The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 5.1 San Ramon Road Specific Plan (2) I ' CITY OF DUBLIN 0 AGENDA- STATEMENT MEETING DATE: July 25 , 1983 SUBJECT San Ramon Road Specific Plan EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 ) Memo from TJKM 2 ) Memo from City Attorney 3) Parcel Ownership List 4) Map indicating parcels 5 ) Planning Commission Minutes 6 ) Draft San Ramon Road Specific Plan 7 ) Draft Resolution Re Negative Declaration 8 ) Negative Declaration 9) Draft Resolution Re San Ramon Road Specific Plan 10) Draft Interim Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Hear Staff & Consultant Presentation 2 ) Open Public Hearing 3) Question Staff and Others 4) Close Public Hearing 5) Adopt Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration 6) Adopt Resolution Adopting San Ramon Road Specific Plan Alternative to 5 & 6 , Introduce Interim Zoning Ord- inance , Waive Reading, and Adopt Ordinance on an Urgency Basis FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION Background On April 25 , 1983 , the City Council reviewed the San Ramon Road Traffic Study. The Study identified various issues including the access situation. The Study recommended that , instead of a frontage road , consideration should be given to consolidating existing driveways , construction of an acceleration/deceleration southbound lane , and extending Amador Valley Boulevard. The City Council determined that a Specific Plan should be prepared for all parcels adjacent to and west of San Ramon Road, between Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive . The objectives of the Specific Plan are : to alleviate the special access problems by designing future road locations and access requirements to accomplish larger scale integrated development by encouraging and requiring the combination of smaller lots to bring about coordinated development among multiple property owners The Staff and a Planning consultant , Mr. Eddie Peabody, along with Mr. Anthony Hurt , Economist , have prepared the Draft San Ramon Road Specific Plan. The key issues identified in the Specific Plan are land use and circulation. Land-Use The land uses considered in the Specific Plan are multi-family residential , professional offices , and retail commercial . The potential exists for any of the three land uses to be viable in the Specific Plan. The land use pattern recommended in the draft Specific Plan is only one of several potentially viable alternatives . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: San Ramon Road Property Owners Chamber of Commerce ITEM N0. - - - - �'/ - � - MEMORANDUM DATE: July 19, 1983 TO: Larry Tong FROM: Chris Kinzel SUBJECT: Amador Valley Boulevard Extension I have reviewed the conceptual plan to extend Amador Valley Boulevard (AVB) westerly of San Ramon Road as proposed in the specific plan for the area . As you know, I am very supportive of the concept of extending AVB westerly to improve traffic circulation and reduce further congestion in this area of Dublin . The following comments apply to specific issues : 1. Public vs. private roadway: The advantages of a public roadway are more control and enforcement by the City and an assurance of high standards of design , operations and maintenance in the future. The advantages of a private roadway are reduced maintenance and operation costs to the City, more accessibility to the private properties and lower design standards (reduced initial costs) due to the absence of a ' need for a cul-de-sac turnaround . In balance , it appears that a public roadway is somewhat more favorable although with specific procedures established for maintenance and enforcement , the private roadway could also be acceptable. 2. Road Width : A 26 foot wide roadway is acceptable . Near the San Ramon Road - AVB intersection , 3 eastbound and 2 westbound lanes are required. These lanes should have a length of from 80 to 100 feet prior to transitioning into a 26 foot section. The new roadway lanes should be aligned with existing lanes on the east side of the signalized intersection . 3. Alignment : The new roadway should have a design speed of approximately 25 mph . This would necessitate approximately 250 feet radius curves on the main roadway. 4. Access to extension: From a safety and congestion standpoint, the most sensitive access locations are those near the AVB - San Ramon Road intersection. The first access points should be located no closer than 100 feet from the future westerly curb lane of San Ramon Road near the intersection. There should be a single access point to each side of the street , not a double entrance to 2 parking areas on the north side as shown as 'the "Preliminary Lite Plan" for the Nichandros property dated 7-1-83. Nearly exact alignment of the access points on each side of the AVB extension would be required. Larry Tong -2- July 19, 1983 Two principal points of access to adjoining private property from the extension should be sufficient . However , a third location could be considered if it resulted in an improvement to overall safety and circulation . It should be pointed out that due to the relative location of the extension and the existing Nichandros building, there is somewhat of a built-in conflict between principles of good traffic safety design and the principle of providing the most direct access for retailing purposes. I will plan to attend the City Council meeting of July 25 to respond to any addition concerns . THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin.CA 94566 MEMORANDUM (415) 829-3543 July 18 , 1983 TO : COUNCILMEMBERS AND CITY STAFF FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE : Legal Aspects of the Extension. of Amador Valley Boulevard as a. Private Street Staff has requested .me to comment on the merits , if any, of extending Amador Valley Boulevard as a private street into a portion of the San Ramon Road -Specific Plan Area. For the reasons stated below, I am of the opinion that any extension of Amador Valley Boulevard should be as a public road. I have, therefore , included a discussion of acquisition by eminent domain and financing the acquisi- tion by special assessment proceedings . A. Street Size . Streets and Highways Code §1805 provides that the width of all city streets shall be at least 40 feet, while private streets shall be at least 20 feet in width. Street size should not be a problem in the event the City determines that the extension should be a private street. This is because the City can require the owners to dedicate, upon development, sufficient property for a normal city street width. B . Construction Delay.. Given the fact that the proposed extension of Amador Valley Boulevard would cross at least three different ownerships in the Specific Plan Area, a considerable delay in road construction could ensue if the City .decides to acquire the roadway by dedication of the necessary right-of-way. Obviously, .the various landowners might not develop as rapidly as the City might desire . The City can facilitate construc- tion, however, -by- acquiring by eminent domain that land which it might not obtain by dedication. C. Liability. Streets and Highways Code §1806 provides that no public or private street shall become. a city street until the City Council has , by resolution, accepted the street into To : Councilmembers and City Staff Re : Extension of Amador Valley Boulevard July 18 , 1983 Page Two the city street system, and the city shall not be held liable for failure to maintain any road unless and until the city has accepted the road. This statute has been held to immunize a city from a personal injury claim notwithstanding the public has used the road for 20 years . Benitez v. San Francisco.. (1978) 77 CAM 918 . However, a city is not immune from liability if it creates a dangerous condition on a private road. Nelsen v. Gridley (1980) 113 CAM 87 (city chain across private road) . In view of the fact that the City would, in all liklihood, be named in any lawsuit arising from an accident on. a private street, avoidance of liability is not a sufficient reason to espouse a private street. D. Maintenance . In order to use a private road, a user must have the permission of the underlying fee owner. . Typically, this is done by a grant of easement. In the case of the extension of Amador Valley Boulevard, there would. be several cross-easements inasmuch as there would be several landowners . The easement would enable each easement owner and his business invitees and guests to travel over the land of the other. The owner of the easement normally is responsible for main- taining the roadway. The existence of several easements raises the potential for disputes by the landowners about excessive use and responsibility for road maintenance . The possibility exists for closure of portions of a private street if liti- gation arises between the fee owners . Although this possi- bility is- slight, Dublin could not afford such a threat to public safety. E . Acquisition By Eminent Domain. Due to the fact that the proposed extension will cross at least three separate ownerships , construction of a private road would be most difficult. First, all property owners would have to agree that they needed a street. Assuming such an agreement, the owners would have to agree on the timing of construction, the. physical configuration of the street, and an apportionment of maintenance costs . The most common legal action to avoid these problems .is a condemnation lawsuit. All affected property owners would be named, and, upon deposit of the probable just compensation in court, the City could take possession of ' the land, and construct the improvements prior to trial . To : Councilmembers and City Staff Re : Extension of Amador Valley Boulevard July 18 , 1983 Page Three The City would have complete control over the exact location of the extension, and the street would be built to City standards . The costs of the condemnation action, including appraisal , acquisition and legal costs , could, if the Council chooses , be assessed against the property that is benefitted by the improvement (extension of Amador Valley Boulevard) . - F. Financing of Street Extension. The extension of Amador Valley Boulevard, and/or any other desired road improvements in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area, is a prime subject for special . assessment financing. In general , estimates of the acquisi- tion, constructions , engineering and legal costs are prepared by the City Engineer or consulting engineers . The estimated costs are then "spread" over the properties that will receive the special benefits from the improvements . To the extent the assessments are not pre-paid, the City raises the necessary funds by issuance of improvement bonds which are secured by a lien against the benefitted properties . The bonds are retired from the semi-annual assessment installments . MRN/jm San Ramon Road Specific Plan : Parcel Ownership List Assessor Parcel Number Property Owner per Latest Equalized Assessment Rolls/ Other Interested Party 941-40-1-2 Moret, Roy & Ula 941-40-2-3 Nichandros, John & Leona 941-40-2-7 Nichandros, John & Leona 941-40-2 710 Commercial Property Ltd./ Kim Van Wert 941-40-2-14 Valley Christian Center 941-40-2-15 Calmet, Inc./ Morgan Howell 941-40-3 Bardt, Marguerite/ John Nichandros 941-40-5-1 East Bay Iceland 941-40-5-2 Calmet, Inc . 941-40-6-4 Scarteen Corp 941-40-6-6 Union Oil 941-40-6-10 The Springs 941-40-7 Jeha, Richard & Selwa 941-40-8 Calmet, Inc. 941-101-4-7 Union City Investment Co. #7/ Barratt San Jose 941-101-4-12 Union City Investment Co. 11t7/ Barratt San Jose SU601vISI� PLOT A OF THE DOUGH-"" Fht.2 6(1u7/621 AIWENOED �j' �_� o zoo' r� .• .. - 't' , - � - 172. Moil - FIM , MAP 1t4[216&�fN ,7. •,; _t t� .%� viz►�`�' j _ 1 101 �L. �B ��,'°y" - V .74 5 A �f •�� 1_4Z.5 173 - - _.�,i _ .•.. � o I.o3:.c= O � -°8°8 �.5,'.:LC.°.• Y•=LLcY - . _ f� ..•eo-moo e _ ��_ �.a_r- L 4.08 Ac.= _-`• v!: - - _� � � - - - 9•x.9 _ LA• •`` - ' z vi '. 113 4 . �_..•,,:. ,�, 1 + _ -_ - IV Its GC �• '' ... •• .. 0/ - �s�� _ 500 •/. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of June 6 , 1983 , were approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS REVIEW OF 1486th ZONING UNIT (KREMCO, INC. ) GENERAL PROVISIONS Mr. Tong introduced the Resolution of the Alameda County Board of - Supervisors approving the 1486th Zoning Unit. He explained that a condition of approval requires the Planning Director review the General Provisions of this project prior to July 1, 1983 , however, the applicant is currently in the process of .providing additional information, and Mr. Tong recommended that the Commission continue this matter until their July 18, 1983 meeting. Cm. Vonheeder made the motion, with Cm. Mack 's second, to continue this matter until the July 18, 1983, meeting. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of those Commissioners present. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was opened regarding the Draft San Ramon Road Specific Plan. A copy of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan was provided to each Commissioner . Mr . Tong explained the background and justification for the San Ramon Road Specific .Plan, and then introduced Mr . Eddie Peabody, who prepared the Specific Plan, and Mr_ Tony Hurt, Economic Consultant, who assisted in the preparation of the Plan. Mr . Peabody presented a review of the Specific Plan document and invited questions from the Planning Commission and the audience . He explained the documents studied in formulating the Plan, existing land uses, positive incentives, possible uses, and demand for new uses . He also addressed traffic circulation and pedestrian access, and general development standards which might be appropriate for the area. Mr. Hurt explained his approach and qualification, noting that 70%+ of Dublin ' s retail sales are to, those shoppers outside of the City. He ranked different kinds of land uses in their immediate, recognizable priority. Mr . Richard Jeha, property owner in the Specific Plan area, distributed site plans and explained how his project, in conjunction with Mr. John Nichandros ' property, fit in with the Plan. Mr. Jeha voiced objection to the proposed Amador Valley Blvd. extension. He stated that the road extension would separate his . and Mr. Nichandro ' s properties, which they want to develop jointly. Mr. Len Magnani spoke in behalf of the Jeha/Nichandros project and encouraged retail/commercial uses within the Specific Plan area. Mr. John Nichandros also was present to encourage adoption of the joint venture, with consideration of joint access easements instead of the Amador Valley Blvd. extension. x It was determined that Mr. Tong would meet, as soon as possible, with Mr. Jeha and Mr . Nichandros, and Mr. Howell, in order to discuss the concept of the private easements as another alternative for providing access to Areas "2" and "3" . Mr. Fred Howell and Mr . Morgan Howell encouraged consideration of their multi-family apartment plans projected for "Area 2" and stated that the proposed density was approximately 21 units per acre . Elizabeth Schmidt spoke in favor of additional rental housing in the City of Dublin. Dr. Ward Tanneberg offered comments regarding a proposal for a mortuary on the Valley Christian Church property. Mr . Joe Head, Project Manager for the Barratt San Jose Mini- Condominium project, was present and spoke briefly in favor of the proposed Barratt condominium project to be located in Area 5, and noted that Barratt was willing to accommodate suggestions regarding that development located at the corner of Silvergate Way and San Ramon Road. Mr .Barry Fell interjected that he, and the group of homeowners he represented, are against high density, multi-family, residential housing within the San Ramon Road Study area, and noted that the residents of Dublin should be the determining decision-makers in the matters relating to development of available open- land within the City. During the presentation, and discussion following, there appeared to be a growing concensus of opinion that a "natural boundary" between multi-family residential and commercially oriented property appeared along the Martin Canyon Creek (Area 4 ) . The Commissioners agreed that areas west of San Ramon Road and north of the Creek (including Area 5) appeared residentially oriented, while the areas to the south of the Creek (especially Area 3 ) , on the west side of the street, appeared to have a more commercial nature . Mr. Rodger Coupe, Consulting Engineer for Creegan & D'Angelo, cautioned the Commissioners regarding the practicality of densities proposed. Other Dublin citizens and property owners present, and offering comments were : Roy Moret Mr. Fisk Mr . Bob Skrack Mr. Paul Lopez A short break was called for, after which, all Commissioners (with the exception of Cm. Woy) were present. A motion was made by Cm. Alexander, and seconded by Cm. Vonheeder to close the public hearing. The motion was passed unanimously by those Commissioners present . Cm. Vonheeder offered the motion, with Cm. Mack' s second, to change the density in Area 2 from 13-18 units per acre, to 13-21 units per acre . The motion was carried by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present. Cm. Vonheeder made the motion that the remainder of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan be approved, with the exception of: 1) the change in density of Area 2 , 2 ) pending negotiations regarding the extension of Amador Valley Blvd. , with regard to the Jeha/Nichandros project; and, 3 ) with the deletion of "professional business and office" designation from Area 5 . The motion was carried by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present . and, 2 ) Add a condition : "The use of the road by the property owner to the north of the subject property shall be restricted. " The motion was seconded by Cm. Alexander and passed unanimously. At this time a short break was called, after which all Commissioners were present. PUBLIC HEARING PA 83-022 HERITAGE PARK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Staff introduced the Application for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the sign program for Heritage Park Corporate Center, southwest corner of Dublin Blvd. , and San Ramon Rd. Mr . Kirk Duthie, representing Triton Financial Corp. , the developer of the project, presented a short history of the project along with a pictorial display of the office complex, and existing and proposed signs . After a discussion, comparing the proposed signage and that recommended by Staff, Cm. Vonheeder motioned, with Cm. Alexander ' s second, to alter Condition #4 to read: "The wall sign is approved as to its height and placement. " The motion was passed by unanimous vote of the Commissioners . On a second motion by Cm. Vonheeder, with Cm. . Mack ' s second, the Commission voted. unanimously to Approve the Conditional Use Permit with the change in the wording of Condition 4 , and subject to Staff ' s recommended Conditions . DRAFT SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN Mr . Tong re-introduced the item, which was continued from the June 20, 1983 , meeting. Mr . John Nichandros, Mr . Morgan Howell, and Mr. Fred Howell were present to discuss the proposed joint project with respect to their property . As a result of a meeting with Mr. Tong on June 29 , 1983 , a conceptual drawing of a proposed project, to extend Amador Valley Blvd. as a private street, was developed and was presented to the Commission. 'L �IINU7 ES After a brief discussion comparing the desirability and requirements of a City street to that of a private street, Cm. Vonheeder made a motion, with Cm. Alexander ' s second, to add to the Resolution Recommending Adoption of the San .Ramon Specific Plan a second alternative: that access be a private easement, as conceptually drawn and agreed upon at the June 29 , 1983 , meeting, with ingress/egress alteration. Mr . Bill Kartozian, owner of Area 3 , was present in__the audience, and stated that he basically agreed with the conceptual proposal, however, he wanted assurance that the development plan which he has proposed would be approved, before any dedication of his land takes place to implement the joint project discussed earlier. Mr. Tong stated that it was not appropriate to discuss site specific development proposals in a Specific Plan. The issue being discussed was the conceptual access alignment . After the Specific Plan is acted upon, Staff would work closely with applicants to develop their site specific project in coordination with the Specific Plan policies . After closing the public hearing, Cm. Alexander made the motion, with Cm. Vonheeder ' s second, to adopt the Resolution Adopting the Negative Declaration concerning the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. Cm. Vonheeder moved that the Resolution, recommending to the City Council, adoption of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, would include the second alternative for access, which would be a private easement concept ; and that the access, whether public or private would be that one which was conceptually drawn and agreed upon at the June 29 , 1983 , meeting between the property owners and Mr. Tong, with ingress/egress alteration. The motion was seconded by Cm. Alexander. The motion was carried by unanimous vote of the Commissioners . OTHER BUSINESS Mr . Tong reminded the Commissioners of the Citizens Workshop . regarding the General Plan which would be held on July 12, 1983 , at the Shannon Community Center. He asked the Commissioners to discuss the proposed format . Cm. Vonheeder queried who was handling zoning investigation for the City at this time . Mr. Tong responded that, although the County is currently responsible for zoning inspection, Mr . Vic Taugher would join the City staff, on August 1, 1983 , on a contract basis , as Building Inspector . Cm. Vonheeder also asked about the status of the illegal Bagel King sign . Mr . Tong stated that the owner has been notified and requested to remove the signs . Circulation The circulation elements considered in the Specific Plan are : - extension of Amador Valley Boulevard - location of access points - improvements to major streets - improvements to the pedestrian/bicycle system Property-Owner ' s Plans Staff sent notices regarding the Specific Plan to each property owner within the Specific Plan Area and has tried to contact each of them. The chart below indicates the varying responses : AREA PROPERTY -OWNERS - COMMENTS 1 (Dublin Boulevard/ Union Oil No response San Ramon Road) Scarteen Corp. No response The Springs No response 2 (Western Edge ) Calmet/ (Mr. Howell ) Firm plans for multi-family residential ; considered office but found unfeasible 3 (San Ramon Road/ Iceland No response Amador Valley Blvd) Mr . Jeha Firm plans for retail commercial Ms . Bardt No response Mr . Nichandros Firm plans for hardware store Commercial Properties Firm plans for paint and Ltd. / (Mr. Van Wert ) wallpaper store Valley Christian Firm plans for mortuary; no Ctr (Dr . Tanneberg) other plans Mr. Moret No firm plans ; preliminary plans for offices 4 (Martin Canyon Creek) Various Recognized open space use 5 (Silvergate Drive/ Barratt San Jose Firm plans for multi-family San Ramon Road) (Mr. Meeks , Mr. Head) residential ; willing to examine lower density or professional offices Planning -Commission Hearings On June 20 , 1983 , the Planning Commision held a public hearing regarding the Draft San Ramon Road Specific Plan. The Planning Commission heard testimony from property owners , residents , and the general public . The Planning Commission directed Staff to meet with the affected property owners and discuss the concept of access by private easements in addition to the alternative of extending Amador Valley Boulevard as a public roadway. Staff met with various property owners on June 29 , 1983 to discuss the private easement concept . At that meeting, the property owners reached a verbal agreement regarding the conceptual access alignment . The alignment would basically provide the following: 1 . A full intersection alignment with Amador Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. Page 2 2 . The roadway would narrow to a 26 ft . width and bend to the south, providing two access lanes to Area 2 . 3. Two sets of internal street connections to Area 3 would be provided. The details of the alignment would be subject to City specification. Many of the details will depend upon the San Ramon Road Plan Line ( street alignment ) and site specific development proposals to be made by the property owners . The necessary joint access easements and other legal matters , such as maintenance and enforcement would need to be reviewed by the City Attorney. On July 5, 1983 , the Planning Commission held another public hearing on the Draft San Ramon Road Specific Plan. The Planning Commission heard testimony regarding the conceptual access alignment from the affected property owners . The property owners concurred with the conceptual access alignment as either a public roadway or private easement . Planning-Commission-Reeemmendation _ The Planning Commission recommends that the San Ramon Road Specific Plan be approved with the following revisions : 1 . Change the multi-family residential density in Area 2 from the proposed "13-18 dwelling units per acre" to "13-21 dwelling units per acre" . 2 . Change the land use designation in Area 5 from the proposed "multi- family residential (13-18 dwelling units/acre) or office use" to "multi-family residential (13-18 dwelling units/acre ) " . 3 . Change the extension of Amador Valley Boulevard in the circulation ele- ment from "public roadway" to "conceptual access alignment as public roadway or private easement" . The basis for the Planning Commission' s recommendations are.: 1 . Consideration of an applicant ' s multi-family apartment plans for Area 2 at approximately 21 dwelling units per acre . 2 . Consideration of a property owner ' s request for joint access easements instead of a public roadway. 3 . Determination that along San Ramon Road, Martin Canyon Creek acts as a natural boundary between the residentialy oriented area to the north and the commercially oriented area to the south. Alternative- City-Council-Actions A. Ado- t -San-Ramon-Road-Speci€ic-Plan-as -dra€ted. The multi-family residential density in Area 2 was proposed at 3-18 dwelling units per acre as a reasonable transition from the retail commercial area to the existing single family area. In Area 5 , either multi-family residential or office use were proposed because either one is potentially viable and appropriate . For the conceptual access alignment , a public roadway would be more desirable to the City from a maintenance and enforcement standpoint than a private easement concept . If the Council decides to adopt the Specific Plan as drafted , it should first adopt the Negative Declaration. B. Adopt -San-Ramon-Road- Specific - Plan-with-Planning-Commission-recommended revisions . The Planning Commission recommended revisions would allow consideration of the apartment project in Area 2 at the proposed density of 21 dwelling units per acre . The revisions would limit the land use of Area 5 to multi-family residential . The revisions would allow consideration of either a public roadway or private easement method of providing access . Page 3 If the Council decides to adopt the Specific Plan with Planning Commission recommended revisions , it should first adopt the Negative Declaration. C. Ado t - interim- zoning-ordinance-and-continue-discussion-of-San-Ramon Read- S eci ic-Pl-an. It the Council decides to not adopt the San Ramon Road Speci is Plan, it should adopt the interim zoning ordinance to prohibit uses in conflict with the contemplated Specific Plan. The initial interim ordinance was effective from May 9 , 1983 until June 23, 1983 . The ordinance was extended until August 7 , 1983. One additional extension may be adopted for up to one year . STAFF-RECOMMENDATION Based on the information considered in the preparation and hearings on the draft Specific Plan, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Specific Plan as drafted with the exception that the Specific Plan include the Planning Commission' s recommended revision regarding Area S (Barratt property) . The revision would eliminate "offices" as a permitted land use , and designate only "multi-family residential" for the area . If the Council decides to revise the draft to allow either a public roadway or private easement form of access , Staff would recommend that the private easement form of access be subject to all necessary legal assurances , including but not limited to maintenance , enforcement , joint access , and lighting. Page 4 SAN RAON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN ... .CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA JUNE 1983 SANTINA THOMPSON INC. 1040 OAK GROVE ROAD, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94518 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .. Existing Conditions and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Economic Demand for New Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Circulation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 General Development Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g Specific Development Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Administration and Review Process . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'16 SAN RAMON ROAD - SPECIFIC PLAN OBJECTIVES The preparation of this Specific Plan is in conformance with Section 65450 of the State Planning and Conservation Law. At present, the City of Dublin does not have an adopted General Plan, but this Specific Plan implements the General Plan Ele- ments (Land Use, etc.) presently considered appropriate by the Dublin City Council. This Specific Plan provides guidelines regarding land use, development regulations, and a circulation system for a 40+ acre area north of Dublin Blvd., west of San Ramon Road, and south of Silvergate Drive. This Specific Plan has been prepared in response to the need for specific develop- ment guidelines in an area presently in small ownership with definite access and internal circulation problems. This Specific Plan recognizes that complete development may take up to 5 years. A precise determination of uses, sizes of retail or office uses, or types of appropriate housing design are unpredictable for that length of time. In place of a defini- tive plan for each of the 15 parcels, development will be guided by this Specific Plan and the principles, criteria and standards presented herein to assure that future development conforms to the mandates of the Dublin City Council as defined in their meeting of May 16, 1983. The Council wants: • To alleviate the special access problems by designing future road locations and access requirements . • To accomplish larger scale, integrated development by encouraging and requiring the combination of smaller lots . • To bring about coordinated development among multiple property owners. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LAND USE At present, the area contains some 15 parcels which are presently utilized as noted in Figure 1 (Land Use and Zoning Map) . The area is presently zoned for commercial and multi- family residential uses (C-1, C-N, R-S-D-20 or R-S-D-35) . For the most part, the Specific Plan Area is divided into small lots which have access on San Ramon Road. The largest vacant single parcel is 4.8 acres in size and is located at the center edge of the Specific Plan Area. Developed uses in this Specific Plan Area consist of an apartment complex, gas station, a skating rink (Iceland), a hardware store, various miscellaneous commer- cial enterprises, a church, and older single family house. Several development proposals are currently under review for parcels within the Specific Plan Area. They include a 112 unit multifamily project on the northern most parcel adjacent to SAN RAMON ROADJ�� SPECIFIC PLAN FIGURE 1 �e LAND USE AND ZONING ; o MAY 1983 a SCALE 1 200' " Mv It p 100 200 300 NORTH � �; � � � �� LAND USE ZONING SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY ME p s m u a tl S i v ro 6a 197, ' �c �. aI� VACANT tA VACANT . ,. .. . e . APARTMENTS VACA ..� yaaa ,,� .: n � g�.. �'. c•.'S', ,. � ..;� is� `�. tY� .;,, ;,..:. ... �, :em � °` � �.�aa��- �y E s� a i ff i Al �. . F , fl1 4 w -9,, - .- :z e a mss:. yy?? n.°. h�'k ....f .�.._ :,� ■ O USE VACANT j d i r.s ��. a s A 'All iJ,ate. IR V wN -8�.�.. .. a -tea.. � e. .. d 5 � .. f <,.. ...... �� .. m x.. _.. . . . b s s ITY OF DU BIN:, .� � a - �. �. PLANNING DEPT . �. «_ _3 n. _. �.. �. HARDWARE . r AN TIN k, f- 7 AS STATION g s � n s. . HOMPSO I C . . r r R gat Road. California Ia40 Oak Grove sd Concord � a e .... ra \•l'+ -.: - i, yy rt .`x .s.e. y '♦ r e Silvergate Drive and a 288 unit condominium project at the western edge of the study area. Present access from parcels within the Specific Plan Area is via direct driveway access to Dublin Blvd. and San Ramon Road, and access to San Ramon Road via a signal at Amador Valley Blvd. ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR NEW USES Introduction Three types of land uses were considered for the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area: retail commercial, office and multi- family residential. The objective of the following analysis is to evaluate the economic viability of the three uses in terms of market demand given area growth patterns expected during the next five years. Retail The City of Dublin is the primary retail trade center for a regional area encompassing eastern Alameda County and southern Contra Costa County. In 1982, Dublin' s retail stores recorded taxable sales of about $174 million. Residents of the surroun- ding region accounted for about 70 percent of these sales and Dublin residents accounted for about 30 percent. The high pro- portion of sales to residents of the surrounding region can be explained by the fact that Dublin's retail area offers a selec- tion of shopper goods such a clothing, household furnishings and household appliances not available in the surrounding communities. Most retail centers in surrounding communities offer predominantly convenience goods such as food, liquor, drugs and other consumables. Dublin' s retail sales can be expected to increase rapidly during the next five years. The population of the surrounding region is expected to increase from a current total of about 150,000 persons to about 180,000 persons from 1983 to 1988. This will generate a proportional increase in the regional demand for shopper goods. Dublin's shopper goods stores and Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center will share most of this increase as the number of shopper goods stores in surrounding communities is not expected to increase significantly. Dublin' s population is expected to increase about 5, 800 persons during the next five years as about 2,000 housing units are planned for construction in the City. About half of the new housing units will be built in the area of Dublin west of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area. Based on expected household incomes, the retail purchasing potential of the west area of Dublin will increase a total of about $19.6 million when the new housing is completed and occupied. Retail development in the Specific Plan Area would be in a good locational position (fronting on San Ramon Road) to capture 2 some of the retail spending of new residents to the west. Further, a retail center offering shopper goods would be in a good position to intercept some of the "shopper goods" traffic destined for Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center from the commu- nities north of Dublin. Given the retail sales potentials discussed above, the market could support both a 5 to 6 acre convenience goods center and a 5 to 6 acre shopper goods center in the Specific Plan Area within the next five years. Market support for a shopper goods center already exists and such a center could be developed in the near future. It is doubtful that market support for a convenience goods center will be sufficient until the new residential areas to the west are completed. Development of such a center prior to that time would likely have a negative effect on nearby existing convenience centers as the market would not be sufficient to support them all. Office Employment in the east area of Alameda County (Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore) is expected to increase an average of 2,000 jobs annually during the next five years. About 40 percent of the expected job growth (800 jobs) is expected to be in office-oriented types as the Dublin-Pleasanton area is very attractive as a regional location for firms serving the central and southern Bay Area. This translates to demand for about 200,000 square feet of additional office space annually based on a ratio of 250 square feet of gross building area per employee. The Specific Plan Area is an extremely attractive office location as it offers direct acces to the I-580 and I-680 Freeways for firms with regional orientation. It is also a good location for local firms due to freeway access, and it is conve- nient to most points in the local community via San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd. The disadvantage of the Specific Plan Area is that it is probably not attractive to "showcase" firms who desire freeway visibility and/or a "high tech" business park en- vironment such as the Bishop Ranch in San Ramon or, in the future; Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Many local and regional firms do not need freeway visibility and the higher rents associated with a new, "high tech" business park. An office development in the Specific Plan Area would be very attractive to such firms. The office space market in the Dublin-Pleasanton area is currently soft, with vacancy levels of 10 to 15 percent in some buildings. The market can, however, be expected to strengthen considerably during the next 12 to 24 months and, given the locational advantages discussed above, a moderate-rent office development could be expected to attract 10 to 15 percent of the projected demand for office space. As such, office space tota- 3 ling 80,000 to 120,000 square feet could be economically viable in the Specific Plan Area during the next five years. / Multifamily Employment growth expected to occur in east Alameda County during the next five years will generate demand for new housing averaging 1, 200 to 1, 400 units annually during the next five years. This will be supplemented by "commuter" demand from the central Bay Area which could range as high as 1, 000 units annually. Given the amount of new housing planned in Dublin and residential growth limitations in Pleasanton and Livermore, it is doubtful that the supply will be sufficient to satisfy the demand. As such, rapid market absorption can be expected for developments in a wide range of prices and densities. The Specific Plan Area is locationally well-suited to new housing development as it offers excellent access to both local and central Bay Area jobs and is close to a wide array of con- sumer goods and services. Multifamily housing would be particu- larly appropriate in the Specific Plan Area as it could be designed to reach moderate rent/price levels where demand will be the strongest. Such price/rent levels could likely be ac- hieved at densities ranging from 13 to 18 units per acre. The advantages of such multifamily residential development in the Specific Plan Area would be that (1) it would provide new housing in a price/rent range which is not likely to be avail- able elsewhere in the west area of Dublin and (2) it would increase the household income spent in nearby retail stores. Summary There is approximately 30 acres of vacant or partially developed land in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area. Based on the foregoing analysis, a combination of retail commercial, office and multifamily uses would be the most appropriate alter- native in terms of expected market support and community growth expectations. The Specific Plan could absorb up to 10 - 12 acres of retail commercial use, 4 to 8 acres of office use (80,000 - 120,000 square feet), and the balance for multifamily residential use with the expectation that there will be suffi- cient market support within the next five years. It is essential that retail commercial uses front onto San Ramon Road and it would be desirable, although not absolutely essential, that office uses front on, or be visible from San Ramon Road. The following list of potential uses is arranged in chronological order according to expected relative strength of market support: 1. Multifamily Residential 2. Shopper Goods Retail Commercial 3 . Office Space 4. Convenience Goods Retail Commercial 4 SAN CPLAN FIGURE 3 �, ,,r 4 70AO) k - LAND USE PLAN MAY 1983 SCALE 1" : 200' lot z 300 xa AREA 1 AREAS 0 100 zoo ut _ NORTH PERMITTED LAND USES OFFICE la 'A"wNil"Q111.14 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY - ° 1 m " SEE TEXT FOR EXACT DESCRIPTIONS a 3:. k y�. �J 1 .. . ...," .. A �` " . , I �f, � "; ;�� r m R: z ve,i:t a,. .is er` . . x, ry E ro "A'� ." , e".` it .w �,.»� .,� �.� �' .�. i I i y I I t i I � 1 iJl 1 ' I- 1 i g i I.. AREA 2 ;� �. x �a � ...,. �� a u AREA a� i a � P v a. . , , t . ., OPEN � :� s5: :- y N , i dc:, °' p`"e"�, � .s ," ,.,: ",j �� dpi a " . 1 SPACE USES - �,. �:..,..:- m !,. S. �_ AREA 3 �K, � t � �� " - .. I.® e �x P " ._ .,. �.., lip w t. -,, a ; , " 3 CITY OF DUBLIN PLA NNI G N DE - gp } _ m,__... ""` AREA 4 LK a� SAN TINS. COMMERCIAL AS BUILT ., ° T1�OMPSC�N... INC. 9 g , s ,a �. ' Ib40 Oa Grove Ro ad Concrd California_ LAND USE PLAN This Specific Plan has been divided into five geographic areas (Figure 3 ) . Certain uses are permitted in each of the areas, subject to the provisions of the development guidelines presented herein. The following descriptions identify the uses permitted, any conditional uses and those specifically prohibited. Area 'l - (Dublin Blvd. ) The policy governing land use within this area is to retain the already built apartment complex and commercial use at the corner of Dublin Blvd. and San Ramon Road. No change is . anticipated in the future. _ Permitted Uses • Multifamily residential and commercial uses as pre- sently built. Conditional -Use • Any change from one established use to another per- . mitted use . Prohibited Uses • All others . Area-2 - (Properties on Western Edge of the Specific Plan) This area is well suited for either multifamily townhouse, condominiums or rental residential uses or professional offices. Given access to Amador Valley Blvd. (extended) and Donlon Way, these properties can be developed in a fashion that will serve as a transition from the single family re- sidential areas to the west and more intensive retail commercial uses along San Ramon Blvd. No retail commercial uses are proposed for this area. Permitted Uses • Multifamily residential uses such a rental housing, and/or condominium uses with a density of 13 - 18 units per gross acre. The precise density shall be determined by the number of bedrooms per unit pro- posed and other site planning considerations. • Professional, business and institutional office uses and ancillary facilities related to the office uses. Conditional Uses • Subject to a conditional use permit . 5 • Any change from one established use to another permitted use. • Community, religious and charitable institutions facilities and uses . • Public facilities and uses Prohibited Uses • Any other commercial use not found to be ancillary to office uses . 0 Other residential uses not defined above. • Industrial uses Area 3 - (San -Ramon -Road Properties) This area has the best potential for the development of retail shopper stores oriented to providing additional com- parison shopping goods for both Dublin and nearby community residents. Its location along a major street, proximity to the Regional Shopping Center (Stoneridge) and on the direct route to and from Interstate 580 for a large area give these properties a potential not found elsewhere in Dublin. It is the intent of this Specific Plan to reserve this area for this kind of retail use exclusively and that other con- venience retail uses be prohibited. Uses identified below are described in the State Board of Equalization document entitled "Taxable Sales in California, 1983" . Permitted Uses • Retail commercial shopper goods uses such as: a. Family apparel b. Household furnishings C . General merchandise stores d. Speciality stores that offer comparison goods based on price and quality. • Eating and drinking establishments selling prepared food and liquor except those defined as drive-thru and drive-in restaurants. Conditional Use • Subject to a conditional use permit. • Any change from one established use to another permitted use. 6 0 Community, religious and charitable institutions facilities and uses . • Public facilities and uses Prohibited Uses 0 All retail commercial uses defined as convenience stores including: a. Grocery stores b. Drug stores C. Liquor stores d. Drive-in and drive-thru restaurants which sell food, drugs and other household goods for consumption in a short time. • All other retail stores and personal sen;ices not mentioned above including new and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service, service stations, banks , dry cleaners , medical services , garden stores, auto part stores and other similar stores and services. • Residential uses • Office Uses • Industrial Uses Area 4 (Martin-Canyon- Creek) This creek should be preserved for open space and/or flood control uses only. Use of the Creek should be for public or private recreation/open space uses . Permitted Uses • Open space uses including, but not limited to: public or private recreation uses, and/or flood control protective structures and appurtenances. Conditional Uses • None Prohibited Uses • All others Area 5 (Silvergate/San Ramon Road) This area is at a gateway to a large, developing residen- tial area westward along Silvergate Drive. The site is re- moved from major commercial uses along San Ramon Road and is physically separated from proposed retail commercial uses in Area 3 by Martin Canyon Creek. This area, given its size; is suitable for either multifamily condominium, townhouse or rental residential uses or professional of- fices: Permitted Uses • Multifamily residential uses such a rental housing, and/or condominium uses with a density of 13 18 units per gross acre. The precise density shall be determined by the number of bedrooms per unit pro- posed and other site planning considerations. • Professional, business and institutional office uses and ancillary facilities related to the office uses . Conditional Uses • Subject to a conditional use permit . • Any change from one established use to another permitted use. • Community, religious and charitable institutions facilities and uses . • Public facilities and uses Prohibited Uses • Any other commercial use not found to be ancillary to office uses . • Other residential uses not defined above. • Industrial uses CIRCULATION SYSTEM The circulation system which immediately impacts this Spe- cific Plan Area; has recently been examined relative to external access, street plan lines, and the anticipated traffic impact on major streets such as Silvergate Drive, San Ramon Road, and Dublin Blvd. As a result of new anticipated development within this Specific Plan Area and in the Dublin Community as a whole, new improvements will be necessary within the Specific Plan Areal The findings of the consultants, TJKM, concluded that undesirable congestion and access problems will occur in this area as development proceeds unless specific remedial measures are taken. It is the intent of this Specific Plan to recommend standards for the following circulation system: 1San Ramon Road Report, TJKM Consultants, March 1983 A. An internal and external street circulation and pedestrian pattern. B. Appropriate location of access and driveways to affected parcels . C. Necessary improvements to peripheral major streets in- cluding signalization, widening and striping. As noted in Figure 2, key items of this circulation element include: • Creation of a extension of Amador Valley Blvd. into the Specific Plan Area to provide access to internal parcels as well as those parcels fronting along San Ramon Road. • Roadway improvements on the following streets : 1 . San Ramon Road/Silvergate to Dublin Blvd. 2. Silvergate Drive near the San Ramon Road intersection 3 . At the San Ramon Road/Dublin Blvd. intersection 4. At the intersection of Donlon and Dublin Blvd. • A limited number of direct access points from adjacent properties to Silvergate Drive, San Ramon Road, and Dublin Blvd. • A recommended pedestrian/bicycle system that should be precisely determined at the time of site plan approval. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA It is anticipated that site planning issues will be addres- sed through normal zoning, site development and other procedures found in the City of Dublin planning and zoning regulations. Unless otherwise identified herein, all new development shall conform to the applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. In cases where conflict may occur between the provi- sions of this Specific Plan and those embodied in the Zoning Ordinance; this Plan shall prevail. In exercising its right of review and approval, the Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council shall adhere to the standards set forth in these criteria and shall foster and promote the purposes of these development standards. The following general development criteria have been in- cluded to insure that proper uses are developed as identified in this plan, the desired circulation system is created, and larger scale, multiple parcel development is encouraged. 9 SAN RAMON ROAD� °SP C I C PLAN FIGURE 2 CIRCULATION YSTEM I � MAY 1983 SCALE 1" : 200' ` a , MAJOR STREET f zoo' o ioo' soo' INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ° r NORTH 1411111110. PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS s SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY INTERNAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS w i 3 x ♦ POSSIBLE MAJOR STREET ACCESS q r d� Y ,ai t SIII I ,i t _ f! „ ft...w, G,.,.,wo-,.s t .,:M ,-d ..ckem - 'N?•, ;.a.: +a,. ^' ,�.., .. x ..,,,dr .v/i' p fig° 7� - _e,7^• ry =-,r d. , �^ ..,. ,�: m' a• c > s.k:.. dre $ 1 ° ,' ` w. e t::w r x i.r ,:: r u,. r. , rr s , :.. .,..,w s i.., s. ,,._^: �.:k"b", :•�`=5 , ONLON WAY :. g . I ��It�, .E g . , IMPRO VEMENTS tPl , N STR T EE ACCESS SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS , n, , . �.\, , . d. � w I r 3 r. , TREE t3 h ACCESS ,.e To"Al SIGNALS & _. :. ..--... , ,.. r,. ......, �1. _3. ... _.e- ... x. , , � , _, , « , , , � WIDENING r: s � r , a.\W. ,x > .r it ° �, � � I R ATE ^ S LVE G _ k DRIVE POSSIBLE @ Y re ., 7 z=. , r ,. Wow ✓ u PEDESTRIAN w .` .. , a v a :XTENSION OF MADO ; ,v \ R VAL EY , r� ACCESS � yy ROAD ^ re at ,x ^w. •w, x� i x. r ,r.wd.. r=, _; � , . 111 rr.�� w�_ w , ^ , rc r 11 .. 111t «6s, 1111 ,. m ITY OF DUBLIN... ,. , . a. r� IN E i e � � PLANNING G D PTi a' ip ., _ � ,.:, ,. \,,, a S::� - •:.,nx ,R°=PP .,:. ,.;.r, �.. - ....,iii�� d :.:, > `^�m iIWIiYWi �1 � x a ' a SIGNALS WIDENING , . SIGNALS & IMPRO E E v am SAN RAMON ROAD vSANTIN DUBLIN/SAN RAMON ROAD ,r ': \,r PSON INC. 1040 Ok Grove Road. ConcordGtifornia ",�✓,' v�. -a -... i - i � ,. � ,.#."ii.} '.�. r ��. ,i , °� , !.. ,r ._ d �'� r r pis.�d,,�` g .�^ s x 3 �: a� w ,.. ,. :::v,cS w r... uds s.•.. � A , , :,e•. \ as �' � R �,i ffi .,...... g Z V g >•-�, .. s �:.. vg i 4\;,,, �... , `€3.. + �,., ,. r x , v a x,.......n Y _ __. - * , , , 1 . Zoning All new development proposals within this Specific Plan Area shall be required to file a Planned Development Zoning request with the City of Dublin. Unless otherwise noted herein, normal site development standard and City review procedures will be utilized. 2 . Compatibility of Uses Special attention shall be placed on insuring compatibility of uses proposed in any new development with existing residential or other commercial development now located within or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. During the review of these projects, , attention shall be given to the height of proposed structures, design, landscaping, set- backs, street side design treatment, distance between buil- dings , loading areas , walls and fences , and pedestrian/bicycle and service circulation. 3 . Circulation Improvements At the time of approval of any Zoning or other Plan Review, new development on any parcel shall be required to contri- bute or dedicate either land and/or monetary considerations to the roadway, pedestrian, signal and other circulation system required by this plan. Said contributions are to be made based on the benefits derived to the subject property and/or impacts created by the proposed development. Vehicu- lar ingress, egress and internal circulation shall be accomplished according to the provisions of the circula- tion element of this plan. Circulation improvements may be accomplished in a number of ways including assessment dis- tricts or other means of financing. 4. Physical Constraints Physical constraints exist within the Specific Plan Area. The entire area is located within a potential geologic ha- zard area and is designated as a "Special Zone" as defined by the Alquist-Priolo .�Act. In addition, Martin Canyon Creek (Area 3) has a flood potential that has to be addressed. As a result, all development proposals within the aforemen- tioned plan area shall include: • A comprehensive geologic and soils report prepared by a licensed geologist identifying any geologic or soil hazard zones, appropriate mitigation measures and other recommendations. This report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County Geologist to assure that a reasonable safety factor is provided. • In Areas 2, 3 and 5, if necessary, a hydrological report on flood impacts related to Martin Canyon Creek shall be completed. In addition, all flood control preventive 10 1 measures identified in Areas 2, 3 and 5 shall conform to the 100 Year designated flood criteria. 5 . Noise Due to anticipated noise levels along Silvergate Drive, Dublin Blvd., and San Ramon Road, all structures that may be affected by noise levels in excess of commercial and residential noise standards shall be sound attentuated to insure interior noise levels within acceptable standards (as defined by the County of Alameda Noise Element). Appro- priate acoustic measures may include walls, special win- dows, building orientation, and similar features. 6 . 'Setbacks Building setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential areas both within and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, shall be at least 20 feet and this setback shall be landscaped with an affective combination of trees, groundcover and shrubbery designed to screen the develop- ment from existing uses. In addition, there shall be a 20 foot landscape buffer along Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. All other setbacks shall be determined at the time of � • design review for the individual projects in accordance with acceptable commercial and residential standards. 1 7 . Parking Standards The following requirements are applicable to all uses within the Specific Plan Area: • As an incentive to promote the joint development of parcels within this Specific Plan Area, the following may be provided at the option of the developer subject to the conditions identified below when applicable to commercial and residential off-street parking uses: 1 . Required parking for various uses as identified by the existing City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance may be modified as follows: a. Up to 25% of required parking spaces may be waived by the Planning Commission based on evi- dence presented demonstrating that the parti- cular use of land will require a smaller number of permanent spaces based on the anticipated use of the land. Sufficient evidence shall be pre- sented demonstrating the unique or changed cir- cumstances substantiating the waiving of required parking spaces . 2 . Shared Parking: Parking facilities required for any parcel may be 11 used jointly with parking facilities for other uses or parcels when operations are not normally conducted during the same hours, or when hours of peak use vary. Request for the use of shared parking are subject to approval of the Director of Planning and must meet the following conditions: a. Sufficient evidence shall be presented to the Director of Planning demonstrating that there shall exist no substantial conflict in the prin- ciple hours or periods. of peak demand of the structures or uses for which the joint use is proposed. b. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for the struc- tures or uses involved shall not exceed the num- ber of parking stalls reasonably anticipated to be available during different hours of operation. C. Parking facilities designed for joint use shall not be located further than 250 feet from any structure or use served. d. A written agreement shall be drawn to the satis- faction of the City Attorney and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued avail- ability of the number of stalls designated for joint use at the period of time indicated. 3 . Compact Cars: a. Facilities with 25 or more parking spaces may provide up to 40% of its parking for use by com- pact cars. Spaces delineated for parked compact car use shall meet standards as developed by the Director of Planning. 8 . Height Limits Within this Specific Plan Area, heights in excess of the normal two-story residential and three-story commercial limits may be permitted. The Planning Commission shall re- view the appropriateness of siting and compatibility of the design with the scale and character of the Specific Plan Area for buildings in excess of two or three-stories for these land uses. Buildings should: 1 . Be setback from any existing residential uses to avoid significant visual impacts . 2. Respect views both on and off the site . 3 . Be clustered, rather than spread out over the site . . 12 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Based on the three alternatives described earlier, the following standards place some specific controls on the deve- lopment associated with Areas 2, 3, and 5 within the Specific Plan Area. They are intended to permit development, whether residential or commercial in nature, that will enhance the ob- jectives of this Specific Plan. Normal site plan and design review procedures and requirements of the Planned - Development Zoning District, or applicable commercial or residential zoning district within the City of Dublin will prevail unless defined in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES San Ramon Road - Specific Plan City of Dublin - California AREAS 2, 3 AND 5 AREA 4 MULTI-FAMILY RETAIL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES OPEN SPACE USES Maximum Height Limit 2 - 3 over parking 3 over parking 4 over parking 1 story Minimum Site Area 43,560 square feet* 43,560 square feet* 43,560 square feet* None Maximum Building 35% - w/surface parking 408 - w/surface parking 408 - w/surface parking Coverage 708 - w/underground qr 808 - w/underground or B0% - w/underground or None ct structure arkin 20 feet from major 20 feet from major Setbacks and Yards Same as R-S District street; no other set street; no other set None requirements re irem nt Minimum Landscape Areas (planting, walkways,pools 308 208 208 See Special Conditions and outdoor elements) Distance between 20 feet None None None Structures Internal/external walk- Internal/external walk- Internal/external walk- A walkway along Martin ways and connections to ways and connections to ways and connections to Canyon Creek shall be Pedestrian Amenities adjacent streets if adjacent streets if adjacent streets if required; Location to be necessary necessary necessary determined at the time of adjacent land use decisions Parking requirements Parking requirements Parking requirements Parks, receation facili- may be modified as per may be modified as per may be modified as per ties, open green areas, Special Conditions General Development General Development General Development trails both public and/ or private are encour- aged *This site area may include portions of one or more parcels or combined lots with one or more ownerships for application purposes. 13 ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCESS Because of the variety of uses proposed for this Specific Plan, it is necessary to create a review process that provides the City of Dublin with adequate controls over future develop- ment while providing applicants with a timely direction. Even though the City of Dublin presently combines many of the plan- ning applications into a single hearing process, it is the intent of this Specific Plan to further encourage the combina- tion of various planning processes that may be required for development to occur. The following steps now normally reviewed separately or together may be combined: • Zoning Amendments • Site plan review • Any necessary staff review procedures • Variances and adjustments • Tentative subdivision map procedures A use legally established prior to the effective date of this Specific Plan or prior to the effective date of subsequent amendments to the regulations shall be permitted to continue, provided that it is operated and maintained in accordance with the conditions prescribed at the time of its establishment. Any alteration or expansion of a preexisting use, shall be permitted only upon the granting of a Use Permit. Alterations not excee- ding $10,000 in value as determined by the Director of Planning or his designee, shall be permitted without the granting of a use permit. In regards to the determination of uses not presently listed within permitted uses, the Planning Commission upon its own initiative or upon written request shall determine whether a use not specifically listed or conditional use in any of the four specific areas shall be deemed a permitted use or conditio- nal use on the basis of similarity to uses specifically listed. The procedures of this section shall not be substituted for the amendment procedure as a mean of adding new uses to the list of permitted or conditional uses. This Specific Plan has been adopted to accomplish the City objectives of' this City Council of the City of Dublin and to implement at this time period a Land Use Plan and Development Standards for an area undergoing specific development pressure. This Specific Plan is adopted with the realization that a new General Plan for the City of Dublin will be shortly proposed that may necessitate a revision of the uses and development criteria presented herein. Notwithstanding, it is the intent of the City of Dublin to regulate the use, location, area and dimension of sites for development, the height of structures, the appearance of certain uses, structures and signs, open 14 space, landscaping, access and egress, off-street parking, and the intensity, timing and sequence of developments and any other aspects of land use that are appropriate within this Specific Plan for the public peace, health, safety and general welfare of persons working and living within the City of Dublin. In terms of administration of this Specific Plan, the following regulations shall apply: • No building permit shall be issued nor shall any build- ing be constructed, structurally altered or enlarged on any parcel of land affected by. this Specific Plan except in conformity with the provisions of said Specific Plan. • No site development of private property which lies with- in the territory included within this Specific Plan shall be developed except in conformance with this Specific Plan. A proposal to amend this Specific Plan may be initiated by reso- lution initiating a Specific Plan Study or a Specific Plan Amendment Study by the Planning Commission or by the City Coun- cil, or an application may be filed by any landowner. In the event of an application, the area included within this Specific Plan Study shall include, but need not be limited to, the land owned by the applicant. The fee for an application shall be the same as required for an application for an amendment of the zoning regulations. 15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REPORT PREPARATION This report was prepared for the City of Dublin by: Santina & Thompson, Inc . Engineering, Surveying, Planning Consultants 1040 Oak Grove Road Concord, CA 94518 In association with: Anthony C. Hurt & Associates Economic & Real Estate Consultants 2200 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Participants were: City of Dublin Consultant Team Lawrence L. Tong Eddie Peabody, Jr., AICP Planning Director Project Manager Arnie Hollander, Anthony C. Hurt, Planner Project Economist Judy K. Armstrong, Word Processing 16 RESOLUTION NO. - 83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------- ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS , the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental regulations , requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS , a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department ; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission did review the Negative Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on July 5 , 1983; and WHEREAS , the Dublin Planning Commission on July 5 , 1983 recommended to the City Council that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete ; and WHEREAS , the City Council did review the Negative Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on July 25 , 1983 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and -local environmental law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 1983. AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF DUBLIN _ P.O. Box 23-30 Dublin, CA 9-1568 (415) 829 3600 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: San Ramon Road Specific Plan (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION AND PROPONENT: Area adjacent to and west of San Ramon Road, between Dublin Blvd. and Silvergate Dr. , Dublin. Proposed by the City of Dublin. DESCRIPTION: Specific Plan for the 40+ acre area. FINDINGS : The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental components : Drainage and Channel Form, Flooding, Waterways , Foundation, Support, Seismic Activity, Vegetative Community Types , Transportation Facilities, Circulation Conflicts, Road Safety and Design, Noise Levels, Views . MITIGATION MEASURES : Hydrological report and flood control study, geologic and soils report, circulation improvements , noise attenuation, and Planned Development processing PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, ( 415) 829-4916 . REVISED SIGNATURE : T- 6YL DATE: June 16, 1983 Laurence L. Tong, P a ning Director CITY OF bu6L11-1 PA No. Nr,�r.ENTAL ASS' • I (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY ,- - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Name of Project or Applicant: S ecific Plan, San Ramon Road -A..- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures 40+ acre area, 15 parcels, adjacent to and west of San Ramon Road, between Dublin Blvd. and _Silvergate Dr . Area is generally flat, includes a portion of Martin Canyon -Creek,. contains some mature trees, a number of existing structures and uses , and some vacant areas. Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development._San Ramon Road to east with single family and retail, commercial uses and several vacant cit nn nn mmarclal, offices , multifam-ily dwellina units and park; on west , Finale family dwelling uses , vacant site , offices ; on south retail commercial uses.: B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" are re- . quired on all sheets. OC 1'T IP� ACT ACIS Sr J2 OF D NO 4UALIF= YES UNK�i'Urv�i1 10 t t E- 0 tQ t ) 1.0 WATER • 1 I � 1.1 Hydrologic Bolance Will construction of the project alter the hydro- X logic balance? t 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of X ground water supplies? 1.3 Depth to Water Tablo Will the rate of water vrithdrawal change the depth X or gradient of tho water table? 1.4 Drainage and Channel Form Will construction impeda the natural drainage pattern X , • ' ' or cause olteration of stream channel Form? 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in an area result in major sediment 1 I Influx into adjacent water 6odies? X ' s 1.6 Flaoding Will there 6e risk of loss or life or property due to floodina? A-5 DIPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT _ No QUALIFIED YES UI�'NO�rit I NO r. 1 �a1 Io al H 0110) 1,7 Water 0w3lity Does drinking water supply foil to meet state and X 1 1 federal standards? Will sewage be male-lvotoly occommcrotcd and X 1 1 1 treated? Will receiving waters foil to meet la_-si, st-•c and X ( 1 federal standards? Will ground water suffer contamination by sr-rfu-c 1 { 1 seep-3}s, intrusion of salt or polluted water from 1 I 1 adjacent water bodies or from another ron!n.-inatcd X 1 1 a—lifer? _ 2.0 Alit :: •: . 1 ! 1 2.1 Air Pollution _ Will there be generation and dispersion.of F-llutants 1 1 by project related activities or in proxin it-$to t!-.e X 1 { Project which will cr:ecd store n:r_•i-=* a- ( 1 quality standards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and tetrofn-impede pmvcilirc wind 1 1 flow musing channeling along certain r_orri:3-s or X 1 1 1 obstruction of wind movements? 3.0 EARTH 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dung.-rs related to fapc f�il�res? 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property of X I I 1 excessive deformation of materials" 3.3 Conoilidction Will there be risk to life or property becarr.e of I 1 I excessive consolidation of foundcti•3r r:vitn•iols? 3.4 Ssrbsidence Is there risk of major ground subsid+_nc.n nssncfated X 1 I 1 with the project? 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss reviltino from eorih- X quo'-c activity? s 3.6 liquefaction Will the project ceus_or be exposed to liqu=•ra=tion X I I I of soils in slcpes or under fovncaticns? I 3.7 Enadibility Will there be substantial loss of sail d•^:o c"n- X 1 I I struction proctices? 1 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils assoc:at-el wit!:th- I I I project present adverso conditions ielctive to da- X I { 1 velopment of wells? i 1 3.9 LWclue Feofu(es Will any unique geological features be domcied X { I 1 or destroyed by project activities? 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of potentiai rrs-rrcinl X ( I 1 value close to the project? • 1 { 1 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 4.1 Plant end Animal Species Are there rata or endangered species p:rs=nt? X Arc there species pre:=nt which are pa•tm,)iarly X 1 1 susceptiolc to impact from human activity? Is there vegetation pr�setnt, the !as,;of vfsi+will 1 ( 1 deny food or habitat to important wildiife socci.ts7 X Are there nuisance-ficcies of plant or anim=:s for X 1 which conditions will be improved by fFe project? 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of plants tFst may X ( ( 1 be of scientific interest? Are there vegetative community tyres v.iich are X 1 1 I partieulorly su:eeptible to impact frr_-n t:um. n cctfvity" Are there major feces or major vegrt, I that will X 1 1 be cd:•c:sRly nffr'.fc-i by Ilse,proj-et? I I 1 Arr, there w_3::a:ivn rnmmvniry tyrsr--7 :• IF r. ►qs 1 1 I of which will deny food at ho�itn•fr.i°n^ eet .:i'dC X 7pCG'es, nr to a:Ltistential nu TS^.•at(:.77:--o 4.3 Diversity Is there substan:ial diversity in th•: r:••n: r�r..�n::� as reflected in the number and type. •sf ne-iMni X 1 I species present or the thrcn-dim.nsinrri orrt-nq rm. n: of plant species present? ( I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 e_A 0O� T J1 SCAM OF IMPACT NO QU=Ia) YES MNalNN 0 � ( E_ 01100 Z. 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educational Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- Isting or proposed facilities in terms of spacing for ( 1 all activities, Including classrooms, recreational X 1 1 1 areas, end staffing needs? : Will the project impact the pvpii/teacher ratio so as to impede the learning process?. " Is the school located such that it preients o hardship for a portion of the entailment in terms of trove{ time, X distance, or safety hazards? 5.2 Commercial Facilities' Will-there be an inadequate supply of end access to X 1 1 1 = - commercial Facilities for the project?, 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewage capacity inadequate for 1 ( 1 the needs of the project without exceeding quality X standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odor X I 1 1 1 associated with wastewater treatment plonts7 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal " ' Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid . -. X 1 ! 1 wastes generated by the project? - ` • 5.5 Water Supply - Is there inodequotc quantity or quality of water ( 1 supply to meet the needs of this project? 5.6 5term Water Ora inage Will storm water drolnoge be inadequate to prevent 1 1 downstream flooding and to meet Federal State and X 1 1 1 local standards? 1 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population, facilities, I I 1 I t or other fcotures generate an increase in police service 1 ( 1 or create a police 6zord? X I 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, 1 l I Ior other features generate an increase in fire services X or create o fire hazard? 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate Facilities to meet X 1 1 1 the recreational needs of the residents? 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project X residents? - ' 6.0 TtZANSPOQTATION 6.1 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently X ( 1 1 of or above capacity? If not, will the traffic Gen-! orated by the project cause the adjacent roads to - reach or exceed capacity? Are the other transportation facilities which xrve the 1 project inadequate to accommodate the project's X 1 1 1 - travel demondsl 6.2*Circulation Conflicts Will design of tha pruiect or conditions in the surround- X' ing area increase accidents due to circulation conflicts. 6.3 Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to incrwsed _X 1 1 1 accident risks dun to roadway and street design r lack 1 1 1 of traffic controls? X 7.0 HEALTH 1 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense 1 1 1 odors) 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exp-3sed to crowding or 1 1 1 high density in their physical living environment? X ( I I 7.] Nuisances will the project be exposed to or generate Factors that ( 1 may be considered as nuisances? 7..( Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques fail 1 1 1 to meet state and local building codes? }{ • 1 ( 1 8.0 NOISE I 1 I 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be expend to r,r!3cncrate adverse ( 1 X I I 1 noise levels? 8.2 Vibrations Will the pu3ject be exposed to v;nrotinns nnnoying to 1 ( 1 humans? 1 1 1 X 1 I oo�k IF t rr 11VAC°TS SC-,UE OF IMPACT No QUZT rIFIED YES U�I1CNaJU NO 7I to E-1 H I I E- 0 {oho 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARS,CTEit 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt an existing set of X organizations or groups within the community? 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the I community in terms of distribution or concentration X- : of income, ethnic, housing, or age group? 9.3 Community 5tobility and Will the project be exposed to or generate an Physical Conditions arcs of poor stobiliy anJ ph)esicol conditions? X I I 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY 10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding area be ad"ricly X I affected by views of or from the project? ' Will the project residents be odvcrsely effected by I I J views of or from the surrounding area? 10.2 Shodows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive X ( J shodows? 11.0 HISTORICAND CULTLEtAI ( I RESOLRCES 11.1 Historic and Cultural Will the project involve the destruction or alter- ( I { • ation of a historic resource? Resources Will the project result in isolation of a historic j { resource from its surrounding environment? 1 ,Vill the project intro-±uce physical, visual, audible J J J or atmo;pherie elements thnt arc not in cssaroctar with X I { I - a historic resource or its selling? 11.2 Archaeological Siles Will the project involve the destruction or alteration X and Structures of on orchoeolo-jicol resource? Will she project result in isslotion of on archaeological { { { resource? X - Wilt the project introdvcc physical, visual, audible { { { or atmospheric elements that ore not in character with an archaeological resource or its setting? X 1 1 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements -, Are there potential problems with the supply of X I energy required for the project? Will the rncrgy requirements exceed the capacity of the s^rvicc utility company? X Will there be a net fncrcose in energy used For the _ project eomporej to the no project alternative? 12.2 Conservation Mcosures Does the project planning onel d:sig-,foii to include• .. { { availab!e energy con;ervntion m^asurns? ){ 13.0 LAND USE 13.1 Site Vc=Ords Do conditions of the site, proposed site development, J J or surrounding area creole potentially hazardous situ- I S I orions? 13.2 Ph;sieal Threat. Wil! the project or the surroundings area create o feeling (. of insecurity cold physical threat among the residents X I I I and users? J 13.3 Sonilcry Landfill Wil! the project be exposed to stru!two!damngc, I noise, air, or vsrface oral round wc.ter pollution r:r other nuisnncr;ossaciorrJ with a sanitary landfill X 13.4 \ oserwoys Wi11 ilia project affect on existing w•rcr• sy through ( { filling, dredging, draining, culverting, wvstc dis- charges, less of vfswl quality or orhar land u;c X prnct;ces? I I 1 . I I 1 CO'PONL EN' IMPACTS SAL OF 7�L°ACT NO QUALIFIED YES UM1X);1,1 NO C4 191C ( F 1 OIW (01 � ... ...... . " .•' Other Environmenfol Componenfr. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WTI I= INO NO Y"S LNK�\�v�I. (1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a..I .r. x fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant :or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exomples of the major periods or California history or prehisfiory? - (2) ' Does the project have the potential to achieve short-°,;: term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmenfial goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considercble? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where X the impact on each resource is relatively small, b*ut where the effect o` the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) I (4) Does the project. have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adversa effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga`e - e significant effects identified, if any: See Attached E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: = The City of_DLlbfih finds that there will not be any•siificant effecThe par- - t -, - ticular characteristics of this project and the. mitigation measures incorporaed into ' the design of the project pro;id, `h� -actual basis for the firiding.' A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED.:` Cl . The City of_7PtAblin_]Finds that the proposed project MAY,have a significant effect : = on fihe environment.'- AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**'- Signature and date: - _ 6/10/83 Name and fiitle: . = Laurence L_ Tonq, Pl ni cr Director **NOT*: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so than adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required i 1s`ead of ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY FOR SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN Factual Explanations and Mitigation Measures 1 .4 Drainage and Channel Form; 1 . 6 Flooding; and 13 .4 Waterways : Each new Development proposal within areas adjacent to Martin Canyon Creek will be required to prepare a hydrological report and detailed flood control study. Martin Canyon Creek will be improved to handle a 100-year storm flow and to maintain the natural appearance of the Creek. Each project -site will be graded and improved to protect the project and the adjacent property from flood damage . 3 . 2 Foundation Support; and 3 .5 Seismic Activity: Each new development proposal within the Specific Plan area will be required to include a comprehensive geologic and soils report prepared by a licensed geologist. The geologic and soils report will identify any geologic or soil hazard zones and appropriate mitigation measures . Buildings will need to maintain a 50-foot setback limit on both sides of the fault zone, unless the County Geologist finds, on the basis of extensive field investigation and documented research, that a smaller setback is reasonably safe and appropriate . 4 . 2 Vegetative Community Types : Each new development proposal will indicate the location of major trees on the site and efforts will be taken to maintain the natural appearance of the area. 6 .1 Transportation Facilities ; 6 . 2 Circulation Conflicts ; 6 . 3 Road Safety and Design: Each new development proposal will be required to contribute or dedicate either land and/or money to the roadway, pedestrian, signal and other circulation aspects of the Specific Plan. Vehicular ingress, egress, and internal circulation will also be accomplished according to the Specific Plan. 8 . 1 Noise Levels : Each new development proposal that may be affected by noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards will be attenuated to achieve interior noise level standards . 10 . 1 Views : Each new development proposal will file a Planned Development application. Each application will be reviewed to insure compatibiity of proposed uses with particular attention given to height, design, landscaping, setbacks, design treatment, distance between structures , walls , fences , and circulation. RESOLUTION .NO. - 83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------- ADOPTING SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS , the City of Dublin prepared the San Ramon Road Specific Plan with the intention of setting forth the City ' s policies for the development of the area involved; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission, on July 5 , 1983 , did recommend approval of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan with revisions ; and WHEREAS , the City Planning Department has caused the required notices to be given; and WHEREAS , the City Council did review the proposed Specific Plan and considered it at a public hearing on July 25,' 1983; and - WHEREAS , the City Council finds that the City of Dublin is in the process of preparing and adopting a general plan, and that there is reasonable probability that the proposed Specific Plan will be consistent with the future general plan; and WHEREAS , there is little or no probability that the Specific Plan will be a detriment to or interfere with the future general plan, should the Specific Plan ultimately be inconsistent with the future general plan; and WHEREAS , the City Council finds that the Specific Plan will not have a significant environmental impact ; and WHEREAS , it is the City ' s intention to establish a policy framework against which specific development schemes may be judged, leaving maximum opportunity for design freedom; and WHEREAS , the Specific Plan details the development goals for the area and sets forth the criteria for judging development proposals ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council approves the San Ramon Road Specific Plan with the following revisions : Change the land use designation in Area 5 from the proposed "multi-family residential ( 13-18 dwelling units/acre) or office use" to "multi-family residential (13-18 dwelling units/acre ) " . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this - - -- -th day of - - , 1983. AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City C er ORDINANCE NO. - 83 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN C-1 AND R-S-D-35 DISTRICT AND ADJACENT TO SAN RAMON ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section- 1 . PURPOSE--OF INTERIM-ORDINANCE The City of Dublin has determined that the traffic capacity of San Ramon Road to accommodate projected residential and commercial development is inadequate , and the City has further determined that access to San Ramon Road from the areas of probable future development is inadequate . As a result of these determinations , the City has undertaken a study of the area adjacent to San Ramon Road between the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive for the purpose of developing a specific plan for said area that is responsive to future traffic and access requirements of San Ramon Road. The City hereby finds that a reasonable period of time will be required in order to develop said specific plan and, therefore , it is necessary to prohibit certain uses during the effective period of this Ordinance on specific parcels within the C-1 and R-S-D-35 zoning districts adjacent to and westerly of San Ramon Road and situated between said intersections . Section- 2 . PARCELS AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE The following parcels of real property only are affected by this Ordinance : Assessor ' s-Parcel Numbers 941-40-1-2 941-40-2-3 941-40-2-7 941-40-2-10 941-40-2-14 941-40-2-15 941-40-3 941-40-5-1 941-40-5-2 941-40-7 941-40-8 Said parcels are delineated on the map (Exhibit "A" ) which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3 . USES- PROHIBITED- DURING- EFFECTIVE PERIOD-OF-ORDINANCE The following uses are prohibited on the above-identified parcels during the effective period of this Ordinance : a) Any use which involves less than four (4) acres of total land area ; ORDINANCE NO. - 83 Page 2 b) Any use which does not include access to San Ramon Road at its intersection with Amador Valley Boulevard. A new use , otherwise permitted in the respective C-1 district or R-S-D-35 district , to be conducted within existing structures on any of . said parcels , shall be permitted only if approved as a Conditional Use . Section- 4. EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF ORDINANCE Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, this Ordinance shall extend the effective period of Ordinance No . 8-83 for Section 5.. IMMEDIATE- EFFECT This Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace , health and welfare and shall take effect immediately. Section- 64 POSTING-OF -ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three ( 3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this th day of 1983 , by the following votes : AYES : NOES : ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 8 - 83 Page 2 b) Any use which does not include access to San Ramon Road at its intersection with Amador Valley Boulevard. A new use , otherwise permitted in the respective C-1 district or R-S-D-35 district , to be conducted within existing structures on any of said parcels , shall be permitted only if approved as a Conditional Use . ' Section 4. EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF ORDINANCE Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 , this Ordinance shall extend the effective period of Ordinance No. 1-83 for m , -tve-y-k46) days . Section 5 . IMMEDIATE EFFECT 8 - This Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace , health and welfare and shall take effect immediately. Section 6 . POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three ( 3 ) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this ? day of ,fdi1e , 1983 , by the following votes : AYES : Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder NOES : None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Burton Mayo ATTEST: City-clerk 1 •y SU�^'�/I, OF PLOT A OF THE DOUGHERi ri ( k15 Ig17) PM!•- .,06(:0, 62) AMENDED 1ogiw PM.928 76/4 , Ll 1 t ti .. . . - =,e a •.`bl N + j > 101 "1 x;10%` r" `Q 173 1 •,, Z3as 4!� f ( 0.7.6de.fC1 (Q "6a _ ° 1.83 Ac.: O 7348 ga�GY1.? YgLLcY c9 J - ECYQ - •i J. :.:w '^•r '� 1 -- Y .°cam_1 - 2tl 2Ep5 .0 •C c • 1 4.e4JC•� + . r --•f ten: ' E 0 '=Z... 65 „� < _ " •• D..i4M. IQ/ 305 4.08 Ac.— 5-c v 21c_ yf LL - gEr:tN �' ,.rte-_o •e.e- °' A.'i '. ,. ..•r =•� Z _ Q ` . jr 99•L°3 - `• . . d ✓ `i v 113 - �; _ / ►SSO " . ti 1500