on s':oPes of 20 percent or greater, and are situated on a minor ridgeline. The Resource Conserva::on Overlay District (RCOD) regulations further defines this General Plan requirement and allows exceptions under certain circumstances (which are identified in the Community Design Guidelines of the Westside Specific Plan) as follows: 10 "Flexibility may be provided to allow development which extends beyond those areas which are identified as developable under the RCOD Ordinance. RCOD limitations in the tail ends of ridges, on slopes between 20 and 30 percent and in areas with little visual impact may be relaxed, if there are significant public benefits to be gained in establishing major visual corridors to the hills and breaks in the development patterns, to allow.the natural landscape to come right to San Ramon Valley Boulevard". To evaluate if development within these steep areas are appropriate given the policy above, computer-aided graphics have been submitted to show the project (particularly the uphill estate lots) will appear in the context of the overall area. On this issue, Staff is concerned that the houses west of Roadway A along the minor ridgeline may appear "applied" and not visually blend with the surrounding topography much like the hillside subdivisions to the north along the west side of the freeway which were approved by the County prior to the City's incorporation. If the Commission shares the same concern, Staff recommends that the Commission discuss with the applicant if there are any grading alternatives and/or mitigations through added landscaping or building design which could better screen these residences to allow them to blend in a more natural way with the hillside terrain. Other alternatives may include either reducing or eliminating development in this minor ridgeline area. Protection of Ridgelines The Open Space Element of the General Plan and the RCOD regulations call for the protection of major ridgelines as open space areas. The intent of this policy is to preserve prominent visual features surrounding the City thereby establishing a "sense of place" and community identity. A majority of the estate lots west of Roadway A are within the 50 foot vertical setback from a minor ridgeline setback defined by the RCOD provisions (the project does not intrude into the major ridgeline setback to the west of the site). An exception from this 50 foot vertical setback is therefore -requested to allow a majority of the estate lots on a minor ridgeline per the Westside Specific Plan and RCOD regulation identified above. Staff questions if it is appropriate to grant this exception because of the potential visual impacts along a minor ridgeline. The Commission's review and direction on this matter is therefore requested. Grading In reviewing the plans, the Commission will note that the project involves substantial site modifications particularly in the residential areas (the grading for the commercial center is relatively minor). In the lower areas east of Roadway A, a knoll located at the southe2st corner of the site will be graded down and the elevations of the pastureland to the north xill be brought up to a level area for the residential lots. On the uphill areas, a minor ridgeline will be reduced or graded down and recontoured at a 3:1 slope to Roadway A. 11 Under the Westside Special Plan Design Guidelines, contour grading is encouraged to provide a variety similar to the natural terrain, and to avoid straight flat, cut or filled or "benched" areas. Instead, incremental terracing and split pads are preferred in order for new development to visually blend with the surrounding properties in the least intrusive manner. Specific development guidelines include graded pad limits on individual lots not to exceed 75 percent and 65 percent of the 7,000 square foot lots and the 10,000 square foot lots respectively. As discussed earlier, the applicant indicates that the graded pads for the residential area closest to San Ramon Valley Boulevard is set by the surrounding roadway elevations, by gravity flow requirements (to provide sanitary sewer and storm drains without the use of lift stations), and to avoid severe driveway angles. Despite these physical constraints, the applicant notes that the individual lots are stepped on the site consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, and that the proposed plan will allow the houses and the new streets to be screened by the 3:1 graded slope along San Ramon Valley Boulevard. The Westside Specific Plan anticipated that a moderate amount of grading would occur on this site in order to obtain residential units in this area; however, given the degree to which the appearance of the site will change, Staff recommends that the Commission discuss if grading modifications or other techniques should be used to cause the natural terrain of the property to be altered less, to achieve more natural transitions, and to enhance the hillside views where ever possible. There may be other techniques available which will allow the lots (particularly the estate lots) to blend more naturally with the surrounding terrain, and if not, a reduction or elimination of lots may be necessary on the basis of visual impacts as specified earlier. Noise A detailed project-specific Noise Assessment was prepared in accordance with the Westside Specific Plan. This analysis concluded that a soundwall at the rear of those lots along San Ramon Valley Boulevard is necessary to mitigate noise-impacts upon outside recreation areas from InterState 650. The site plan therefore incorporates a 6 foot high masonry soundwall approximately 100 feet from, and 30 feet above San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Careful attention has been paid to design this wall with a stone veneer, landscaping and undulations which will lessen visual impacts. An opening in this wall will permit hillside (via a view corridor) and allow a neighborhood street to extend or meander down the sloe'ed embankment to San Ramon Valley Boulevard to meet the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority requirements for a secondary access in the event of an emergency. This wall will be setback approximately 100 feet from the street when the Westside Specific Plan requires a minimize setback of twenty to thirty feet; despite this ample setback, the Commission should be aware that the Westside Specific Plan discourages Iona uninterrupted walls along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, and encourages berms for mitigating noise and impacts when possible. Staff has requested a "peer review" of the project Noise Assessment by the City's consult=r:t to ensure that noise impacts from the Interstate 6S0 as well as San Ramon Valley Boule.and will be properly mitigated. The consultant has also been requested to evaluate if a suitable 12 v alternative to the proposed soundwall is available. The results of this review were not available when this report was prepared, but Staff will advise the Commission's of its findings at the public hearing. - Preliminary Design Review The preliminary designs for both the retail/commercial center and the single-family homes are presented to the Commission per Phase Three of the Westside Specific Plan Design Review Procedures. The detailed architectural and landscape plans will be submitted as pan of the Final Development Plan review process and evaluated by the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission (if required) prior to building permit issuance. Overall, it appear the project meets the applicable design standards under the Westside Specific Plan. At this time, Staff recommends that the Commission provide general comments or direction on the building-forms, building heights, architecture, wall/fence details and landscaping during this preliminary design review phase. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS The applications before the Commission for review and action at this juncture are the Vesting Tentative Map and the Development Plan. As discussed previously, the building placements, building forms, architecture, wall/fence designs, and landscaping will be refined at the Final Development Plan phase which will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission (if required). Staff is seeking Commission direction on the issues identified in this report. The issues are related to the residential development and are summarized as follows: - visual appearances and impacts grading techniques - park and open space locations noise impacts Staff therefore recommends that the Planning_Commission consider and discuss the issues which are outlined herein as well as any other issues raised during the public hearing and direct Staff and the applicant to make the necessary modifications. Staff will return to the Commission with the draft conditions of approval as directed. VIII. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner _ and seconded by Commissioner _ that the Planning Commission continue this application to the meeting of to allow the applicant and/or Staff to provide additional information, and.or to allow time for the applicant to submit revised plans per the Commission's recommendations. - OR - 13 V J It was moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner that the application be continued to - and that Staff prepare the necessary draft resolution with conditions of approval for Commission consideration. LX. ATTACI NfENTS Attachment 1 - Access Road Detail Attachment 2 & 3 - Dougherty Regional Fire Authority memos, 1/10/91 & 2/7/91 Attachment 4 - Parks & Community Services memo, 2/19/91 Attachment 5 - Senior Civil Engineer memo, 4/25/91 Attachment 6 - Fox & Carskadon letter, 4/26/91 Attachment 7 - Lucky Stores letter, 4/30/91 Attachment 9 - Walgreens letter, 4/29/91 Attachment 10 - S.A.V.E. letter, 4/12/91 Attachment 11 - Westside Specific Plan Polices/Guidelines Summary Attachment 12 - Applicant letter Vicinity Map Project Plans - Vesting Tentative Map, Project Plans, Visual Analysis Traffic Report Visual Analysis - (previously forwarded to Commission separately) sr91-093.pc(05.07.91) 14 • DOUGHERTY REGIONAL D J FIRE AUTHORITY �'� 1 � 1991 ,\ CITY OF SAN RAMON 9399 FircrestLane PLANNING S-RVICES San Ramon, CA 94583 wsi dui wiro. �r Lwl•l(l� (Telephone) 415-829-2333 — ��,n� lam',_..:J >•nti L- ��>�- January 10, 1991 Pam Hardy Associate Planner City of San Ramon 2226 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Dear Pam: This Department has reviewed the tentative map submittal for subdivision 7336 and below are our comments: • 1. Road grades are limited to 15%. One area which seems to exceed this limit is the court serving the "Estate Lots" . Our Code does allow grades up to 20% if constructed of rough asphalt or grooved concrete for short stretches not exceeding 50 feet and when alternate means of fire protection are provided. An alternate means of protection in this instance would be to install an automatic fire sprinkler system in homes served by this street. 2 . Commercial buildings must be sprinklered. 3 . Fire hydrants capable of 1, 500 gallons per minute located every 400 feet maximum. 4 . Fire hydrant in commercial area to be located by this Department at a later date. - 5 . Design of emergency vehicle access to be approved by this Department. I\ 6 . Any project containing in excess of 74 dwelling units rust be served by two public access roads. Provisions must be made to tie Road A into San Ramon Valley Blvd. 7 . Approved access to homes must be completed prior to construction above the foundation. 8 . If a Homeowners Association is formed, provisions for the abatement of fire hazards must be included in the C. C. & R. ' s . 9 . A Fire Impact Fee of $600 per dwelling unit and $600 per 2 , 000 square feet of other than residential will be due prior to building permits being issued. ATTACHM"ENT ? FILE NO, SD 7336 q1-nA7 • 1 0. Plan review fees based on time spent will be due prior to _ occupancy. If you have any questions, please call. sincerely, TOM HATHCOX, Fire Marshal TH/liw DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FEB •8 1991 FIRE AUTHORITY 9399 Fircrest Lane Cl 0� S/ � � � s , San Ramon, CA 94583 � � z..•• (Telephone) 415-829-2333 February 7 , 1991 Pam Hardy Associate Planner City of San Ramon 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Dear Pam: Please find attached a fax which I received from Todd Regonini regarding the Gateway Project. This is a summary' of a meeting Mr. Regonini and I had to discuss fire department access into this development. While I do agree that any of the three options listed would satisfy this department' s requirements for access, our preference would be Option 2 , Option 1 and Option 3 in that order. I would also mention that during the meeting with Premetheus representatives they informed me that no portion of the roadway of Court H leading to the upper estate lots exceeded 15% grade. Prior to final approval of the final tract map, I would appreciate the City Engineer confirming that as fadt. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Tom Hathcox Fire Marshal TH/liw Attachment ATTACHMENT . .. FILE Us 3A,. _ OP 91- 00? FEE— 6-91 WED 15 : 27 PROMETHEUS P - `=1= February 5, 1991 R4METHEUS DEVELOPMENT CO.. INC. 2000 Ccmpw Drive,Suite 700 Scn,'ACre4,CA 9.4403-2524 4151570.78CO Mr.Tom Hathcox Fire Marshall Dougherty Regional Fire Authority 9899 Fircrest Lane San Ramon, CA 94583 RE: Subdivision 7336, San Ramon Dcar Tom: Per our meeting on January 24, 1991 regarding the above project, I understand that any one of [It-It following options would satisfy the Fire Authority's sccondL-y access/egress issue on the project: Ext�ccnsion of public roadway from the southernmost potion of Circle "E" down to San Ramon `.all y Boulevard (through Parcel B). Extension of Road "A" to the north through to San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Extension of an emergency roadway (approximately 12 - l-' feet wide) from the southc-nmost porior, of Circle "E" down to San Ramon Valley Boulevard. A gate with a Doughcrty Regional Fire Au:;;ority lock would be placed at both ends of this roadway. 1c would be necessary to install fire spn;: 1<lr:s (NFPA 13-D system) in approximately 34 of the northernmost "lower" residential lots and all of thy: "upper" estate lots (Court H) with this option. Please note that after carefully revic,,ving the options available, the extension of a cublic read (Op;tien 1) from Circle "E" (southernmost portion) to San Ramon Valley Boulevard app-cars to be the -ost appropriate alternative. We understand.from our mccting :hat installation of a road A Itn a r--adc cf Ic;s than 15% at this location would s rye to fully mitigate kern =6 in your Icticr of January 10, 1991 (:o Fam Hardy). Also, we understand Chat t`,e Dougherty Regional Fire Author.--; would have no Y-ctic-n with said road being right-in and right-cut only at San Ramon �'allcly Boulevard, s,ncc a rn-vc: ..crccr.. : ould be tmrrgencv egress from the nzighbonccod. A right-in and right-out pniy cont;,ura::en wo.::d not preclude err.ergency vehic'.es f:•om using this rordwav for c^c:gcncv ac:cis, ::ga d:css er:.._:"c:. t:c,n of approach on SRVB. - If the above represents any misunders:andi. `s of our cisc::ssien on 1ar,uar; ::o hesitate to call r^r irrr„edia:ely. 7:�a.7k you. Sincerely, PRONI Et; DEVE P`tEti T CO., INC. Todd A. Regonini Assiscnrnt Projcct N12-nager - MEMORANDUM Sail Ramon DATE: February 19, 1991 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Eorio, Parks and Community Services Director,J�� SUBJECT. Gateway Development Project Parkland Dedication At the February 13 meeting of the Parks and Community Services Commission, the Commission voted to uphold staff's recommendation for the parkland dedication requirements for the Gateway development project or, if this was not acceptable to the developer, to allow the Commission to select a suitable parr; site of 1.38 acres on the site at the Commission's discretion. The following are the conditions that were approved to meet the Parkland Dedication requirements: The dedication and improvement of Parcel E, a 4.97 acre parcel, for use as a neighborhood park. This parcel would be dedicated and improved according to City specifications and include a tot lot (much like that at Walt Disney School Neighborhood Park), a picnic area with up to 6 tables, drinking fountain, and an open meadow of approximately 2 acres with a walkway that surrounds the meadow. This would also include a fenced or landscaped buffer to protect people using the park from spilling on to Road A. Parcel E (neighborhood park) shall be required to be improved and dedicated prior to occupancy of any homes within the subdivision. Parcel C (mini-park) shall be required to be improved with benches, drinking fountain and landscaping per the landscape plan submitted by the developer, and installed according to City specifications and inspection. This parcel would be required to be dedicated prior to occupancy of 5H,c of the home sites of the subdivision. Parcel D (open space area) shall be required to be graded wli'h a trail, and landscaped per the plan submitted by the developer and again improved prior to the occupancy of 5OC'o of the home sites within the development. In addition to the above conditions, the Commission would like a stop sign located at Intersection A and Circle B for safe access across Road A for residents to utilize the neighborhood park. The Commission is holding to the recommendation that the developer provide off street parking for at least 12 automobiles and 2 horse trailers adjacent to Parcel E and off street parking for 6 automobiles at Parcel C. Should the Planning Commission have any questions, please direct them to the Parks and Communijy,Serics'`pire 11/ MEMORANDU M : San Ramon C Al l IOA MIA CO `o °'A'`° DATE:April 25, 1991 PAMELA HARDY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TO: DETLEF K. CURTIS, SEE 611:9 7GINEER FROM: ISSUE PAPER FOR GATEWAY PROJECT, VESTING TENTATIVE SUBJECT: MAP 7336 There are six issues which have the potential of significantly affecting this project. They are as follows: • The appriateness and amount of on-site grading; • The current status of the Interchange Project Status Report (PSR) and its impact on this project; • The current status of the City's Planline Study for San Ramon Valley Bled. and its impact on this project. • Differentiation of off-site improvements along projects frontage; • The current status of the City's Planline Study for Road 'A' and its impact on this project. • The acoustical exposure of this project to external noise sources. I. QNN-SITE GRADING This project as now presented proposes to remotie the top of the Uoll µithin the southeastern part of the project and shift those-materials to the area immediately to the north. It is expected that the grading will balance on-site. Detailed reNicµ' of this pro's-ct's grading proposal suggests that (ill is necessary in the northerly area since it is noµ essentially below San Ramon Valley BINd. and it must be brought up to elcNatiuns sufficiently high to allow gravity flow to the south for seµer and storm drain pipes N+ith the former bein; the more critical. Preliminary calculations of seµerline grades starting at Alcosta Blvd (17o slope) suggest the sestier line to b�e 25 R deep at Lot 62. iACHMENT S 110 . s ? 3G The upper tier of lots in the northwesterly corner as proposed Hill be created by a mix of cut and fill. Those lots backing onto the creek (along project's west boundary line) with fill necessary towards the rear of the lots will require some grading on adjacent property since sheet flow towards the creek area will not be allowed. II. IN- ERCHANGE PROTECT STUD' REPORT This project is located directly north and west of the intersection of Alcosta and San Ramon Valley Boulevards. It is this quadrant which would be most directly affected by any modification of the nearby Alcosta Blvd/I-680 Interchange to that of a hook-ramp configuration oriented towards San Ramon Valley Blvd. For a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to relocate San Ramon Valley Blvd. to the west as indicated on project plans. At this time, however, that line is only an estimate as it could conceivably be moved further west by CalTrans (who has not yet reviewed the PSR). A project study report is a document required by CalTrans for any improvement project being considered for the State's highway system. A PSR may be initiated in one of three ways: 1. By CalTrans; or 2. By local public agency sponsor of the project; or 3. By development community through local public agency sponsor. In this case, it was agreed early on (over a year ago) that the City would assume a sponsorship role upon initiation of the PSR by the applicant. The reason given was that this course represented the shortest time interval for completion since time was of the essence (the applicant immediately recognized the impact potential of the reconfigured freeway interchange on the development project). The "final" PSR document however was not made available to the City until 4/5/91 and, as such, because it has not yet been fully reviewed by the City it has not been forwarded to CalTrans for their review. Any significant deviation to the west will further aggravate the cut grading situation since San Ramon Valley Blvd's profile grade is also constrained. III. SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD PLANLINE STUDY The remainder of the project's San Ramon Valley Blvd frontage (to the north) also entails some uncertainty at this time because the Planline Study is still in its infancy. However, due to certain given elements of the road in this area, it is reasonably certain that the amount of additional right-of-way will be limited to -50 feet (two future southbound lanes with part of a raised median) immediately adjacent to the existing roadway (which is expected to remain fixed). The plan accurately portrays the future roadway's westerly line although grading is not indicated for the roadway's construction. Since the existing roadway is higher in some areas than adjacent property some fill will be necessary and should be shown as encroaching into the "open space". IV. OFF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS As currently envisioned there are two distinct sets of off-site improvements involving this project. The Westside Specific Plan analysis indicates that San Ramon Valley Blvd development will generate sufficient traffic to justify two additional lanes (to four lanes total). Therefore,this project is responsible for constructing two additional lanes. along the entire frontage of this project. Some of this work is simple because of the known location of the future roadway. It becomes more complicated, however to the south. The modifications to the interchange are of a regional benefit and, therefore, will only partially be funded by this project. Certainly the hook ramp system will not be constructed for some time after the project and no funding source as yet has been identified. So the question is whether the project's two lanes should be constructed now (either adjacent to the e-fisting roadway or westerly in conformance with the ultimate alignment) or deferred in its entirety until some time in the future when the interchange is actually reconstructed. There are pros and cons to both options. V. ROAD "A" ALIGNMENT The City has not initiated a planline study for Roadway "A" (Specific Plan designation). Analysis of project's proposed location for this road indicates compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan. The roadway is basically located within the 100 foot wide fault zone corridor with the exception the northerly 400 feet where it is forced to the west to avoid future conflict with existing structure on the adjacent parcel. Nothing this project is proposing would unduly constrain options available to the future planline study (a recommended budget item for FY 1991/92). _ VI. ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS This project is located adjacent to a significant noise generator (the freeway and to a lesser extent San Ramon Valley Blvd.) and a such the project's noise study is currently being peer reviewed by City's consultant. Because the results of that review are not available at the time of preparation of this report, information pertaining to this matter Hill be provided as soon as possible prior to the hearing or at the hearing. DKC:nsb (m3p7336.gat) . FOX B,CARSKADON v �'` :�. '����-.�..•_: COMMERCIAL SERVICES. INC. ` ✓ ' April 29, 1991 - // ; tA Mr. Gene Sylls CITY OF SAN RAN ION 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Re: Gateway Centre Nti4'C ,Acosta Boulevard S San Ramon Valley Boulevard San Ramon, CA Dear Mr. Sylls: As real estate professionals of long standing in the Tri-Valley area, we are writing to support the proposed Gateway Centre retail development. The "Westside Area" is clearly undcrserved in terms of a modern, full service neighborhood shopping center. Gateway Centre will represent the First significant step in many years toward the provision of neighborhood shopping services to southern San Ramon and northern Dublin, west of I-680. In addition to a major supermarket and pharmacy, Gateway Centre will provide such services as banks, restaurants, and retail shops. Gateway Centre is anticipated to be anchored by Lucky Stores (which will relocate from their existing store across the street in Dublin) and Walareen Drugs. Lucky has been located at the intersection of San Ramon Valley and Alcosta Boulevards for over 20 years. Their investment in expanding from their current 28,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet is testimony to their success in and commitment to the trade area. Walareen Drug, a national drug store chain, represents the most sophisticated approach to pharmacy sales in the country, while providing a broad range of general merchandise. Together, Lucky and Walgreen's will provide the nucleus that will attract other national, regional, and local retailers, and provide the broad spectrum of goods and services currently unavailable to the westside trade area. A relocation to Gateway Centre will not only allow a physical expansion of Luckv's facility, (thereby adding departments and se,-vices), but it will also improve their accessibility to and from I-680. In addition to incrcasina their sales duc to an expanded facility, Gateway Ccntre's existing proximity to I-6S0 and access from ,\Icosta. Boulev--ird should incrcasc sales to customers not living in the immediate trade area. as .yell as the existing customer base: Gateway Centre will serve the adioinina residential area, as well as those customers who will shop Gatc%vay Centre as they return home to Dublin or P!e?santon, thereby providing San Ramon an opportunity to expand their tax base at a time when other sources of community funding are rapidly diminishing. Pi-,"i"TAC <�\F.,\,f)\.C�tIf()ft\Ik�:ii1 FILE � V, C. SD 73E TTI: i:1i.d66-d-4110��J 4151 bbb-9 f:' [A/ FOX&CARSKADCN CONIMERCIAL SERVIC_S.INC. Mr. Gene Sylls April 29, 1991 Page Two The relocation of Lucky to Gateway Centre should not cause a problem for their existing shopping center as Lucky is accepting the responsibility for finding a substitute tenant. As Lucky will control the releasing of their existing site, a tenant who will compliment Gateway Centre, rather than compete, will be targeted. In our estimation, there will be healthy demand for the existing Lucky location from general merchandisers not presently located in San Ramon, and who also will be a credit to the community. A question has been raised regarding Alcosta Mall and whether or not Gateway Centre will compete for the same customer. We believe that question is best answered by the marketplace. Safeway and Lucky have coexisted in San Ramon for years. Both are committed to the area and are attempting to expand. Our understanding is that Safeway is committed to developing a Safeway Marketplace store in Alcosta Mall. This demonstrates two facts: (1) The two locations serve different, albeit overlapping, trade areas bisected by I-680; and, (2) Lucky and Safeway each have their own customer base. Also, there has been stated a concern over whether Gateway Centre could become a future problem center as Alcosta Mall has become. In our opinion, the lack of viability of Alcosta Mall is due to two distinct factors: (1) Design - Alcosta Mall has interior mall shops which have always been difficult to lease; and, (2) Ownership - Alcosta Mall, unlike Gateway Centre, has been subdivided and sold to multiple owners who have separate and distinct interests, which apparently have been in conflict. We feel that for the reasons stated above: (1) well established customer base; (2) expansion of Lucky supermarket; (3) co-anchoring by Walgreen: (11) accessibility; and (5) significant new tax base; as well as manv others, that Gateway Centre provides an opportunity for San Ramon to expand their tax base, while providing their citizenr; A ith a modern, vibrant shopping experience. We urge you to support this DCOi t. If you have any commcnts, or quc5::ons, p!cz,,c (ccl to contact us at (: 15) 866-S'00, Sincerely, F0, C, DON CO`,1�fE r leffr-.'}S. F100N i'luhn R. Ocmn__cr :,kWAy.;h �•- , gyp"' U AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES. INC. Date: April 30, 1991 LUCKY STORES Honorable Carlos Alexander Member of the Plannin= Commission Citv of San Ramon 224-2 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 945S3 RE: Proposed Lucky Store No. 1 Northwest Corner of Alcosta Blvd. & San Ramon Valley Blvd. San Ramon, California Dear Commissioner: Lucky Stores has been considering the above referenced location as a replacement site for its existing Dublin store for over four years. We have been working very closely with and negotiating with Prometheus Development Company to become a tenant in the proposed Gateway Shopping Center for nearly three years. Our belief in the viability of this location for a supermarket is rock solid. Our existing Dublin market at the intersection of Alcosta and San Ramon Valley Blvd. has been a successful market for Lucky Stores for over twenty years. . Unfortunately, the existing configuration and size of the existing store no longer can efficiently serve our customers in San Ramon and Dublin. Although expansion and reconstruction of our existing Dublin market is a possibility, it is not Lucky Stores' first choice. When the Prometheus site became available for a shopping center use, Lucky Stores became immediately interested and viewed this opportunity as our first choice in Lucky Store's continued presence at this location. The site proposed by Prometheus for a.new Lucky-store was approved by our real estate committee last summer. This approval authorized Lucky to negotiate an acceptable lease which could be entered into by Lucky_ Stores, We have be--n working with Prometheus to finalize a lease agreement and anticipate that these discussions will be completed shortly. Prior to gaining approval of the Prometheus location for a new Lucky store from our real estate committee, Lucky performed extensive marketing and demographic studies of the area. T'ne Alcosta Mall redevelopment project, which anticipates a modern supermarket, was a major factor in our analysis. In our market analysis, we have assumed that Lucky %Fill have a major competitor at the Alcosta Mall operating in a new and redesigned shopping center. Our marketing experts remain convinced, however, that a new Lucky Store on the Prometheus site can coexist and prosper harmoniously with a major supermarket competitor at the Alcosta ,M--ll. Since Lucky will be investing nearly Sl0 million in land, buildings, fixtures and equipment, %ve can assure you that the ability for these trade areas to support two stores has been looked at eery Closely. Co coyale ornces TA/C')EAST SOUTH TE'.+PLE/SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 2-:C2 (?T C H 10 E�T PO ECx 27--1/SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84127-C-47 L��11 jt�, !I TELEPHC':E IE01)539 0112(2CO)541.2263/FAX(201)537.7EC9 !' r° A S�LS,O-iry Of Am@,.Cjn SicleS C�mojny FiLt iY . C��rr f- April 30, 1991 Commissioner Carlos Alexander page 2 The relocation of the Lucky Stores to the Prometheus San Ramon location provides a potential opportunity for San Ramon to increase its sales tax revenues. After evaluating sales volumes from our existing store and stores similar to the proposed Lucky/Prometheus store, it is our expectation that a San Ramon site could generate taxable sales in the range of S8 million to S 10 million on an annual basis. This would equate to approximately 580,000 to S100,C00 of additional annual tax revenue to the City of San Ramon based on current tax allocations. Based on the Governor's recent proposals, state sales tax could even be increased by an additional .75%, which could lead to additional tax revenues for the city. The location of Lucky Store No. 1 at the Prometheus site in San Ramon is definitely an opportunity for both the City of San Ramon and Lucky Stores. We look forward to appearing before the City of SWz Ramon to further express our commitment tc the Prometheus project and receiving the approval by the City of San Ramon for our relocation. Very truly yours, r Fredric R. Morck Area Real Estate Manager FRM:gsd APR-29—'S l 16:06 a J:WALGREEd TEL H13:1- c.103-9-40----i070 Frf I; L. - ;� � , ot U a� 1991 'CITY OF SAN RA,',%ON DLANN'NG 2`/IC=S 'Walgreen Co. Corper3!a O((ic-as 200 Wilmot Rcad Ceerfieid, Illinc;s 60015 1 April 29 , 1991 Mr. Herm Welm CITY OF SAN RAMON 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Re: Gateway Centre .Alcosta & San Ramon Valley Blvd. San Ramon, California Dear Mr. Welm, On behalf of Walgreen Co. , I would like to express strong interest in the above referenced location . Walgreen has anxiously looked for an opportunity to serve the San Ramon market for the past 10 years and we feel that this project has the most potential for our type of business . Walgreen feels privileged to occupy a position in a shopping center that serves as the gateway to San Ramon . If you have any questions about the Walgreon operation or our expansion plans , do not hesitate to contact me at 708/940-2697 . Sinc ely, Patrick W. Tupa j - Senior Real Est e Xanager cd 1)P 5i — X02 I^D I �Ll_ r ? - 1991 •� .:l' r' T':' n'- S AN RAP,C,,' PLANN'ItiG SERVICE- � o Ly ❑ a o Ssn &anon 11liance for a Viable Env-ironaent 130 Avocado C;_ San Ramon, CA 945S3 Aprl 12, 1991 PL,,-n= Commissioc City of San R:-ton 221-0 Cazmn o Ramon n San Ramon, Ca. 9583 Subjt_- - Prometheus Proje.^t Dear-Planning Cornmissionel S.AVT_ favors the City's approving the proposed shopping cent,°.-and housing development at the Laborer's Center. Two reasons we have for supporting this proje.=are: 1. Prometheus Development and NLjm Engineering have int-,,..cted with the S.AV.E. board d=uzhout their design process. Their plans and revisions were share;i vzth us as they evolved, and they responded efec7tively to our concerns_In particuLir. a) We expressed r es- r adons about the number of multifamily units includes in the original(19S8)plan on grounds that San Ramon already has the highest ratio of multi- far�fiy to single family wits in tine area. Th family units. eir nexx plan revision eliminated all multi- b) We cuestioned the project's impact on traffic and schools. Eiminarion or the multi-family wits and dovmsizing of the rest oftz:e project rt,-duced this impact. Later, the Calu2=-San Ramon hook ramp rNuirement _iur-zhe�-eased traffic flow impac:(at a cost of some additional project space). - (c) We had questions about the visual appearance of tbz project and about the stopping centrrfresidential inteu ce.In response,Prometheus and Majors inserted a street and soundwall between the commcrcci:l area and the residences, and provided for soundwalis and building setbacks on the resident l pads facing San Ramo' V ?!ev Boulevar,.,.. ' (d) We called a=ntion to the sc--6ry of pis is San Ramon, pa_rac•: arty - the south_n p:..-L, and expresse:d o,=concern that in-lieu park finds would trot likely resLit in tae City's acquiring paw si:� in the valley k,here such sites :.re e»melt'scarce. I.:ter pL1ns unclad:d de-Simat e;i paw its well i2 excess of cry pidelin:s ice tle num't,--r of units 7'0 c0 sec- 2. The second reason for S.AV.E.'s s.-*pport is that this project in its pees.:-nt form is one we believe %,,'ill enhance the south San Ramon image. And we fe,°l it is as desirble an addition to tine city as we can expect would be proposed for this site. ATTACHMENT TO, FELT NOS 33G a , Although we recognize that a fair amount of grading will be required,much of this is necessary because of the existing grade at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and by the West Side Plan mandate for the e:aension of Boulevard A to tie in to the rest of the Nest Side.. We believe the developers have successfully attempted to avoid a scalloped look by utilizing a gradual grade on east-west running sa-eets. Another issue is whether a shopping center built at this could defer or interfere with plans for the Alcosta Mall area. We understand that Lucky's management intends to remain in operation in the area either by expansion of its present site or by moving across the street We expect that buildout of both sites would result in the same two anchor supetmn em Safeway and Lucky's, that were originally at both lec:tions«-iLh both nmr-kets moving to larger, more profitable facilities. We,therefore,recommend acceptance of the Prometheus project as a well-thought out and positive enhancement to our city. Sincerely, i Richard J. Dovas, Cuail-~�. ,, S.A.V.E. cc: City Council w CONFOKNIANCF,NVIT1I THE NVESTSiDF,SPECIFIC M,AN Staff has eztncted politics from the WesLside Specific Plan that have a potential impact on the design of the proposed project. They arc as follows: CONlNll'N'IT)'DFCIGti GLIDING T'01.IC IES: 1. Establish the highest quality in the design of the residential communities in the','.'uuidc,that rcspeeu the rntcgnty of the landscape,rcllccts the unique qualltacs of s,ccial arcs,and contributes in the most positive fashion to the identity of the City of San Ranson as a whole. 3. Encourage creative wlutioru which integrate new development within the landscape of the Wcsuidc. 3. Concentrate development in areas which minimize their visual prominence from adjacent streeu and San Ramon Valley. 4. Create a coherent development pattern,unified by a larger organizational framework of streets and entries,open spaces and parks. 5. Encourage the development of a sequence of open space eascmcntsw•hich provide visual access to upland hillsides and maintain an open and uncrowded feeling within the development areas. 6. Encourage the appearance of it welcoming residential community and avoid the use of gated entries as well as high walls and steep embankments on perimeter boundaries. 7. Encourage development that builds upon the hillside environment and avoids 'flatland' grading approaches to building pads. B. Keep building heights low relative to the street and step them down in relation to the topography. 9. Minimize the apparent bulk of buildings. GRADING: GUIDFIANF,S: 10. Grading to create building sites of less than 20 percent slope provided: Creeks are retained or reconstructed as natural-appearing waterways; Wooded slopes visible from San Ramon Vaticy Boulevard are retained; All graded land forms arc natural appearing; All cleared woodland is replaced at a 1.5 to 1 ratio. 11. Contour grading techniques should be used to provide a variety of both slope percentage and slope direction in a three-.iimensional undulating pattern similar to existing adjacent natural ter rain. The lines established by the toc and top of the graded slope should undulate in this fashion. Contour grading should undulate so that in no case shall a straight flit, cut, or filled slope greater than 30 feet in height or 200 fcex in length be created. Rock outcrops i. 6— i i should be retained to break up flat graded planes. r L L `:� \ Imo` ■ �0_7_ 33_4 D P I — ODZ West-side Specific Plan Conformance- Gateway Development TNI 7336 PAGE 1 12. A 3:1 maximum slope should be observed,except on uphill cuts along roads for daylighting the grade and in steep portions of Norris Canyon Road area, where a maximum 2:1 slope may be permitted,upon design review. 13. Incremental terracing as opposed to large-scale wide step terracing for building pads should be encouraged. 14. Flat, graded areas for both building and yards should not exceed the following percentages: 7,000 s.f. lot: 75 percent graded pad area of total lot(or 5,250 s.f. for both the house and flat yard areas). 10,000 s.f. lot: 65 percent graded pad area of total lot(or 6,500 s.f. for both the house and flat yard areas). 15,000 s.f. lot: 50 percent graded pad area of total lot(or 7,500 s.f. for both the house and flat yard areas). Graded pad percentages should apply only to parcels where the natural slope averages over five percent. In the areas designated for light grading, stepped form buildings would be required with a minimal graded area. Graded pad restrictions may be relaxed if yard areas are terraced in the direction of the slope of the hill and upon design review. 15. The volume of earth moved for cuts and fills should be minimized.and balanced against visibility considerations. The volume and extent of grading will be governed by the Specific Plan. 16. Split pads and stepped form buildings should be used to minimi7z the need for grading. 17. Site drainage should be accommodated with &wales and catch basins rather than V-ditches and bcnchcs. Is. Hillside drainage should,to the maximum cztcnt (usiblc, rruintiin all rutural drainage paucrns and coursrs. Roofwatcr collection and dntragc- dispers.al systems should be provided for all dwelling units that do " dram directly onto a paved surface. 19. Impervious arcs should be minimized to the czlcnt possible. IIUI1.n1NG DFSIG�: 10. S:alc and Intensity: Buildings should be c&rcfully rcvtcwcd to ensure tr.at they arc w'cll•tkalCd to the sttz of U, c lot. 1. Hcight: Building heights should respond to uphill aril downhill cond,twns along the street. An aUnctLvc composition of one and t-+o story buudtngs should be crested and the proper mtz of one and two story buildings be deterrrstne.l upon a review of strec:uca'a elevations and loealirzd topognP hie condition&. As it gcmral guideline,two story buildings should not predominate along a gtvcn strcct (or add up to more than 50 percent of the buildings on a block). llow'cvcr,on downhill Iots, a more stringent guideline Wt-5tside Jptrific I'lan Conformance- tla(rway I)eseloptttent TM 73t6 PAGE; 2 ear munimnurng even further the number of two-story buildings should be consiJcrc.J,whereas on uphill lots, grratcr ftcxibility may be allowed. Form BuilJrngs shnulJ rcflc:t the surrounding lop i,grphicchiracteranJ gcncnlly step with the form of Uic hr;l, with minimum five foot setbacks hetween rxxrrs. Se:onJ boor area should he limited to 70 Nrccnt of the ground floor .J. Architectural Character. Dtvcnity in building design should be encouragcJ with a vanety of building plans and elevations used to avoid the appearance of a morx-onus'tract'. Architectural style should draw upon the simple forms and positive rclatsonship between indoor and outdoor&pacts found in traditsonal ranch and rural buildings. Furthermore,building design should be sympathelsc in color, form and style yvuh the surrounding L"scapc and carthtonc colon cmphasizcad. Garages: Three-tar garages,which should be the maximum allowed for any size lot, require individualized entries, or a five foot stcpback between the second and third garage. STREETS: 25. Major entries should be cmphasizcJ through appropriate treatments,such as landscaped medians or corner plantings,consistent with the San Ramon Strtctscape Beautification Guidelines. 26. Hillside streets should be as narrow as possible and the roadway itself shoulJ slope with the temin. 27. A rural appearanceon hillside streets should be established by minimizing curbs and str=tree planting that is related more closely to the character of adjacent plant communities than to the geometry of streets. Vv3ncrc possible on streets and driveways,paved surfaces should be minimized(e.g., to wheel dimension). Parking lanes should be paved with an all-weather material to make the street appear more narrow. :S. 'Notched' or 'gunsight' road cues should be avoided. LANDSCAPE: 29. Landscaping along streets should be varied and random,with the cxccrxion of San Ramon Valley Boulevard,in order to fit more closely with the natural planting of the hillsidcs. 30. A landscape buffer should be incorporated along the freeway to screen it from the Westside. _ 31. Fire-resistive and droucht tolerant landscape materials should be used, and uniform plantings of bays and eucalyptus prohibited. Special landscape lreatmcnts should be incorporated at major entries. Westside Specific flan Conformance- Gateway Development TM 7336 PAGE 3 33. Planting around homes(outside the building envelope area)will help transition to the larger natural landscape,with the use of drought-tolerant, fire resistant and indigenous landscape materials. 34. Planting on ridges should generally be avoided,with the possible exception of the cross-valley ridge,where planting may help visually transition graded areas. 35. Cut slopes should be hydro-seeded with a mixture of hardy grasses and native wildflowers,and on regraded slopes of 3:1 and less, tree planting should be encouraged to match the pattern and color of the surrounding landscape. In general,more rounded tree forms(emulating the indigenous oaks)should be favored over vertical or columnar forms. WALLS: 36. A maximum three foot wall may be allowed in yard areas to take up the grade. The height of the wall may be cxccrJr-d,if it is part of a foundation wall. 37. The appearance of sound walls shall be minimized wherever possible,and approaches which utilize berms at a maximum 3:1 slope and landscaping with noise mitigations encouraged. Long uninterrupted walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible,and breaks encouraged incorporating gates, openings and accessways for a more welcoming appearance. A common treatment of all walls along San Ramon Valley Boulevard must be used upon design review. 38. Retaining walls along streets and graded arras shall be no more than rive feet in height without a minimum setback of three feet,which will provide a pocket for planning. 39. All walls to be stone faced where visible from streets and public areas. FF.NCF. 4a. A rruximum fcncc height of six fe t should be rruintsincd. 41. Fences along property lines should be transpartnt and open, and their visibility from strecu and other public srcsa mtnimtzcd to the grratcst extent possible. 42. All fences should be sited to blend with lic existing Lsndscal c and . ori: with existing grades. ,3. A common fencing treatment shall be established and approved as `art of t'.c design review process. sr91-093.pct05.07.91) WestsideSpecific flan Conformance- Gateµay Uei OOP MUM I'll 7330 PAGE 4 May 3, 1991 4 RCMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. ' 2600 CCmpus Crive Sui'0 2'T , 1 Fj r' F r St ct6o.C 9 .252: �'Chairm John Nfeakin & r- L- I I tilcmberrs of the Planning Commission City of San Ramon " 1 2222 C rrinoRamon San Ramon Ck 94583 RE: The Gatcway Project (Subdivision 7336), San Ramon Deer Commissioners: Prometheus Development Co., Inc. is pleased to go before the San Ramon Planning Commssion for review of Subdivision 7336, the Gateway Project. The action under consideration is the approval of a Vesting Tentative Nlap and Development Plan for this project. The Gateway Project c,=cndy consists of neighborhood retail / commercial, residential and public park uses. T-nc project has been designed in response to the Westside Specific Plan, as well as in relation to extensive interaction with the City of San Ramon Staff and area residents, We feel that the project fully meets the intent of the Westside Specific Plan- The approximately 85-acre project site is within San Ramon's Westsidc; more s,ecirically, it is located at the northwestern comer of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard. The Gateway Project site is rather unique in talm of the Wcstsidc, in that it is one,of the few properties entirely within the San Ramon city limits and has ready access to existing infra-structure and services. Further, the site abuts established developed areas, as represented by: the I-680 freeway, extensive single family housing to the south, and both neighborhood and freeway- oriented commercial development at the I-680/Alcosta interchange and along San Ramon Valley Boulevard. The project site provides an opppoortunity within the Westside to develop a community which will serve as a major gateway to the C-ey of San Ramon. In particular, the Gateway Project can best be described in terms of the major land uses within the project- These uses, which are consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, are outlined briefly below; • An approximately 111,000 square foot neighborhood retail/commercial center located at the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard. The retail center will consist of a major national supermarket, national-drug store and general merchandiser, and a combinadon of other regional and local retailers-and neighborhood service providers. The retail center will have superior access to the existing transportation nervork, and service residents of the Westside, South San Ramon and northern Dublin. This retail center w•iII provide an opportunity to capture substantial salts tax revenues for both the City of San m Raon and Contra Costa County. 1, • 108 single family detached lots adjacent to San Ramon Valley Boulevard.(and east of Road i "A"), to be a aiinimurn of 7,000 square feet in size, per the Westsidc Specific Plan. Please �! pn; note that although the minimum lot size prescribed for this area in the Westside Specific Plan I hill is 7,000 square feet, the average lot size proposed. in the Gateway Project is approximatelvt,� � 9,600 square feet. Four different floor plans are proposed, with three different traditional elevation styles. • 32 single family detached estate lots located west of Road "A", to be a minimum of 10,G00 square feet in size, per the Westside Specific Plan. The average lot size proposed, however,-� is approximately 17, 100 square feet. • An expansive public park and open space system, consisting of some 25.9 acres of park and` ',J open space, will encircle the residendal community, serve as a buffer between retail and '°° „ � residenial uses, and provide a pleasing transition from Road "A" and developed areas toi` .� �.� Chairman John Meakin • Members of the Planning Commission May 3, 1991 Page 2 larger open space areas to the wesL Approximately 6.4 acres of this would be developed as public parkland. The City of San Ramon's Parkland Dedication Ordinance requires approximately 1.3 acres of public parkland for a"project of this size. The plan for the Gateway Project has taken shape ova a lengthy period of time. Significant input from the City of San Ramon Staff and area residents have resulted in the project plan currently under consideration. Prometheus had initially filed an application to develop 177 single family, detached lots and 111,000 square feet of neighborhood retail center on the site in 1988. In anticipation of the Westside Specific Plan,Prometheus agreed with the City of San Ramon to hold further processing of the project until such specific plan could be initiated and completed. Upon completion of the Westside Specific Plan (which took considerably longer than anticipated), Prometheus filed a modified protect plan in response to criteria outlined in the document. A revised project design was submitted to the City for a 111,000 square foot neighborhood retail center and 172 single family lots. In working with Staff on this revised application, Prometheus agreed to prepare a PSR (Project Study Rcpon) with Caltrans to better understand the ultimate configuration of the City's proposed hook ramp improvements at the I-680/Alcosta interchange. In August 1990, Prometheus filed a modified plan, once again. The residential portion of the project had been reduced to 140 single family detached lots. Prometheus worked with the City of San Ramon Staff during their review of this application to make minor refinements to the plan, which have proven to enhance the project As you can sec, it has been a long and complex process-to develop the Gateway Project Plan currently before you. We feel strongly that the Gateway Project is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. Refinements based on interaction with the City of San Ramon over a three year period have resulted in a well-designed and attractive project suitable to serve as a gateway to the City of San Ramon. We strongly urge you to approve the Gateway Project. Thank you. Sincerely, PRONEETHEUS DEVELOPI CENT CO., NC. i Todd A. Rcgonird _ Assist:rat Project `tanager TAR J]m • •�: , Y '� •°i/ • ski e f •� ,.s to / ............ -� • W \ •A 40 Pro*ect Site # <� • • • • • S o Planning Services City of San Ramon Vicinity Map to Accompany DP91-002 (Gateway) TU San Ramon Valley Boulevard & Alcosta Boulevard A. P. #209-120-012, 013