HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Village Alamo Creek PA 85-041 (2) AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 24, 1986
SUBJECT: PA 85-041.1 & .2 Villages at Alamo Creek -
Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning and Subdivision Map
(Tentative Map 5511) requests for a planned
development with 1,165 proposed residential
dwelling units, a convenience food store, a five-
plus acre neighborhood park site and common open
space parcels involving a 135+ acre property
located along Dougherty Road in the northeast
corner of the City of Dublin.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the
Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning request PA
85-041.1.
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative
Map 5511 request PA 85-041.2.
Exhibit D - Draft Ordinance for Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning request. -
Exhibit E - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and I
Tentative Map.
Exhibit F - Expanded Initial Study for the
Villages at Alamo Creek - January 30,
1986 (supplied under separate cover to
the City Council).
Exhibit G - Memorandum from the City Manager
regarding Villages Development and
Park Dedication Proposal.
a r
Background Attachments:
1) Applicant's Written Statement.
2) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance.
3) Site Location and Area Maps.
4) Schematic Land Use Layout of Camp Parks Facility.
5) Applicant's Letter of November 22, 1985, regarding Master
Tract Map Formal Proposal.
6) Applicant's Letter of December 6, 1985, and accompanying
Transmittal, regarding Parkland Dedication Requirements.
7) Applicant's Letter of January 20, 1986, regarding Proposed
Building Separations and Proposed Recreational Facility in
Village VI - Swim Club%.
8) Applicant's Letter of February 4, 1986, regarding Revised
Lotting Pattern for Village VI.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM N0. ♦ PA File 84-041.1 .& 2
..,''�,'.'*�k7v.- x+^ 1,...r'i.;'v'•s, - h*rr-�r-,a �a -4 �"}T. °' ma—r.;, -.a s v se +rrt.g.,,ls ,' 'S: -cu-r..
"r
9) Applicant's Letter of February 4, 1986, regarding Expanded
Initial Study.
10) Applicant's Letter of March 19, 1986, regarding Requested
Minor Adjustments to Planning Commission Resolutions.
11) Applicant's Letter of March 19, 1986, committing to
Mitigation Measures outlined in Expanded Initial Study.
12) Chart Summarizing Staff's recommendations for Parkland
Dedication Requirements.
13) Agency Comments received in conjunction with Project
Submittal.
14) Agency Comments received in conjunction with Environmental
Assessment Documents.
15) Revised Site Plan for the Commercial Site and Village I,
dated received February 25, 1986.
16) Applicant's Letter of February 27, 1986, regarding Proposed
Phasing - Villages at Alamo Creek.
17) Applicant's Letter of February 27, 1986, regarding Proposed
Water Features - Villages at Alamo Creek.
18) Applicant's Letter of February 27, 1986, regarding Proposed
Dedication of Public Lands - Villages at Alamo Creek.
19) Applicant's transmittal of February 25, 1986, entitled _
"School Age Children Generated by Multi-family Rental
Projects in the San Francisco Bay Area".
20) March 12, 1986, Letter and accompanying transmittals from
TJKM, Transportation Consultants regarding responses to
agencies commenting on the September 7, 1985, Notice of
Preparation and the January 31, 1986, Expanded Initial Study .
- Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance.
21) March 12, 1986, Letter and accompanying transmittals from
Wagstaff and Brady, Urban and Environmental Planning,
regarding responses to agencies commenting on the September
7, 1985, Notice of Preparation and the January 31, 1986,
Expanded Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
22) Charts I - III and Area Maps for Single Family Residential
Analysis.
23) February 18, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report (without
Attachments) .
24) March 3, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report (without
Attachments).
25) March 17, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report (without
Attachments).
C NDATION: 1 Open public hearing and hear Staff presentations.
1 2 - Take testimony from applicant and the public.
3 - Question Staff, applicant and the public.
4 - Close public hearing and deliberate.
5 - Adopt Resolution regarding Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance (Exhibit A).
-2-
6 - Adopt Resolution regarding Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning - PA 85-041.1 (Exhibit B).
7 - Adopt Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511 - PA 85-
041.2 (Exhibit C).
8 - Waive reading and introduce Ordinance Amending Zoning
Ordinance (Exhibit D).
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The project will have a negligible fiscal effect on the
City.
DESCRIPTION:
I. BACKGROUND
Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development is requesting the City of
Dublin approve a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning proposal for a
planned -development of 1,165 dwelling units and a small convenience
store. Subdivision Map approval for a 156 lot subdivision is
concurrently requested proposing the following lotting pattern: Lots 1
through 146 - for the proposed single family residential lots; Lots 147
through 152 - being one lot for each respective proposed multiple
family residential Village (which are proposed for subsequent
subdivision into condominium air-space units) Lot 153 - for the
proposed 20,000+ square foot commercial lot; and Lots 154 through 156
for flood control right-of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard right-of-way
and improvements, the entry road right-of-way and improvements
servicing Villages VI and VII, and rough grading for the entire
project.
The proposed Villages can be summarized as follows:
Village I: 60 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 4.9+
Gross Residential Acres (GRA). Two and three bedroom
units at 957 to 1,055 gross square feet, 13 two story
buildings. (Density = 12.2 DU/GRA)
Village II: 248 multiple family apartment/condominium units on
17.1+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to
988 gross sq. ft. , 19 two story buildings and 8 three
story buildings. (Density = 14.5 DU/GRA)
Village III: 216 multiple family apartment/condominium units on
15.0+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to
988 gross sq. ft. , 18 two story buildings and 6 three
story buildings. (Density = 14.4 DU/GRA)
Village IV: 152 multiple family apartment/condominium units on
10.7+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to
988 gross sq. ft. , 10 two story buildings and 6 three
story buildings. (Density = 14.2 DU/GRA)
Village V: 192 multiple family apartment/condominium units on
13.6+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to
988 gross sq. ft. , 15 two story buildings and 6 three
story buildings. (Density = 14.1 DU/GRA)
Village VI: 146 single family lots on 26.8+ GRA. One and two
story, three and four bedroom units at 1,418 to 2,075
sq. ft. (Density = 5.8 DU/GRA)
Village VII: 151 multiple family apartment/condominium units on
11.8+ GRA. Tentatively planned two and three bedroom
units at 957 to 1,055 gross sq. ft. , 29 two story
buildings. (Density = 12.8 DU/GRA)
Total = 1,165 DU on 99.9 GRA, overall Density = 11.7 DU/GRA
The Planning Commission's recommendations regarding Village VII would
adjust the above information in the following manner:
-3-
_.,._,
Village VII: 71+ single family lots on 11.8+ GRA. Tentatively
anticipated to be developed with one and two story
-structures -being- three and four bedroom units at•---",
1,400+ to 2,075+ sq. ft. (Density = Maximum 6.0
DU/GRA)
Total = 1,086 dwelling units over 99.9 Gross Residential
Acres, overall Density being adjusted 10.9 DU/GRA.
The subject proposal was formally submitted to the City on May 23,
1985, following six months of interaction between the applicant and
Staff. - During the latter portions of that period, and subsequent to
the formal application submittal, Staff and the applicant jointly
coordinated initiation of the preparation of a variety of project
related studies: 1) Botanical and Wildlife Resources Report, prepared
by Leitner and Leitner; 2) Roadway Traffic and Parks RFTA Noise
Analysis Study, prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates; 3) Traffic
Impact Analysis - Circulation Draft, prepared by TJKM, Transporation
Consultants; and 4) Horticultural Report, dated September 20, 1985,
prepared by Hort Science, Inc. , Analysts and Consultants.
A Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was prepared
and circulated by Staff for this project on September 7, 1985.
Incorporated into this document were draft mitigations and a statement
from Staff to the reviewing agencies of the City's desire to pursue the
potential of issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance for the project.
Services of the firm of Wagstaff and Brady were utilized to focus in on
the identified potential significant environmental impacts listed in
the September 20, 1985, Notice of Preparation. The charge of this
review was to determine whether mitigation measures could be
established for each identified potential environmental impact.
Identification of appropriate mitigation measures which would allow a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance to be
issued for the project. In conjunction with the work by Wagstaff and
Brady, additional acoustical information was produced by .the firm of
Salter. and Associates.
The net result of the effort of Staff and the referenced consultants
was the circulation on January 30, 1986, of an Expanded Initial Study -
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance.
Circulation of the Notice of Preparation and the Expanded Initial Study
generated comments from eight agencies which required City response.
Response to four of these agencies were provided for by TJKM within
their letter of March 12, 1986 (see Background Attachment #20).
Response to the remaining four agencies were provided for by Wagstaff
and Brady within their letter of March 12, 1986 (see Background
Attachment #21). Collectively these letters constitute a "Response to
Continents" document which has been incorporated by reference into the
Expanded Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for the project.
Public hearings on the project were held before the Planning Commission
on February 18, 1986, and March 3 and 17, 1986. Recommendations from
the Planning Commission's actions on March 17, 1986, are reflected
within Exhibits A, B and C. The Commission recommends the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
for the project and approve the Planned Development PD Rezoning and
Tentative Map in a modified format which would adjust Village VII from
a 12.75+ DU/GRA multiple family residential project to a 6.0 DU/GRA
single family residential project.
The Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek (Exhibit F
dated January 30, 1986, and sent under separate cover to the City
Council), provides an indepth analysis of the General Plan Land Use
Designations and Development .Policies that apply to the subject
property.
-4-
vin a `sPv?••m •^t .rte .:,•v,+eP^-oca.�-art •" Y^ "�.^`-rac' 'ica*MrCryp.»^^tit s^S -a,F"a"?n
• r 4it�
II. ISSUES
As mentioned-,above, these applications were- subject, to`a�°serses °of
Planning Commission public hearings. Through the course of the public
hearings, the majority of the issues separating Staff and the
applicants were ultimately resolved.
The major remaining issues have been reduced to concerns involving the
following three areas:
A) General Plan Policies
This issue area involves General Plan Policy determinations that
must be made by the City Council regarding the residential
densities of Villages I and VI.
1. Residential Density - Village I: The General Plan calls for
the residential density of Village I to be Medium-High Density
(14.1 to 25.0 DU/GRA). The density proposed for this area,
using Gross Residential Density (which counts 1/2 of the
adjoining public right-of-ways up to a maximum width of 50
feet) is 11.7+ DU/GRA. Given the Gross Residential Acreage
for Village I, 4.92+ acres, a total of 70 dwelling units would
have to be developed to meet the 14.1 minimum residential
density of the Medium to Medium-High General Plan Land Use
Designation. It should be noted that the net density of the
site, excluding any adjoining roadway, is 14.6 units/net acre
(60 units on 4.10+ acres).
The consensus determination of the Planning Commission at the
February 18, 1986, Commission hearing was to allow Village I
to remain at the 11.7 DU/GRA density. The Commission also
expressed a desire not to impose restrictions on Village I
that would serve to subsequently alter the type of dwelling
units proposed (i.e. , extensive use of three bedroom dwelling
units in four-unit building groups).
The "action" by the Commission will necessitate confirmation
by the City Council, as only the Council is empowered to make
the General Plan Policy Determination.
2. Residential Density - Village VI: A guiding policy found in
Section 2.1.2 - Neighborhood Diversity calls for the avoidance
of economic segregation by City sector, and specifically calls
for some of the units approved on the subject property to be
single family detached. The proposed lotting pattern of the
single family residential area, with 45' x 95' minimum pad
dimensions for the 146 lots, would establish a Gross
Residential Density of 5.8+ dwelling units per Gross
Residential Acre. This is a comparatively high density for a
single family residential project (the General Plan density
range for single family residential is 0.9 to 6.0 units/acre)
and raises the policy question of whether the proposed single
family residential product type will provide clear conformance
to the referenced General Plan Guiding Policies, or whether a
lotting pattern with larger residential lots for some or all
of the single family area would be appropriate to provide the
desired housing mix and to meet the goal of avoiding economic
segregation by City Sector.
The Planning Commission's recommendation on this item is to
allow the 5.8 DU/GRA density proposed for Village VI to stand
as proposed and direct a change in the use of Village VII from
12.8+ DU/GRA (multiple family residential) to a maximum single
family residential density of 6.0 DU/GRA. This change would
shift the total Gross Residential Acreage in the project
devoted to single family residential uses from 25+ acres (out
of 99.9+ GRA, or 25+%) to 37+ acres (374).
-5-
:;
B) Density and Product Type
- The applicant's- proposal'-for Village VII was 151 "multiple-family''
apartment/condominium units on 11.8+ GRA, for a density of 12.8
DU/GRA. The Planning Commission's recommendations for Village VII
was single family residential with a maximum density of 6.0
DU/GRA, which would result in a maximum of 71 units. The Planning
Commission indicated that the reason for the recommendation was to
assure compliance with' the General Plan. In particular, the
Planning Commission felt that the dwelling units on the west side
of the creek, Village VI and Village VII, should both be single
family residential.
The applicable General Plan Policies were:
- General Plan Residential Designation: Medium Density with
required mixed dwelling types including single family detached
and permitting up to 25 units per acre on portions of the
site.
- 2.1.2 Neighborhood Diversity
Guiding Policy
1. Avoid economic segregation by City sector.
Implementing Policy
2. Allocate medium and medium-high residential densities to
development sites in all sectors of the primary planning
area. Require some of the units approved east of the
Dougherty Hills to be single family detached.
3. Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects.
- 2.1.3 Residential Compatibilty
Guilding Policy
1. Avoid abrupt transitions between single family development
and higher density development in adjoining sites.
The applicant's believed that his proposal complied with the
General Plan. The Planning Commission believed that Village VII
needed to be single family residential to comply with the General
Plan.
An additional characteristic of the proposal that was discussed
was the typical size of the single family lots. As shown on the
following chart, the single family lots proposed in Village VI are
smaller than the comparable existing single family subdivisions in
Dublin. When comparing the typical (median) amount of flat and
useable dimensions of Villages VI to 1) the R-1 Zoning District
area along Penn Drive, and 2) the Ponderosa Planned Development,
the Villages VI proposed lot areas are also generally 200 to 575
square feet smaller than the Penn Drive and Ponderosa rear yards.
Typical (Median) Flat and Useable Dimensions
Project Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Rear Yard Area
(sq. ft. ft. ft.) (sq. ft
Village VI ,70G 50 95 900 min. (80%-20x45)
1,000 min. 20%-20x50
Penn Drive 6,300 60 .. 90_ 1,000 min. (20x50)
1,200 typical (20x60
Ponderosa 6,100 45 115 900 Min. (20x45)
1 575"t ical (35x45
-6-
If the smaller dimensions are of concern, the City Council could
require larger level lot areas and larger level rear yard areas.
' The applicant's -site- planners~may,-need to re-draw-the-Site,°Plan- to'"
determine how the larger dimensions might affect the number of
lots.
As a policy decision, the City Council should determine 1) the
appropriate number of single family dwelling units to be
developed, and 2) the amount of level lot area and rear yard area
that are acceptable for the single family units.
C) Pa-rkland Dedication Requirements
The City Manager has prepared a memorandum regarding the Villages
Development Park Dedication Proposal (see Exhibit G). Staff
recommends that the City Council consider a compromise park
proposal based on the memorandum, with the City Council revising
the memorandum as needed.
If the City Council concurs with this approach, the memorandum
should be put in final form and adopted by the City Council, and
the following Condition should be substituted for Condition #23 in
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development and
Condition #26 in Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding the
Tentative Map.
"Parkland shall be dedicated or in-lieu fees shall be
paid, or a combination of both shall be provided prior
to issuance of Building Permits or prior to
recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first,
in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. The
parkland dedication required is approximately 9.774
acres to 10.485 acres, depending on the total number
of dwelling units (0.009 acres/dwelling units x number
of dwelling units). The subdivider/developer shall
receive 5.0 acres of credit for the parkland
dedication. The subdivider/developer shall provide
certain improvements to the dedicated parkland. The
dedicated parkland and associated improvements shall
satisfy the developer's total park dedication
requirement. The improvements shall be installed to
the City's satisfaction within 30 months of the
recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Building
Permits. The items to be provided shall be as
specified in the Compromise Park Proposal portion of
the Memorandum from the City Manager to the City
Council regarding Villages Development Park Dedication
Proposal dated March 20, 1986, as revised and adopted
by the City Council (Exhibit G)."
Other major issues discussed during the course of the public hearings
were discussed in detail in the Staff Reports prepared for the three
referenced Planning Commission hearings and have been generally
resolved through the public hearing process. The February 18, 1986,
Staff Report identified 12 issues and provided discussion for each
issue (see Background Attachment 23). The issues identified in that
Report (with the exception of the Parkland Dedication Requirement
issue) are listed below and have been matched with the applicable
Conditions from the Resolution for the Planned Development (Exhibit B).
1) General Plan/Land Use
a) Commercial Site - The problems associated with satisfying the
direction in the General Plan to provide integration between
the proposed convenience store and the adjoining residential
area (Village I) were discussed within the February 18, 1986,
Planning Commission Staff Report. (See PD Condition #75.)
b) Residential Density - Village I - This remains as an
outstanding item with a General Plan Policy interpretation
necessary from the City Council, as discussed previously in
this Report.
-7-
�- f
c) Riparian Vegetation - Access to Alamo Creek - The problems
associated with satisfying the direction in the General Plan
- ` to provide -access to the,-creek -were- discussed in' th-e-February- `LL`
18, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report. (See PD
Conditions #62 and #88.,)
d) Residential Density - Village VI - This remains as an
outstanding item with a General Plan Policy interpretation
necessary from the City Council, as discussed previously in
this Report.
e) Rental Units in Large Multi-Family Projects - Assurance that a
set percentage of the multiple family residential units in the
- project be kept in the rental market pool has been addressed
by the Planning Commission. (See PD Condition #83.)
2) Open Space Provisions - Discussion regarding project open space
centered around the project's total open space, the impact of the
creek corridor and the options available to provide for the
recreational needs of future residents in Village VI (the single
family residential area). (See PD Conditions #3, #26-A-E, #26-I,
#44-L, #45-C, #62, #64, #68, #70, #71, #72, #73 and #74. Also see
Background Attachment #18.)
3) Dimensional Design Criteria - Single Family Area - Discussion
within the February 18, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report
addressed Village VI (the single family residential area) as
regards a proposed revised lotting pattern (see Background
Attachment #15), the treatment of slope areas, the development of
minimum front, side and rear yard dimensions, the development of
minimum level pad dimensions and direction for design of second
story front setbacks and for roof slope treatment. (See PD
Conditions #3, #63, #69, #84 and #87. Also see Background
Attachments #8 and #15.) -
4) Emergency Vehicular Access - The February 18, 1986, Planning
Commission Staff Report outlined the proposed means to provide
emergency vehicular access to Villages VI and VII and related
requirements proposed by Staff to retain future options pertaining
to on-site/off-site vehicular access. (See PD Conditions #49, #50
and #51.)
5) Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard Frontages Design Criteria_ -
Minimum dimensions and suggested treatment for the areas lying
between the curb and the sound wall and/or architectural
walls/fence along the project frontages were detailed in the
February 18, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report. The action
by the Commission reflects a compromise decision that would
maximize the width of the landscape strip along the project
frontage while providing flexibility and the dimension of the
pedestrian pathway along the west side of the creek. (See PD
Conditions #65, #66 and #67.)
6) Convenience Store Site Plan Layout - The February 18, 1986, Staff
Report raised concerns about the size and layout of the
convenience store site as regards the adequacy of the number of
proposed parking spaces. This discussion prompted the preparation
and submittal of a revised Site Plan Layout for the convenience
store. (See PD Conditions #42 and #75. Also see Background
Attachment #15.)
7) Loop Trail System - Staff outlined the interim and the ultimate
trail systems envisioned involving this project within the
February 18, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report. Staff
recommended that additional conditions be imposed to retain
flexibility for possible future interconnections between the ridge
and creek trail systems. (See PD Conditions #26-G, #27, #39, #40,
#50, #58, #68 and #88.)
8) Access Circulation - Parking for Village I (3-Bedroom Multiple
Family Dwelling Units) - Problems relating to the layout of units,
driveways and parking for this Village ultimately prompted the
submittal of a revised Site Plan Layout for that Village. (See PD
Conditions #42 and #75. Also see Background Attachment #15)
-8-
c
9) Dimensional Criteria - Multiple Family Areas - A variety of
approaches for minimum building-to-building separation standards
were considered during the period the project was being heard by
Planning Commission. The separation standards ultimately
reflected in the Draft PD Resolution will provide for building
separation standards generally comparable to those utilized at the
Amador Lakes project. (See PD Conditions #3 and #86.)
10) Environmental Review - The process utilized for the preparation of
the environmental documents covering this project have been
discussed above in this Report. The mitigation measures
ultimately established form the general backbone of the Conditions
recommended for the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request.
(See Expanded Initial Study for Villages at Alamo Creek and
Background Attachments #2, #14, #20 and #21.)
11) Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Grading - Conditions
recommended for the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request call
for the subsequent submittal of a Site Development Review (SDR)
application for each respective Village and detail items to be
addressed/reviewed within the various Site Development Review
submittals. Architecture, landscape and finish grading shall be
reviewed in detail as part of the SDR process. Mass grading
concerns have been addressed by various PD Conditions cited above
in 2) Open Space and 10) Environmental Review. (Also see PD
Conditions #28-E and #85 regarding architectural considerations.)
Minor modifications to the Conditions of Approval recommended by the
Planning Commission have been requested by the applicant and are
summarized in his letter of March 20, 1986. (See Background Attachment
#12. ) Staff has worked with the applicant in regards to the language
of the proposed revisions and can generally support the requested
adjustments. Additional review and discussion regarding the language
proposed for providing direction on the roofing materials used in the
multiple family residential Villages and regarding the minimum level
rearyard. areas in the Single Family Residential Villages will be
required.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council resolve the issues regarding:
A. General Plan Policies
B. Density and Product Type
C. Park Dedication Requirements
After resolving the issues, Staff recommends that the City Council take
the following actions:
1 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance (Exhibit A).
2 - Approve the Findings and General Provisions of the Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning - PA 85-041.1 (Exhibit B) .
3 - Approve the Tentative Map 5511 - PA 85-041.2 (Exhibit C).
4 - Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance (Exhibit D).
-9-
RESOLUTION NO. -86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING AND TENTATIVE MAP 5511' REQUESTS
FOR A PLANNED_RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 1,165+ DWELLING UNITS,
A FIVE-PLUS ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE, A COMMERCIAL SITE -
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS A CONVENIENCE STORE, AND COMMON OPEN
SPACE PARCELS COLLECTIVELY PROPOSED OVER A 135+ ACRE PROPERTY
FRONTING ALONG DOUGHERTY ROAD, EXTENDING SOUTHERLY FROM THE
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF DOUGHERTY ROAD
FOR 4,200+ FEET, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PQ 85-041.1 AND .2 VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development submitted a
request that the City rezone to a Planned Development (PD) District 135+ acres
lying in the northeast corner of the City with a concurrent request for
Tentative Map (5511) approval covering the planned residential/commercial
development; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act and City Environmental
regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental
impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ,
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
prepared and circulated by the Dublin Planning Department with the project
specific mitigation measures outlined in Staff's Expanded Initial Study dated
January 30, 1986, regarding:
A) Land Use
B) General Plan Policies and Zoning
C) Hydrology and Water Quality
D) Soils, Geology and Seismicity
E) Biological Resources
F) Traffic and Circulation
G) Air Quality
H) Noise
I) Municipal Services
J) Visual Resources
K) Cultural Resources
L) _ Energy
WHEREAS, those responses received for either the January 31, 1986,
distribution of the Expanded Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance or the previously distributed Notice of Preparation
document for this project (circulated on September 7, 1985), which warranted
response were addressed by a Responses to Comments document consisting of the
March 12, 1986, document prepared by TJKM, Transportation Consultants, and the
March 12, 1986, document prepared by Wagstaff and Brady, Urban and
Enrivonmental Planning which are incorporated by reference into the Expanded
Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission on March 17, 1986, did
adopt Resolution No. 86-013 recommending the City Council accept the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project as adequate
and complete; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider said Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the referenced
Responses to Comments documents at its meeting of March 24, 1986; and
...�.., +, r N.f. �x.3"'"'.TC`Fj ) r,: xi =:'µr", As."r' '..nR y. Y u"''' t',•°', ^u. F<'uT''F".x'3..'_'+cr."'4- "r. xr >Y"'�f a° t:F•y STi4...`iTi"r* ,
^ ..
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as legally
required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the project, PA 85-041.1
and .2, has been changed by the applicant and/or the applicant has agreed to
provide mitigation measures resulting in a project that will not result in the
potential creation of any significant environmental impacts indentified in the
Expanded Initial Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local Environmental Law
and Guideline Regulations and that it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. -86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS
AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING
CONCERNING PA 85-041.1 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK -
RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development is requesting
the City rezone approximately 135 acres lying in the northeast corner of the
City, to a Planned Development (PD) District for a planned residential/
commercial development of 1,165 dwelling units (including 1,019 multiple
family residential units and 146 lots for future development of single family
residential detached units), a five-plus acre neighborhood park site, a 9,000+
square foot- commercial site for future development as a convenience store, and
common open space parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a
series of public hearings beginning with a noticed public hearing on February
18, 1986, and concluding with a public hearing on March 17, 1986, at which
time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 86-014 recommending
approval of the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request, PA 85-041.1; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects
as required by law for the Planning Commission hearings and the March 24,
1986, City Council public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and reflected
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's
determination that a change in the proposed residential product type and
density of Village VII, from Multiple Family Residential, 12.75+ dwelling
units per Gross Residential Acre, to Single Family Residential, with a density
not to exceed 6.0 dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre, was necessary and
appropriate to meet the General Plan Policy Guidelines that call for the
avoidance of economic segregation by City sector, and specifically call for
some of the units approved in the subject property to be single family
residential-detached units; and
WHEREAS, .pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
previously adopted for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests (City Council
Resolution No. ) ; and
WHEREAS, the City 'Council finds that the proposed rezoning, as
modified, is consistent with the City General Plan and Policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning will
not have a significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning, as modified, is appropriate for the subject
property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, and
will not overburden public services; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on
health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare., or be
injurious to property or public improvements; and
WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning, as
modified, will be a detriment to, or interfere with, the City's General Plan;
-1-
B 1 13
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council hereby
approves the Planned Development (PD) -Rezoning request PA 85-041.1 subject to
i , th'e7-fol1-owing Conditions-of Approval.r' , . ,nr. . ,, o i r,•;,o, r n-va. r-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA 85-041.1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for a mixed use planned residential-commercial
development of single family and multiple family dwelling units and as a
small convenience store. Development shall be generally consistent with
the following submittals, modified to conform with Conditions of
Approval outlined below. Villages I through VI may vary in unit count
from the numbers initially proposed by a maximum of +5%, as long as the
unit total does not exceed the aggregate total indicated by the
referenced plan submittals. Village VII shall be modified from the
plans cited below to provide for development as a Single Family
Residential Village with a density not to ,exceed 6.0+ dwelling units per
Gross Residential Acre.
A. Revised Illustrative Development Plan - Composite Plan - Proposed
by Anthony M. Guzzardo and Associates, Inc. , dated received
February 3, 1986.
B. The Villages at Alamo Creek Tentative Map - Prepared by Tetrad
Engineering, Inc. , dated received July 31, 1985.
C. The Villages at Alamo Creek - Villages 1-5 - Preliminary Floor
Plans and Building Elevations, consisting of 12 sheets,. prepared
by Backen, Arrigoni and Ross, Inc. , dated received July 31, 1985.
D. Alamo Creek: Village VI - Dublin, CA - Preliminary Site Plan and
Building Elevations, consisting of four sheets, prepared by Aram,
Bassenian and Associates, Inc. , dated received January 27, 1986.
E. The Villages at Alamo Creek - Landscape Plan - Typical Unit
Cluster and Recreation Center, Schematic Park Plans and Site
Sections - Consisting of five sheets, prepared by Anthony M.
Guzzardo and Associates, Inc. , dated June 14, 1985.
F. Proposed Alamo Creek Improvements, Amador .Valley Boulevard to
Contra Costa County Line - Consisting of six sheets, prepared by
Bissell and Karn, Inc. , dated received May 23, 1985.
G. Alamo Creek - Village I Convenience Store Study Schematic Site
Plan and Building Elevations, Dublin CA - Prepared by Backen,
Arrigani and Ross, Inc. , dated received August 2, 1985, as
modified by the submittal entitled, The Villages at Alamo Creek -
Village I - Revised Site Plan dated received February 25, 1986.
H. Village VII - Flood Control Maintenance Road Emergency Fire Access
- Consisting of a single sheet, prepared by Anthony M. Guzzardo
and Associates, Inc. , dated received December 11, 1985.
I. Cross Sections at Alamo Creek - Consisting of a single sheet,
dated received February 6, 1986.
J. Preliminary Parking Assignment .Plan - Village I - Consisting of a
single sheet, dated received December 11, 1985.
2. Site Development Review approval for each phase of this project shall be
secured prior to the recordation of the respective Final Maps or the
issuance of building permits.
3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of
approval, the development shall comply with City of Dublin Site
Development Review Standard Conditions (see Attachment A).
4. Except as may be specifically provided for within these Conditions of
Approval, development shall comply with City of Dublin Police Services
Standard Residential Building Security Requirements (see Attachment B).
-2-
.,-..--, ... _... ,, ; ... .. .:"'r.'- .-:"T.r.'.,.,..ti•rt..r..1:'%'1":7»:�r 1'+4'.::c8m•'Kx��..-RF�'.S v3?,rer�-a;.w..r..�' .. .7c,1._ z+!'r .4t. ±m:�'.mn..ast.xu.-�.^T:...r,• .....,, <.s ,. -
5. Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is specified in
Section 8-31.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, or as detailed on an approved
project phasing schedule. The phasing plan outlined in the applicant's
,letter dated February 27, 1986, is acceptable in terms of the timeline t
�Gon�truGt.ion. qf- the respect Ve:res dent;,ial!,c= * -•., r
Villages. The formal project phasing schedule shall elaborate on this
letter and detail timing of construction of all major project
improvements.
6. If the subject project is not subdivided, as proposed under Subdivision
5511, the project shall remain subject to the Conditions of Approval
established for that Subdivision, as determined applicable by the City
Engineer and the Planning Director.
AIR QUALITY
7. Roadway Improvements
The site plan shall be altered to make provision of bus turnouts for
future transit plans servicing' Dougherty Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard. Such turnouts shall be located along the internal loop roads
in Villages II, III, IV, and V, or as required by the City Engineer and
the local transit authority.
8. Particulate Control
A. Significant landscaping shall be provided along project streets,
including Dougherty Road frontage and Amador Valley Road, to
partially filter particulate matter emanating from those roads.
B. Dust control measures, as approved by the City Engineer, in
conjunction with the project's improvement plans, shall be
followed at all times during grading and .construction operations.
Construction areas shall be sprinkled during periods when work is
proceeding and during other periods, as required, to minimize the
generation of dust.
C. Construction areas shall be revegetated and hydromulched upon
completion of grading operations. Where feasible, hydromulch
shall be installed in stages.
D. To the extent feasible, phased project construction shall balance
cut and fill to avoid off-hauling, or importation of material
along roadways.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
9. Loss of Major Trees
A. Trees identified in the Horticultural Report, prepared by Hort
Science, Inc. , September 20, 1985, and the tree preservation
identification list (Appendix A of these Conditions) shall be
preserved and protected. The project shall implement the Tree
Preservation Design, Construction, and Maintenance Guidelines
contained in the Horticultural Report. Within the creek channel,
the applicant shall have the responsibility for implementing these
guidelines for a minimum period of one year from the completion of
construction, or until the Alameda County Flood Control District
or other public entity accepts the channel, whichever is later.
B. A horticulturalist shall develop a specific preservation plan for
preservation of trees identified as "preserved" and "high
probability to preserve" following development of final grading
plans. During site preparation and construction, a
horticulturalist shall monitor and implement the specific
preservation plan, and shall supervise construction activities,
especially grading and pruning, as needed to implement the plan,
-3-
C. A revegetation plan for the creek shall be prepared and
implemented which includes the replanting of native species. The
- revegetation plan shall include provisions to aid new trees during
early years through irrigation, fertilization, deer protection and
disease prevention.
D. New trees and shrubs shall be planted on both sides of the creek
as well as on new embankments to be constructed along the creek.
Trees shall be located above the maintenance road per Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7 specifications.
E. Two -new trees of at least 15 gallon size shall be provided within
the creek tree planting plan area to mitigate the loss of 'each
existing tree over 8 inches in diameter. To the extent feasible,
new trees shall be of the same species as the trees lost. All
plans for additional tree planting shall be subject to review and
approval by Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7.
F. Whenever possible, construction activities shall be restricted
from within the drip line. At the maximum, no more than 40
percent of the area within the drip line for trees planted to be
preserved shall be altered.
G. During project construction, damaged roots shall be cut cleanly
with a saw. Trenches shall be back—filled as soon as possible to
avoid exposure of roots from dessication. Irrigation during and
following construction shall be provided where necessary.
H. Supplemental irrigation for trees subject to stress shall be
provided.
I. Positive drainage away from tree trunks shall be established and
water shall not be allowed to stand at the -base of the trees.
J. Open areas around trees to be preserved shall not be grubbed where
grading activities are not required.
K. Organic mulch shall be applied and maintained under the trees
within the development areas.
L. Horticultural care, monitoring of pest population and the
incidence of disease and control treatments when necessary, shall
be provided. This measure shall apply to all trees with health
classified by the Horticultural Report as A, B, or C and as
identified by the tree preservation identification list (Appendix
A of these Conditions) as "preserved" or as having a high or
medium probability of being preserved.
M. Temporary fences shall be constructed around the trees to be
preserved to exclude all equipment from within the drip line.
N. All wounds 'to trees to be preserved shall be repaired promptly,
with such repair and pruning to be performed by a qualified
arborist.
10. Riparian Habitat Loss
A. Temporary fencing shall be provided during the construction for
those areas of riparian habitat not intended to be included within
the construction zone.
B. An erosion and siltation control plan shall be incorporated within
the grading plan for the project. _
C. A revegetation effort shall be implemented on all reconstructed
channel banks as soon as possible after construction is completed
to enhance riparian habitat consistent with proper channel
maintenance for flood control. Such revegetation plans shall
include the following:
—4—
1) Use of trees, shrubs and vine species native to the region.
_2:) -}:.. Slse_of shruhs-with ..h :,gla..wildlif.e•.value._ on,,_the..lower,channel :, yj_,��:,
slopes.
3) Use of indigenous tree species, such as valley oak, live oak
and buckeye, on the upper channel slopes above the
maintenance road, together with shrubs and vines to
approximate a natural riparian community.
4) Planting of trees on the upslope side of the channel
maintenance road.
5) Trees, shrubs and vines may be established from seeds, liner
stock or small container stock (one gallon) or hydromulch
where feasible.
6) Undertaking of an irrigation program to aid survival of
woody plants during the first few summers. Where feasible,
fixed irrigation shall be installed.
7) Inclusion within the revegetation plan of portions of the
existing riparian corridor which are intended to be left in
their present condition, including provisions for native
trees, shrubs and vines, where they do not now exist.
8) Obtaining the approval of Alameda County Flood Control
District for the revegetation plan, which shall be
consistent with Flood Control maintenance requirements.
9) Provision of revegetation along the riparian corridor and
the successful establishment of plantings. Subsequent
maintenance and management of vegetation in the stream
channel will be the applicant's responsibility for one year
following completion of construction.
D. Drop structures shall not exceed a maximum height of two feet and .
shall be constructed in a manner the Department of Fish and Game
approves.
11. Construction Phase Impacts
A. Earth moving shall be undertaken and carried out during the dry
season.
B. Prior to winter rains, all bare ground shall be hydroseeded. If
grading is undertaken during winter time conditions, a plan shall
be submitted for stabilization and control of erosion. Such plan
may include mechanical soil stabilization, sediment barriers, and
settling ponds.
C, Conditions of the California Department of Fish and Game Stream
Alteration Permit shall be followed to minimize erosion during
construction in the creek channel.
D. Sediment control measures shall be used within construction areas
to reduce movement of silt and other sediment from the site.
E. In order to protect both the riparian corridor and isolated trees
from construction equipment, vehicular activity, and dumping of
trash and debris, areas not intended to be graded shall be
protected with temporary fencing.
12. Long Term Impacts
Human use of the riparian corridor and stream channel shall be
restricted and, where feasible, fencing erected for this purpose.
-5-
4.
ENERGY
..;. "13:" -.:'All 'iuni.ts 'shall' ''coritaihl standard' -and -currently 4vai,1a4le energy..-saving.'..:' '::'
devices, and shall be insulated in accordance with Title 24, State of
California Administrative Code. All buildings shall be designed to
comply with Title 24 Energy Regulations.
14. All multi-family units shall be provided with separately metered gas for
hot water. All meters shall be screened from view within an enclosure
that is compatible in design, location and materials to that of the
building to which it is to be installed.
15. Exterior .lighting fixtures in multi-family areas shall be energy..
efficient, fluorescent or metal vapor lighting.
16. Landscape design shall incorporate use of solar shading for south- and
west-facing walls in multi-family housing areas.
17. Recreation area pools in the multi-family project shall incorporate
solar heaters. The developer shall submit documentation that the
number, size, location and design at the solar collector panels will
suffice to provide adequate pool heating for a reasonable length of time
in each calendar year. Heating of the pools may be supplemented by gas
heaters.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
18. Increased Flows
A: The capacity of the Alamo Creek channel shall be increased
sufficiently to meet the future flows both' of this project and
future buildout of the Alamo Creek drainage (as established by the
Hydraulic Analysis of Alamo Creek, Alameda and Contra Costa
County, prepared by Bissel and Karn, Inc. , 1984) .
B. Drop structures shall be installed as needed to reduce the
velocity in Alamo Creek to- the 5-7 f.p.s. range and to reduce
erosion caused by the existing creek. The drop structures shall
conform to the Department of Fish and Game requirements, as
follows: Drop structures shall be of a height no greater than two
feet, and the area immediately downstream of the drop structure
shall be left in a natural state. If a ponded or pooled area of a
minimum dimension of two feet deep and six feet out from the drop
structures is formed which allows fish to congregate and migrate
upstream at peak flows, then a concrete base below the new drop
structures may be used. If concrete is not used, then a two foot
headwall deeper than the drop structures shall be installed to
prevent undercutting.
C. Alamo Creek shall be realigned to reduce erosion and severe bends
within the channel and to stabilize the existing unstable slides.
D. The applicant shall be responsible for the project's proportionate
share of the cost of flood control improvements, which are
anticipated to be specifically two box culverts, of a size
sufficient to accommodate 100-year flood flows, to be installed in
the Alamo Creek channel under Amador Valley Boulevard. The
project's share of the improvement cost will be calculated based
on the project's overall contribution to the incremental increase
in the 100-year flood flows to that of the projected upstream
increased from future development.
E. Six-foot black clad chain link fencing shall be installed along
both sides of the creek.
' 3
- :f;td-'. ,•ii,�-•'r,G;.T."1 fr.^-•i'f:i?%�r 'Cµ.'7 'r""°��"�OV-v^� r,.+r.,^ x.",� ,:.5 .rT,�..�...rr..�-'f'�' ".T r; -'3 -r_ v, :.1=` -
s -
��,,. �~i'� �� m�� . {.,( <:�,+�.. C t � x'. x ��3J��}..�m�#``f" .�I'�a+''�,'.r�i'! y+C.r i+��?4�"'x••��{�i-��.. -'f a .'b'Y Zn,,.�''�'�- �b t; '�"s.'^:'!'. - -.
19. Increased Erosion and Sedimentation
r tip, - Ar?--• `Grading within Alamo.xCre•ek- shall,,be limited to the lyeriod-from ' �,rf;:_�. .•.x ��N` :• -
April 15 through October 1 of each year.
B. An erosion control plan shall be prepared: by the developer's
Engineer and submitted with the grading plan. The plan shall be
in use until permanent storm sewers have been installed and
streets paved, and then these erosion control plans shall be
modified to the new Conditions. Erosion control plans shall
include, as required, hydromulching cut-and-fill slopes,. sediment
barriers, and sedimentation basis and ponds. Grading shall be
conducted in such a manner that standing water is not retained in
the vicinity of trees to be preserved.
C. A permanent revegetation plan shall be prepared for revegetation
of the channel, consistent with the requirements of Alameda County
Flood Control District Zone 7.
D. Culverts discharging into the stream channel shall be constructed
in such a manner as to avoid erosion by providing impervious
spillways on the side slopes into the bottom of the channel
E. Final improvement plans prepared for the channel shall maintain
the maximum amount of existing channel vegetation feasible and
shall preserve existing tree stands identified in the
Horticultural Report, The Villages of Alamo Creek, September 20,
1985, prepared by Hort Science, Inc. , and subsequent tree
preservation and protection analysis contained .in Appendix A of
these Conditions.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
20. Water Supply
A. The project shall extend water service from its current location
at Stagecoach Road and Amador Valley Boulevard to the project.
B. The project shall incorporate all reasonable water conservation
measures including water conservation applicances and separate
metering of gas for hot water heaters. The project Architect, or
Civil Engineer, shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or
Building Inspector stating the water conservant toilets, shower
heads, and automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles will be
installed in the units in this project.
21. Fire Protection
A. All dwelling units within the project shall incorporate smoke
detectors and spark arrestors on fireplaces.
B. Ongoing provision of fire breaks shall be included in the plans
for maintenance of the open space abutting Villages VI and VII.
C. Emergency access routes to Villages VI and VII and to the west
side of the creek shall be provided from Amador Valley Boulevard
via the maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek.
Emergency access to the site at the north end of Village VI shall
be provided at the time of development of the adjacent project to
the north in Contra Costa County. Emergency access routes are
subject to the approval of the District's fire protection service..
D. Fire hyrdants at the locations approved by the DSRSD-Fire
Department shall be installed and operable, to the satisfaction of
the DSRSD-Fire Department, prior to combustible construction.
Provision of raised blue reflectorized pavement markers shall be
made in the center of the private vehicle accessways at each fire ,
hydrant.
-7-
.. _ _
E. Each building and residence unit shall include a lighted, clearly
visible address. A lighted, -clearly visible project directory
„ .. ,. shall be provi:;dedl;at<::a '1',�naj.or `project access-ways within=-the
multi—family Villages.
22. Police Protection
A. Emergency access along the Alamo Creek channel maintenance road to
the lands lying west of the creek shall be developed.
B. Fencing of a design and location acceptable to the Dublin Police
Services shall be provided along the Alamo Creek corridor.
C. Provision for a future emergency connection at the north end of
Village VI to the adjacent project on the north side of the County
line in Contra Costa County shall be made through modification of
the lot layout in Village VI and the recordation and pursuit of
appropriate complimentary easements between the affected
properties.
23. Recreation
Park land dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
building permits, or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever
occurs first. The City Engineer shall calculate the in—lieu fee based
upon the Subdivision Ordinance. For in—lieu fee calculation purposes,
the preliminary park dedication land required is 9.774-acres (assuming
1,086—dwelling units at a dedication of 0.009 acres/du) . Final
calculations shall be made by the City Engineer at the issuance of
building permits or at the approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs
first.
NOISE
24. CamD Parks
A. Noise measurements at the Alamo Creek Villages site determined
that relatively simple plywood noise barriers constructed behind
the shooting ranges would effectively reduce noise reaching the
Alamo Creek Villages site. If, after people move into the subject
residential projects, complaints from residents are received by
the City of Dublin and/or the United States Army, all reasonable
steps by the developer shall be undertaken to assure this
mitigation measure is implemented. This mitigation measure is
consistent with mitigation measures in the preliminary draft
revised EIS which states: "on—site and off—site monitoring will be
conducted to define the extent and magnitude of noise levels
generated by Parks RFTA activities" and that "the U.S. Army will
continue to coordinate with City and County officials regarding
land use compatibility in the areas planned for residential
development."
B. Prospective purchasers or residents of the proposed project shall
be supplied with a written document indicating that sound levels
of up to 70 dBA may ',be generated by gunshots at the regional
training facility, and explaining when these activities are
generally expected to occur.
C. The developer shall construct a minimum 10—foot high berm on the
east side of Dougherty Road (subject to approval by the Army) from
Amador Valley Road north, a point approximately halfway to the
County Line where this berm will terminate into a natural hill.
This earthen berm shall have side slopes flat enough to mow with a
riding mower. This berm shall also be hydroseeded with wild
flowers and native, low growing plant materials (subject to Army
approval).
—8—
25. Traffic
A: An 8-foot=high::sgund .barrier...wall.along the project 'frontage..with.
Dougherty Road shall be developed in conjunction with this
project.
B. Landscaping along Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard shall
be of a type and planting layout to provide a mature growth
pattern which will grow to create a barrier in excess of eight
feet high.
C. Sound_-rated windows (Sound Transmission Class 27) shall be
provided for all multi-family dwelling units to reduce traffic
noise impacts and to meet Title 24 multi-family housing
requirements.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit
the appropriate documentation to demonstrate that all proposed
development shall meet or exceed applicable State noise
attenuation requirements.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBMITTAL
26. Open Space
A. Common open space areas for the multiple family residential
villages shall be increased to meet a minimum standard of 35
percent for each respective village. Density shall be reduced if
necessary in order to increase useable open space within the
villages to meet this standard.
B. Deck dimensions for multiple family units on second or third floor
elevations shall be increased a miminum requirement of seven feet,
excluding fencing or railing.
C. Private useable open space (patios) for multiple family
residential ground level units shall be a minimum of 140 square
feet in area.
D. Through the Site Development Review process, the developer shall
investigate the feasibility of leaving portions of the creek
accessible as useable open space in conjunction with a joint use
program between the City and Zone 7.
E. The recreational facility requirements for Villages VI and VII
shall be detailed in the Site Development Review submittal for
that Village and shall be addressed with the overall project
parkland dedication agreement.
F. Pool length shall be increased to 50 feet minimum length in at
least two of the six proposed recreation areas.
G. The initial Site Development Review shall include submittal of a
proposed master trail system which provides for a connection of
the pedestrian system and the community park with the regional
open space in Dougherty Hills. A linkage of the bikeway to the
west part of the park and Villages VI and VII shall also be
provided for by this plan.
H. The Site Development Review submittals for the multiple family
residential Villages shall define pedestrian ways from assigned
parking spaces to respective individual multiple family dwelling
units, and from dwelling units to recreation centers.
I. Fences on the upper tier of lots (westerly perimeter) in the
single family residential area shall be established at the lower
toe of the slope.
-9-
27. Landscape Design
ri>•.::: w-:r::�: y� :,-.
The,SiteN:Development:wReview «&tT.tam3a,ttal-s shall -deta l �a..;.sepa a c�F� My-*;c • :,jr:. „t.x r�
landscape strip between the bikeway and the access road along the creek.
28. Architectural Design
Site Development Review submittals shall include plans at an appropriate
design scale which detail that:
A. All dwelling units are oriented properly and at a sufficient
distance from each other, from parking and vehicular areas, and
group use areas.
B. Parking and vehicular areas shall be screened with patio fences or
appropriate landscaping from view of ground floor dwelling units.
C. To the extent feasible, west-facing uh,its' have sun-shading devices
or landscape screening to prevent over-heating of units.
D. Architectural design is compatible in color and finish with its
surroundings.
29. The developer shall confer with local postal authorities to determine
the type of centralized mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter
stating their satisfaction at the time the Site Development Review
submittal is made. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department.
If centralized mail units are not required, the developer shall provide
written documentation from the Postmaster stating .the exemption.
30. At-grade patios for the multiple family residential units shall be
individually fenced and shall be supplied with soil preparation to
accommodate future planting. Individual hose-bibs for each ground level
unit patio area shall be provided by the developer. The hose-bibs may
be maintained left in a "roughed-out" stage until such time as the units
are put up for individual sale. The layout of the enclosed patio areas
(as regards size and placement of concrete patio pads and the design of
the enclosing fencing and retaining walls) shall be subject to review
and approval as part of the respective Site Develpment Review submittal.
31. The developer's Engineer shall develop the expected truck length and
turning radius criteria to use the private streets (fire equipment,
delivery, garbage or moving trucks, etc. ) and design the curb radii
accordingly and submit this data and design criteria with the Site
Development Review application.
32. Wheel stops within the project shall be at the curb at the end of the
parking stalls. Parking stalls shall be a minimum depth of seventeen
feet for standard-sized stalls and fifteen feet for compact-sized stalls
(assuming two-foot overhang for both types of spaces).
33. Special private storage areas of at least 120 cu. ft. per multiple
family residential unit shall be provided within or adjacent to each
unit. Details of the location and design of these areas shall be
subject to review and approval as part of Site Development Review
submittals.
34. Information detailing the design, location and materials of all fencing,
and of retaining walls over two feet in height, shall be subject to
review and approval as part of the Site Development Review submittals.
35. Slopes for areas adjoining both public and private roadways shall be
designed to maximize the level areas available for landscape treatment
and for general safety consideration and shall be subject to review and
approval through the Site Development Review process.
-10-
-. :sN.•.vr•n.n» Ali . 2"'r 3Z`rY ruv P.9'F 143%'S+i'.Yir+aw rT v�Nro?ett �y"�' ,.. � �'. .y"'_. 1..(j i :. <.ti. ,�+•r .f Y�""r F''yvea"F' -y�?.' Ste. yr,
y_ T d
(51k.
36. Light standards (freestanding, pedestrian and/or wall mounted) utilized
in this project shall be of .a design which shields the light sources
from view-from..off=sit$.:,whi1 Rrouiding_f.or..adequat,a. security and.,",safety:.,..:;
illumination. Light standards .shall be subject to review and approval
as part of the Site Development Review submittal as regards design,
location, number and illumination intensity.
37. Handicapped ramps and access as required by Title 24, State .of
California, shall be provided (parking and walkways serving on-site
recreational facilities) . Handicapped parking stalls, appropriately
signed, shall be provided evenly throughout the project with their
location and design as part of the Site Development Review submittal.
38. The use of entrance gates at any portion of this development are
specifically disallowed unless architectural treatment, traffic and
emergency access impacts are addressed and approved through the Site
Development Review process.
39. A pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted as part of the Site
Development Review materials. The plan shall include section details of
the pathway system and a detailed pedestrian walkway lighting plan.
40. To facilitate the development of an interconnection between the proposed
creekside pedestrian pathway system and the 90+ acre open space area to
the west, the cul-de-sac bulb at the terminus of the roadway separating
Villages VI and VII shall be moved down slope 50-75 feet to function as
a "knuckle" and to allow for an easier slope transition for pedestrian
trail access up the slope to the adjoining 90+ acre open space area.
Pedestrian access through this area will necessarily traverse the seven
+ acre remnant open space area that will lie above the day-light zone of
the proposed grading for the single family residential development in
Village VI. A schematic grading plan for. the route of the pathway
system connection from the realigned "knuckle" to' the adjoining 90-acre
open space area shall be submitted as part of the Site Development
Review submittals for either Village VI or VII, whichever is the first
to be submitted to the City for processing.
41. Signs established at entrances to the respective Villages for project
identification purposes shall be subject to review and approval as part
of the Site Development Review submittal as regards location, copy and
design.
42. The potential design changes called for in Village I (concerning the
pursuit of a secondary access point, the adjustment to internal
circulation patterns and parking counts, and the impacts to the area
resulting from an enlargement and reconfiguration of the adjoining
commercial area) shall be reviewed through the Site Development Review
application for that Village. The applicant shall pursue a second
vehicular connection to serve the units in Village I to improve internal
circulation and to allow a diminishment of the distance between the more
remote units and their respective assigned parking. The developer shall
diligently pursue the necessary approvals to develop access from the
south of Village I, through the existing Arroyo Vista Housing Authority
project. Failure to secure this preferred secondary access shall not
release the applicant from pursuing provision of a secondary access to
Village I. In lieu of this access from the south, the applicant shall
investigate the feasibility of providing a second access along the
Amador Valley Boulevard frontage. Revisions to the site plan layout for
Village I shall be made to reduce the distances between available
parking and the more remote dwelling units. The amount of parking
provided shall be adjusted to match the standard being observed
elsewhere across the project (129-space suggested standard for 60-units)
or a more restrictive standard to acknowledge that development of 3-
bedroom units may result in a greater need for parking than the other
multiple family residential villages.
hyY^7.avSsS ".^Jr''� r"�Y""' "�.s°i�. '+ �^i TSK°.�?, nz^.s tv+.o•y.;- r gT„',.'t,i t'r` -r"' +' _
.. .C:t _ tiJ...., .' . I'. t.-.... .:' _.. . .4 ~'• .i ...��f........w ., 1 .. .�':r..l ...: __.,_.0 e..-....��r_r.-..�3_.!`.��::..Y�.:.�:.. _..F i< _ .
SOILS, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
43. Seismic Activity
Recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Alamo Creek, April 11, 1985, prepared by J. H. Kleinfelder & Associates;
shall be implemented.
44. Soils and Slope Stability
A. All foundation design, grading operations and site construction
work-shall be consistent with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by J.H. Kleinfelder &
Associates, dated April 11, 1985, and of the August 5, 1985,
letter from J.H. Kleinfelder & Associates to Ronald Nahas
regarding response to review comments on the Alamo Creek project.
B. No cuts or fill slopes shall exceed a' ,slope of 2:1. Where
possible, cuts or fills should be designed at 2.5:1 or flatter.
C. All fills of sufficient height shall be keyed into the existing
soils as recommended by the soils report prepared for this site.
D. All cut slopes of sufficient height should have bench gutters to
prevent drainage over the face of the slopes.
E. Prior to any grading of the site, a detailed plan covering grading
(including phasing), drainage, water quality, erosion and sedimen-
tation control for construction and the post-construction period
shall be prepared by the project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, and shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans
shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria
of all erosion and sediment control measures. The plans shall
attempt to assure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from
the site will occur. The plan shall provide for long-term
maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control
measures.
F. Alamo Creek shall be realigned to prevent further undercutting of
existing slides on the east side of the Dougherty Hills. Slope
protection shall be provided within the creek where necessary to
improve slope and bank stability.
G. Emergency access shall be provided to Villages VI and VII along
the west side of Alamo Creek along the proposed maintenance road
to serve as an emergency route in the event of damage to the
principle entrance across the creek due to seismic activity or
other natural disaster.
H. A report addressing the liquefaction danger to buildings adjacent
to Alamo Creek shall be prepared.
I. All structures shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the top
and toe of the slopes, pursuant to recommendations in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report, Alamo Creek, dated April 11,
1985 (J.H. Kleinfelder & Associates).
J. Sub-drains shall be installed in all existing natural drainages
which are to receive material. Installation shall be per the
requirements of the Soils Engineers.
K. Catch-basins shall be installed during the primary grading
operation where waters are concentrated in the proposed single
family lot areas.
L. Revegetation with hydromulch with native vegetation shall occur
after each grading season. On Dougherty Hills grading areas,
revegetation shall simulate original conditions to the greatest
extent feasible.
-12-
t _ ....� ..:�'�"„ s..... :';. .. ,ya • 'e Tk rf'.,`�� .+.. -ro r csr,.v 4r+c<� +`-" �s J_.�,"yi'fia sk'x2"��a�•2t1'{• '-.�.4^".-..,_..._
.. .. .._... ._.�:.:. �. .......rc-. 't,... t.r'`�n�•�.. .h�.,_F v.�' ..-±_...:�i. .:,.5.,• . .'? .5.T•'?i ..__�r .'r... . .�'..,•e :;.rv, .,iti�'*. :,c':.
M. Full—time soils inspection by the Soils Engineer representative
during mass grading operations shall be provided by the developer.
N. All lots shall be graded to slope toward the streets to avoid rear
yard drainage channels and protect slopes from erosion.
0. The design of all multi—family residences shall be reviewed by a
licensed structural engineer for seismic requirements prior to the
issuance of building permits.
P. Where import depth of non—expansive soils is less than 2.5 feet
thidk-, post tension slabs should be used to avoid potential damage
from expansive soils.
Q. All import soil brought onto the site shall be of a non—expansive
nature.
R. Where soil or geotechnical .conditions• pncountered in grading
operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and
geological investigation reports, or where such conditions warrant
changes to the recommendations contained in a site—specific/
project—specific soils and geotechnical report which shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City and shall be
accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the
safety of the site from hazards of erosion, settlement and seismic
activity.
45. Mass Grading
A. Cuts and fills shall be designed to balance whenever possible to
avoid the need of offsite hauling.
B. Cut—and—fill slopes shall be contour—rounded to conform as closely
as possible with the natural slopes; to avoid a man—made
appearance, and to form a gradual transition to natural terrain.
C. Variable slopes shall be used to mitigate environmental and visual
impacts of grading.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION— PROJECT—RELATED IMPACTS
46. Dougherty Road/Amador Vallev Boulevard Intersection
A. The developer shall widen Dougherty Road both north and south of
Amador Valley Boulevard with a minimum of 24 feet of asphalt
paving to provide four lanes south of Amador Valley Boulevard and
50 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. Widening will take
place from the existing four lanes on the south side of the
S.P.R.R. right—of—way to the northern project boundary. Dougherty
Road north of Amador Valley Boulevard may be widened to four lanes
'in phases to correspond with the connection of project access
roads to Dougherty Road, or may be constructed along the total
frontage along with the first unit developed. (Subject to City
Engineer review and. approval, alternative improvements may be
acceptable. ) Dougherty Road widening shall be completed from
Amador Valley Boulevard to the northerly line of Village III prior
to occupancy of Village II or III. Those street improvements on
Amador Valley Boulevard shall be complete prior to occupancy of
the first Village developed.
B. The developer shall construct a free right—hand turn interim lane
on Dougherty at Amador Valley Boulevard. Upon construction of the
ultimate right—of—way of six lanes and a divided median on
Dougherty Road, this right hand lane shall be modified to function
as a joint right—hand turn lane and through southbound travel
lane.
—13—
C. The developer shall install a signal at Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dougherty Road. The signal is to be installed and operational
mot; y,,. ;c. _... •prior to ,.orc_upancy_of _more,•than 3,0.0_units.:.. _r; . .,; l `'.�•!(:_y'. 4.J1'....-
D. The developer shall increase the number of parking spaces by 32
spaces to meet minimum requirements for dwelling units and to
provide 15 percent guest parking. Parking spaces shall be
designed to meet minimum dimensional requirements. The ratio of
compact spaces to full size spaces shall not exceed 50 percent of
the uncovered parking.
47. Dougherty woad/Dublin Boulevard Intersection
The project developer shall pay for construction of a right-hand turn
lane, including curb, gutter and signal improvements, together with
restriping as necessary, to accommodate a free right-hand turn lane off
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. Improvements shall be complete or,
in the event that right-of-way acquisition has not been completed by the
City, funds shall be deposited with the City' to cover the required
improvements prior to occupancy of more than 360 project units.
48. Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection
The developer shall reconstruct and improve Amador Valley Boulevard by
narrowing the portion of the median fronting the property line to
Dougherty Road, providing lighting and landscaping, repairing and
overlaying the existing street section, providing four lanes from the
entrance of Villages I and II to Dougherty Road, and providing a
separated eight-foot width off street bicycle system from Dougherty Road
to the west side of the entrance to Villages I and II. From that point,
the bicycle and pedestrian systems shall be separate, as detailed in PD
Condition #65-C.
49. Emergency Access Routes to Villages VI and VII
The developer shall provide an emergency access route to Villages VI and
VII. The proposed maintenance road on the west side of the creek .may
serve as the emergency access road, providing that design and
engineering studies prove this access feasible. Emergency access roads
must be 20 feet minimum width, and may not be routed through the
community park.
50. The lotting layout of Village VI shall be modified to allow the right-
of-way that is to be offered for dedication at the north end of the
cul-de-sac adjoining proposed Lots #113 and #114 to include all lands up
to the County Line. This adjustment shall be made to reserve for the
City of Dublin the flexibility to pursue a future emergency access
linkage with the land to the north upon the submittal to the City of San
Ramon of a development plan for the property.
51. The right-of-way along the north side of the northernmost proposed
public loop road for Village V shall be widened to include all lands up
to the County line. This adjustment shall be made to reserve for the
City of Dublin the flexibility to consider possible road connections
serving future development to the north, in the City of San Ramon, which
may subsequently be determined desirable to minimize the number of
intersections along Dougherty Road and/or to mitigate possible alignment
conflicts of intersections proposed to be located along Dougherty Road,
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
52. The developer shall increase the size of. Dougherty Road from the
existing two lane configuration north of Amador Valley Boulevard which
would accommodate project traffic to a completely new, full four-lane
configuration with a 3-foot painted median (or alternate improvements as
approved by the City Engineer). Street lights shall be placed along the
west side of the road.
- *• .., ..--. -.;_, ,__,.-�. >-::-w ., +c .orxs'. z-�-.�-^.,'^",-rr.- 4ryxi^w ,-'•ar�-aa•^a r''.���_,•�. ,�:;e- r {-'-'va .-fa;.-a- _ ,,. -•-
_ a
53. The developer shall construct an additional two lanes along Dougherty
S Road where the existing curb and gutter have been installed. for the
Arroyo- Vis.to.;.deveLopmentt.�arrnG.-,;.,the�,Souther n.,P-acificiRailroad-track _:
This section of road shall be complete prior to occupancy of 650 units.
54. The developer shall widen Amador Valley Boulevard to four lanes from the
entrance from Villages I and II to Dougherty Road. This project shall
be completed prior to occupancy of any of the units in the"development.
In addition, the median fronting this project shall be landscaped and
double headed street lights shall be placed in this median.
55. The applicant will install conduit for future signals at the main
. project entrances to Villages IV through VII and at the Amador Valley
Boulevard entrance to Villages I and II for possible future traffic
signals.
56. The developer shall provide for the development of complete plans for
the final improvement of Dougherty Road for, the. entire project frontage
to its ultimate design configuration.
57. The developer shall modify the site,plan layout to provide bus turnouts
along the internal street system, Dougherty Road, and Amador Valley
Boulevard, the locations and design of which shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer and the local transit authority.
58. The following changes in the circulation system shall be made in Village
VI: 1) the north-south streets serving Lots 1 through 27 shall be
terminated in cul-de-sacs at the north ends of the streets; 2) the cul-
de-sac at the west end of the street between Village VI and Village VII
shall be modified to a knuckle and lowered down the slope; and 3) the
emergency access to be provided at the north end of the site shall be
designed for emergency access only, not for through traffic.
59. The internal major collector loop streets shall be dedicated to the
City. These streets include those which connect the Villages and are
the main entrances to the project, and also include all streets in
Villages VI and VII.
60. Developer shall furnish and install signs stating "Private Street" and
"Fire Access - Park in Designated Locations Only" along all private
streets. Guest parking spaces shall be designated by sign paint or
equal.
61. Access from the Reserve Training Center just south of Amador Valley
Boulevard shall be relocated to be directly opposite Amador Valley
Boulevard, and signal heads and phases shall be provided for this
movement (subject to Army approval).
VISUAL RESOURCES
62. To the extent feasible, development shall provide for the incorporation
of part of the creek corridor into the park area, to provide views
uninterrupted by cyclone fencing (as determined appropriate and feasible
by the City and the Alameda County Flood Control District).
63. A landscaped buffer area 15 feet wide shall be incorporated into the
north side of the east-west street that divides Villages VI and VII.
This buffer shall extend from the entrance to the single-family Village
and continue west to the end of this street. The buffer shall be
designed to screen off the single-family area from offsite views through
the park, and to provide a transition between the single-family and
multi-family areas. r
64. Detailed planting plans developed for the park area within the 500 foot
corridor east of Dougherty Road shall accommodate long-distance views to
the Dougherty Hills.
a
ra+�r^1:smlm:e�rcras^+-*sr- �,�."°,-c*-._tA'w' a �R'�.•" ''F'3. R
n d•e� F ": .. rY,•c J *. � �:'� .. :�5• � _.i: .1> y�� Jr Y',?t •i.r-,s— -r,
65. The following design criteria shall be reflected in the Site Development
Review submittals for Villages I through V for the Dougherty Road
frontage 'strip'�adjo-fining: the :proposed , s0und--2architectutd7l wall:
a) Total minimum width of the strip, as measured from face-of-curb to
face-of-wall, shall be 19 feet, and shall be widened to 23 feet
wherever feasible. Where grade differentials between the project
area and the Dougherty Road frontage strip dictate, the sound-
architectural wall may be located approximately at grade with the
frontage strip (i.e. , not located atop a berm). The width of the
frontage strip may be reduced to less than 19 feet where bus
turnouts will be required.
b) Four-foot minimum landscape strips on both sides of the sidewalk
shall be utilized (as measured from the face-of-curb to the front
edge of the sidewalk and between the rear edge of sidewalk and the
face of the sound-architectural wall).
C) The sidewalk shall be a minimum of six, feet in width and shall
meander both horizontally and vertically through the center 11-
foot strip (minimum width) that remains between the two minimum
landscape strips established above.
d) Wall design shall provide detailed architectural design on both
sides of the wall and shall utilize "pop-outs" of a minimum depth
of three feet, being regularly spaced along the wall's entire
frontage.
66. The following design criteria shall be reflected in the Site Development
Review submittals for Villages I and II for the Amador Valley Boulevard
frontage strips adjoining the proposed perimeter fences or walls:
a) Total minimum width of the strips, as measured from face-of-curb
to the fences or wall, shall be 16 feet, and shall be widened to
19 feet wherever feasible.
b) Three-foot minimum landscape strips on both sides of the sidewalk
shall be utilized (as measured from the face-of-curb to the front
edge of the sidewalk and between the rear edge of sidewalk and the
face of the perimeter fence or wall) .
C) The pedestrian/bikeway path shall be a minimum width of eight feet
and shall meander both horizontally and vertically through the
fontage strips that remain between the two minimum landscape
strips established above. The pedestrian/bikeway path shall
extend from Dougherty Road to the west side of the entrance to
Villages I and II. From that point, the sidewalk shall be five
feet in width on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard and
bicycle lanes shall be striped in the street. On the south side
of Amador Valley Boulevard, the sidewalk shall be constructed to
conform with the planned sidewalk for the undeveloped phase of the
Heritage Commons project.
d) The fence or wall shall extend along the Village II frontage up to
the outside of the flood control channel.
67. The sound-architectural wall along the Village II frontage shall extend
westerly along the Amador Valley Boulevard frontage for the minimum
distance necessary to provide the required sound attenuation for
proposed Building Group 26. The sound-architectural wall along the
perimeter of Village I shall extend from the Dougherty Road frontage
around the south and west side of the proposed convenience store parcel,
terminating at a point giving adequate separation from the Amador Valley
Boulevard right-of-way to provide visibility along the street and into
the parking area for the proposed convenience store site.
-16-
68. The undeveloped area on the west side of the site shall be offered for
dedication to the'City or an appropriate public recreational district.
Areas not .accepted for,.dedication. shall be,,placed._i:nto a private
.Homeowners' Association...,
69. Single family homes in Villages VI and VII at higher elevations shall be
subject to architectural design guidelines requiring exterior colors and
materials compatible with the scenic corridor, established and
enforceable through project CC & Rs.
70. Engineered slopes shall be contoured to blend into the natural
topography and shall not, to the extent feasible, exceed 2.5:1 slopes.
71. .Cleared open space areas shall be revegetated. Natural areas shall be
enhanced by planting of oak, naturalized grasses, or other native
vegetation.
72. In Villages VI and VII, uniform, durable fencing compatible in design
and materials with the natural appearance of the hills shall be
installed along the boundaries of all lots which are located on or
adjacent to graded slope areas.
73. Uniform tree plantings shall be installed and maintained on all graded
slope areas adjacent to single-family lots in Villages VI and VII.
Approximately one tree at 350 square feet of slope area shall be
planted, or an alternate standard approved through the respective Site
Development Review submittals. Tree species shall be compatible with
native vegetation.
74. All open space and landscaped areas now owned by individual single-
family lot owners or within Villages shall be placed within a lighting
and landscape special assessment district, or maintained by a master
homeowners association.
75. The Dougherty Road frontage width of the proposed commercial site
(proposed Lot #153) shall be increased to provide for an approximate
doubling of the on-site parking to be .developed. This change shall be
generally consistent with the revised site plan received for the
commercial site and Village I, dated received February 25, 1986 (see
Background Attachment #16). To accommodate the increase in the size of
the commercial parcel, changes shall be made to the layout of building
groups in the adjoining sections of Village. I. The driveway to the
commercial site along Amador Valley Boulevard shall be moved westerly to
provide a wider separation between said driveway and the intersection of
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Additional design
considerations involving the pedestrian walkway system, the gasoline
pump island layout, the method of tying into the adjoining sound-
architectural wall, etc. , shall be addressed in conjunction with the
Site Development Review for this site. Part of the submittal
requirements for that subsequent submittal shall include information
documenting the anticipated parking requirements for the proposed
convenience store. The findings of the Study shall be utilized in the
determination of the required minimum size of the commercial site. All
overhead utilities fronting the project on Dougherty Road shall be
undergrounded.
MISCELLANEOUS
76. The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in
the design, but not the use, may be approved by Staff. Any other change
will require Planning Commission approval through the Conditonal Use
Permit review process or, depending on the magnitude of the
modification, submittal of a new Planned Development Rezoning submittal.
Changes to the proposed finished floor elevations and site grading for
single family residential lots proposed in Village VI shall not exceed a
maximum deviation of five feet from the pad elevations indicated on the
Revised Tentative Map and Development Plan, dated received December 12,
1985.
-17-
'G7' rn^rnr�err'�!'sn'„'Z,',y' y P'rt't'7ro"v i��-�s j c�4�^� ,L T d-r•>rr.i'T ..-tv-•..�..'Y�' '-f—T- f ,, 'f.•;"v�e-a*"F'+m.'Pw*ptrr r�a;7p •-»T
•x �• ,;' � ' tit,•;� � �� 'v-a., -
.... _ ♦..:v ... . '.Y h T V ./ x .,r`-.,.,..i ��' ..`:.r ,F x.._ '. ., 5:_ . .. ..... a F..._..ii. '^z}�.. .. .v i ..,.,v . .. .. •
77. If occupancy within an individual Village is to occur in phases,. all
physical improvements shall be required to be in place prior to
occu.pancy.. except.-fbt:'items specifically excluded-_il;a:Village
Construction-Phased Occupancy Plan approved by the Planning Department.
No individual unit shall be occupied until. the adjoining area is
finished, safe, accessible, provided with all reasonable expected
services and amenities, and completely separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Any approved Village Construction-
Phased Occupancy Plan shall have sufficient cash deposits or other
assurances to guarantee that the project and all associated improvements
shall be installed in a timely and satisfactory manner. At the request
of the Planning Director, written acknowledgements of continuing
construction activity shall be secured from the property owners and any
and all occupants or tenants for the portions of the Village to be
occupied, and shall be filed with the Planning Department. Said
acknowledgements for a subdivision shall be part of the settlement
documents between the developer and buyer.
78. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of sny units:
A. Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as approved by
the City Engineer.
B. Fire protection devices shall have been installed, be operable,
and conform to the specifications of and inspections by the Dublin
San Ramon Services District Fire Department.
C. Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit.
D. As-built drawings showing the locations of all -underground
utilities (water, storm and sanitary sewer, gas, electric,
telephone and cable TV) shall be provided to the City.
E. Street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the
Planning Director, shall have been installed.
79. Prior to occupancy of any unit, each phase of development (landscaping,
irrigation, fencing and landscape lighting in accordance with approved
landscape and erosion control plans) shall have been installed, or a
bond or letter of credit for the landscaping, lighting, appurtenant
structures, and irrigation system shall be provided to the City. A
statement from the project Landscape Architect shall certify that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with the plans and shall be
submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director,
80. Should the project be phased:
A. The undeveloped area shall be maintained as acceptable to the
DSRSD - Fire Department and shall be kept free of trash and
debris.
B. A road system of a design determined acceptable to the City
Engineer and the Planning Department shall be installed.
C. Each phase shall be landscaped and developed such that should
construction of subsequent phases be delayed, the constructed
phase(s) will appear as a completed project.
81. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, the following
reports shall be filed with, and approved by, the City Engineer at the
time the units are put up for individual sale.
A. A report by a licensed roofing contractor certifying that the
roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely
to be in need of replacement for at least 10 years. A reserve
deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs
of roof replacement where replacement will be required prior to 10
years.
-18-
v. .;.._.-r+ro-rnr. ,� iv'3 a
B. A report by a professional Engineer attesting, to the extent
reasonably feasible, .that the structure of all buildings,
..:.: pavements:; at-orm-=dra -ninage.,facili-ties; an&:the,•interior:and ..�-
exte'rior' plumbing; `61dctrical- systems, and utility and mechanical ' '-
equipment to be owned in common, or as part of the individual
condominiums, are in good and serviceable condition.-
C. A report by a licensed painting contractor that paint throughout
the project is in good condition and that the building exteriors
should not require repainting for at least five years. A reserve
deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs
for-the repainting of the units where repainting will be required
prior to a 5-year period.
D. A report by a licensed termite and pest control specialist
certifying that the structures are free of infestation and
structural damage caused by pests.
82. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, all
applicances shall either be replaced with new units or the initial
buyers provided with a one-year's parts and warranty guarantee on all
applicances.
83. The developer shall provide guarantees that a minimum of 10% of the
multi-family units in the project shall be maintained as rental units
for a period of five years. The document providing said agreement shall
be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Such 10% shall
be calculated, utilizing the number of units in Villages I, II, III, IV
and V as a base (868 proposed units for a commitment of 87 units to the
rental pool). Commencing with the date of issuance of an occupancy
permit on the 87th multi-family unit within Villages I through V, the
developer shall guarantee that a minimum of 87 units shall be available
for rent at all times within the above Villages' until the Condition has
been satisifed. This Condition may be met individually within any one
Village, or collectively over all the affected Villages. Developer
agrees that until the Condition has been satisfied, there shall be no
conversion of codominium units for sale within Village V.
84. Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the
single family residential lots in Villages VI and VII shall include the
following:
A. Front.yards - 20-foot minimum; subject to review and approval by
the Planning Director, may be varied from 18 to 22
feet to provide variety while generally maintaining
the 20-foot average.
B. Side Yards - 1. One story units
- 5-foot minimum flat and useable each side
- 12-foot minimum street side sideyard
2. Two story units
-5-foot minimum flat and useable each side
-15-foot minimum street side sideyard
C. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and useable.
D. Pad Areas - 45' x`\95' minimum, with the 45' width measured from
front setback line through to the rear of the lot.
In addition to the above, the design of single family residential units
developed shall provide for the maximum unit privacy through use of
building layouts which maximize useable side and rear yard areas with
offsets of windows and similar inter-building design considerations.
The majority of the two-story units shall observe an additional front
yard setback requirement whereby the building face of the second story
shall observe a setback of an additional five feet + from the building
.face of the garage. Two-story units shall generally avoid use of shed-
.
-19-
?��n�:• �"�?Ty'.�2"'?w'�;�;:a"""y'.F°`,'� '? . .,: .^.tom--ne r^*sr t`�c '`T',�'�` ."T`"�".'�,..+ ...+�+.---�-^�r ,�^-=-m r y- a^ nM:�-r•--. _
.,....,.-. ":. i -V.•, .;: , ! `..:` f}„ L yH ukrk,+> a y,rs a,G°�Yro ,i y c-WT .,"'F � ,u �'�r�',.k;s?i� �i Y���.e�L�� s.yu. ..
type roof designs., but rather shall generally utilize roof designs which
serve to mitigate- possible visual impacts resulting from the height and
proximity.of.-two—stary:-1'un-its - 0 1„a. .r. .
Except as specifically modified by the above listed design criteria, or
as established elsewhere in the Conditions of Approval for. this project,
the single family residential lots developed within Villages VI and VII
shall be subject to the guidelines of the R-1 Single Family Residential
District as regards both land use restrictions and minimum/maximum
development criteria.
85. To assure- that adequate diversity of building architecture across the
..project as- a whole will be provided, individual Villages, or groupings
of contiguous Villages (i.e. , Villages II and III as a grouping, and
Villages IV and V as a grouping) shall be designed in a manner to allow
them to stand alone with village—specific architectural features (such
as alternate types of roofing or siding materials, alternate use of open
or enclosed stairwells, etc.). Detailed design review of project
architecture shall be made at the time of stbmittal of the respective
Site Development Review applications for each proposed Village.
86. The minimum distances between buildings and building appurtenances in
the multi—family Villages shall comply with the following criteria:
The term "building wall" shall refer to the exterior side of building
walls containing heated space (with the exception of the enclosed entry
in the "E" type building) .
A. 20 feet between all building walls, with deviation from the
minimum separation subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director through the Site Development Review process, to consider
case—by—case reductions to 15 feet when:
1. The living room windows are separated by a minimum distance
of 40 feet measured perpendicularly from the sliding glass
door.
2. Living room to bedrooms are separated by 30 feet (measured
perpendicularly from the sliding glass door) .
B. Building/roadway separations, 15 feet minimum, except building
setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and the
first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads from the intersection
with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Boulevard where a 20—foot
minimum setback (measured from the rear face of the sound
architectural wall or perimeter fence along Dougherty Road or
Amador Valley Boulevard ) shall be observed. The 20—foot minimum
setback along the loop roads shall be from the face of curb or
back of sidewalk, whichever is applicable.
C. Patio/deck and deck/building wall separations — 15—foot minimum.
D. Building walls and parking area separations — 10—foot minimum with
a minimum of five feet of the width landscaped for screening or
parking.
E. Building appurtenances to building appurtenance separations
(including patios) — 10—foot minimum separation. Stairway
landings may be closer than 10 feet where privacy is not
compromised as approved by the Planning Director through the Site
Development Review process.
87. The two easterly cross streets in Village VI shall be terminated in
cul—de—sacs. The applicant's engineer shall investigate the feasibility
of incorporating two additional cul—de—sacs, with emergency breakthrough
vehicular access inter—connection between the two cul—de—sacs, along the
most westerly proposed through street in Village VI (and subject to
Staff review of the Site Development Review for Village VI).
—20—
--•-^+
88. The minimum width of the creek-side pedestrian walkway strip shall'- be 14
feet (measured from face-of-curb to the flood control maintenance fence)
4•for-,a�%minimum,'of-50--' -c+-,the'str p"s -frohtageIa+1•oi g--Vil1a 'n"IT`°throughi '
V. Subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, this width
may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet for the remainder of the
referenced frontage. The pedestrian walkway strip shall include a 6-
foot minimum width concrete walkway which, wherever feasible, shall
meander within the creek-side walkway strip. The walkway shall also
maintain a four-foot landscaped setback from the curb and the flood
control fence where the width of the strip so allows.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-21-
'+';ri`-`^::";,�;s• f w.+• a .,�y:,,?a•.,;,�.r;.�'�r5k Tr 1m4"" N,..r; ^'yYF bX�C° ;.�-w •4 ?.p.1't� ,y 53eT jz•,M,*d p r Y+' ia1+t ^ "a"+.yA',dq`_a•'a7�4ay ¢ :.i fix,^} }t*'�"h u� g-.n. . �. ..
RESOLUTION NO. -86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5511
CONCERNING PA 85-041.2 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK -
RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE SITE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development requests
approval to subdivide 135+ acres of land in the northeasternmost corner of the
City into a 156 lot subdivision creating the following lotting pattern: Lots
1 through 145 - for the proposed single family residential lots; Lots 147
through 152 - being one lot for each respective proposed multiple family
residential village (which are proposed for subsequent subdivision into
residential condominium air-space units) ; Lot 153 - for the proposed 9,000+
square foot commercial lot; and Lots 154 through 156..- for flood control
right-of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard right-of-way and improvements, the entry
road right-of-way and improvements servicing Villages VI and VII, and rough
grading for the entire project; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the
adopted City of Dublin .Subdivision Regulations require that no real property
may be divided into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or
financing unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin subdivision
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the proposed project
at a series of public hearings beginning with a noticed public hearing on
February 18, 1986, and concluding with a public hearing on March 17, 1986, at
which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 86-015, recommending
approval of the Tentative Map request, PA 85-041.2; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects
as required by law for the Planning Commission hearings and the March 24,
1986, City Council public hearing; and
.WHEREAS, The Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Tentative Map be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and
reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports
and recommendations as herein above set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's
determination that a change in the proposed residential product type and
density of Village VII, from Multiple Family Residential, 12.75+ dwelling
units per Gross Residential Acre, to Single Family Residential, with a density
not to exceed 6.0 dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre, was necessary and
appropriate to meet the General Plan Policy Guidelines that calls for the
avoidance of economic segregation by City sector, and specifically calls for
some of the units approved in the subject property to be single family
residential-detached; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
previously adopted for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests (City Council
Resolution No. ); and r
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Tentative Map
will not have a significant environmental impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby
find:
1. Tentative Map 5511, as modified, is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinances.
-Taw, ,, ,X IBIT C/
-1-
2. Tentative Map 5511, as modified, is consistent with the City's
General Plan as they apply to the subject property.
3. Tentative Map 5511 will not result in the creation of significant
environmental impacts.
4. Tentative Map 5511 will not have substantial adverse effects on
health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare; or be
injurious to property or public improvements.
5. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in
that the site i-� indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of
development proposed in locations as shown, provided the geological
consultant's recommendations are followed; and the site is in a good location
regarding public services and facilities.
6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in
that the design and improvements are consistent with those of similar existing
residential developments which have proven to be satisfactory.
7. The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of
being compatible to existing land uses in the area, will not overburden public
services, and will facilitate the provision of housing of a type and cost that
is desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin.
8. General site considerations, including unit layout, open space,
topography, orientation and the location of future buildings, vehicular
access, circulation and parking, setbacks and similar elements have been
designated to provide a desirable environment for the development.
9. This project will not cause serious public health problems in that
all necessary utilities are, or will be, required to be available and Zoning,
Building, and Subdivision Ordinances control the type of development and the
operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves.
Tentative Map 5511- PA 85-041.2 subject to the conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified the following conditions shall be complied with
prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Each item is subject to review and
approval by the Planning Department unless othewise specified.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Approval of Tentative Map is subject to the subdivider securing final
approval from the Dublin City Council for the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning request covering the subject property. Any modifications to
the project design approved by the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
action shall supercede the design on the Tentative Map and shall be
considered as an approved modification on the Tentative Map. Site
Development Review approval for the project shall be secured prior to
the recordation of the Final Map. Site Development Review and Final Map
recordation may occur in phases.
ARCHEOLOGY
2. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered,
construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist
consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the
opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as
may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect
them.
BONDS
3. The developer may request and sbcure a grading permit and commence
construction of creek improvements in advance of completion of
improvement drawings for site development work outside of the creek
-2-
corridor (subject to the provision of security agreements to ensure
completion of grading and erosion control requirements, as deemed
appropriate by the City. Engineer). _r
4. Prior to release by the City Council of the performance and labor and
materials securities:
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improve-
ment Plans and Specifications.
b. All required landscaping along public streets shall be installed
and-established.
C. An as-built landscaping plan for landscaping along public streets
prepared by a Landscape Architect, together with a declaration
that the landscape installation is in conformance with the
approved plans.
d. The following shall have been submitted to the City Engineer:
1) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, including original ground surface elevations, as-
graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage, and
locations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities.
2) A complete record, including location and elevation of all
field density tests, and a summary of all field and
laboratory tests.
3) A declaration by the project Geologist or Soils Engineer
that all work was done in accordance with the recommen-
dations contained in the soil and geologic investigation
reports and specifications, and that continuous monitoring
was performed by a representative of the Soils Engineer.
4) A declaration by the project Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor
that the finished graded building pads are within + 0.1 feet
in elevation of those shown on the grading plan (or to any
approved modified grades).
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
S. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. & R. 's) shall be
established for the multiple family residential portions of this
development. The C.C. & R. 's shall be approved by the Planning Director
prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
The C.C. & R. 's shall be reviewed and approved by the City to assure
that:
a. There is adequate provision for at least the maintenance, in good
repair, of all commonly owned facilities, property and
landscaping, including but not limited to open space, common
parking and driveway areas, lighting, recreation facilities,
landscape and irrigation facilities, fencing, exterior of all
buildings, and drainage and erosion control improvements.
b. Payment of dues and assessments shall be both a lien against the
assessed land and a personal obligation of each property owner.
An estimate of these costs shall be provided to each buyer prior
to the time of purchase.
C. The Association shall keep the Ci-ty Planning Department informed
of the current name, address and phone number of the Association's
official representative.
d. Payment of the water and street lighting bills (maintenance and
energy) and maintenance and repair of storm drain lines, are the
obligations of the Homeowners' Association, unless paid for
through a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District.
-3-
,�-° ,r.• a� t sf^. -rc-p�S,P a� �^^sa�.,�>r , �. r ,r t �. -ter- _.ri �'�' rt '^�.."� ** .,.� x .^r- < 3 x � _ -
e. Each buyer is to sign an acknowledgement that he has read the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Homeowners' Association and the
',Con•ditions-,--•-C-ovenants• and-Restrictions--applying `ttv^-the.
development.
f. The Homeowners' Association shall contract with, or be advised (as
to how to handle maintenance operations) by, a professional
management firm.
g. Parking of recreational vehicles or boats shall be prohibited,
except in designated recreational vehicle parking spaces.
h. The C.C. & R. 's shall prohibit the use of guest parking areas by
project residents.
i. The C.C. &. R. 's shall include a statement outlining the
obligations of the property owner to be responsible for public
liability in case of injury in conneQtion with public utility
easements, and for mainentance of private vehicle access ways and
utility trenches in public utility easements. They shall further
be void of any mention of future dedication of the access way to
the City as a public street.
j. Restrict the recoloring, refinishing, or alteration of any part of
the exterior or any building until the Owner or Declarant first
obtains approval from the related City of Dublin Departments.
DRAINAGE
6. Roof drains shall be tied into the storm drain system in a manner
approved by the City Engineer.
7. A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all public storm drains
to ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage.
DEBRIS
8. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The
developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to
the City of Dublin.
9. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways free and
clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris, and clean-up shall be
made during the contruction period, as determined by the City Engineer.
EASEMENTS
10. Where the subdivider does not have easements, he shall acquire
easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property
owners for improvements required outside of the property. Original
copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in written form
and shall be furnished to the City Engineer.
11. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the grading and
improvement plan. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular
and utility service access for all lots.
12. The developer shall be responsible for the development and recordation
of an appropriate agreement (subject to review and approval by the City
Attorney) which assures provision of the vehiclular/ pedestrian/bicycle
cross access, where such access facilities are common to more than one
Village.
13. Public utility easements shall be established for the electric
distribution system and to provide for lines for the Telephone Company.
FIRE
14. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and
appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire
protection, must be installed by the developer and conform to all
-4-
requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications
of Dublin San Ramon Services District. All such work will be subject to
th'e ''jolint fieldinspectibm�'of- the- City-Engineer,~and Du•b'_'Tn-B;3�n-'RamcYfr"'
Services District.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS
15. Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within
the development and as required off-site, to include curb, gutter,
sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on the existing paving, if
necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint.
GRADING
16. Prior to commencement of construction of any structures, site grading
shall conform with the recommendations of the project Soils Engineer, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A declaration by the Soils
Engineer that he has supervised grading and that such conformance has
occurred .shall be submitted.
17. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base
materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service
connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable .
TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines shall be installed in a manner
which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk
when future service connections or extensions are made.
18. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading
plans and recommendations of the project Soils Engineer and/or
Engineering Geologist, and the approved erosion and sedimentation
control plan, and shall be done under the supervision of the project
Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who shall, upon its
completion, submit a declaration to the City Engineer that all work was
done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soils and
geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifica-
tions. Inspections that will satisfy grading plan requirements shall be
arranged with the City Engineer.
19. Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval of
those property owners affected.
20. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation
report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations
contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic
report shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer. It shall be
accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of
the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic
activity.
21. The developer and/or his representatives shall notify the State
Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599,
of any construction activity proposed in conjunction with this project
that may affect Martin Canyon Creek in accordance with Sections 1601 and
1602 of the Fish and Game Code. A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall
be secured by the developer from the Department of Fish and Game.
HANDICAPPED ACCESS
22. Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as required by the State
of California Title 24.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS AND SECURITIES--
23. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving and utilities, must be constructed in
accordance with approved standards and/or plans.
24. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and specifications
for street improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type and
location of drainage facilities both on- and off-site) and erosion and
sedimentation control shall be submitted and subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
-5-
25. The subdivider shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City
for all public improvements. Complete improvement plans, specifications
—an& calculations sha31- be`,sAmit°t,0ddo and revi'Owed ty', •theta: f
Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public
improvements prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement.
Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements
along adjacent public street(s) and property that relate to the proposed
improvements. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of
the approved estimates of construction costs of improvements, and a
labor and material security, equal to 50% of the construction costs,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City and affected agencies
having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the
Improvement Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION
26. Park land dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
Building Permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever
occurs first. The City Engineer shall calculate the in-lieu fee based
upon the Subdivision Ordinance. For in-lieu fee calculation purposes,
the preliminary park dedication land required is approximately 9.774
acres (0.009 acres/dwelling unit X 1,086 units). Final calculations
shall be made by the City Engineer at the issuance of Building Permits
or at the approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first.
STREETS
27. The minimum uniform gradient of streets shall be 0.5% and 1% on parking
areas, and 2% on soil drainage. The street surfacing shall be asphalt
concrete paving. The City Engineer shall review the project's Soils
Engineer's structural design. The subdivider shall, at his sole
expense, make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and base is to
be constructed and furnish the test reports to the City Engineer. The
subdivider's Soils Engineer shall determine a preliminary structural
design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the
developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design
of the road bed and 'parking areas.
28. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any
work done within the public right-of-way of Amador Valley Boulevard and
Dougherty Road where this work is not covered under the improvement
plans.
UTILITIES
29. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided
underground to each lot or building in accordance with the City policies
and existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided
within public utility easements, sized to meet utility company
standards, or in public streets.
30. Prior to filing of the grading and improvement plans, the developer
shall furnish the City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) stating that the District has agreed to
furnish water and sewer service to the development.
31. Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary sewer collection
system excluding individual laterals. The system shall be designed as
acceptable to DSRSD.
32. All utilities to and within the project shall be undergrounded.
33. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade- and placement of base
materials, all underground utility mains shall be installed and service
connections stubbed out beyond curb lines. Public utilities and
sanitary sewers shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb
the street pavement, curb, and gutter when future service connections or
extensions are made.
-6—
n .. .. .. ... _os - 'pia}-3"� -•C.Y .,->.._, .. _ ., .. . .. .... .. .-'t* . ..... ,.. _.
WATER
.._ .:.
' 34'.°' "Water'"�achi•ties�inust� be tonnected�`�to Ktlie` DSRSD's'y stem,- and must' be"-
installed at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District
standards and specifications. All material and workmanship for water
mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the
requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the Distict, and
will be subject to field inspection by the District.
35. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on
the map, that is known to exist, is proposed or is located during the
course of--field operations, must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or
maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection'
ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted at 443-9300 for additional
information.
36. Comply with DSRSD, Public Works, requirements, particularly regarding:
a. The elevation of the storm drain relative to the sewer lines.
b. The location of the sewer man-holes. They shall be in" parking or
street areas accessible by District equipment.
C. Dedication of sewer lines.
d. Location and design of the water system values.
MISCELLANEOUS
37. Copies of the project plans, indicating all lots, streets and drainage
facilities, shall also be submitted at 1" = 400-ft. scale, and
1" = 200-ft. scale for City mapping purposes.
38. Maintenance of common areas including ornamental .landscaping, graded
slopes, erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment
control improvements, shall be the responsibility of the developer
during construction stages, and until final improvements are accepted by
the City, and the performance guarantee required is released;
thereafter, maintenance shall be the resonsibility of a Homeowners'
Association, which automatically collects maintenance assessments from
each owner and makes the assessments a personal obligation of each owner
and a lien against the assessed property.
39. There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department requirements, Flood
Control District requirements, and Public Works requirements. Written
statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has
jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
issuance of Building Permits on lots of the subdivision or the
installation of any improvements related to this project.
40. Unit address information and directories shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the DSRSD - Fire Department, Postal Services, and Dublin
Planning Department.
41. Install street light standards and luminaries of the design, spacing and
locations approved by the City Engineer.
42. The subdivider 'shall furnish and install street name signs, in
accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin, bearing such names
as are approved by the Planning Director. The subdivider shall furnish
and install traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the
City of Dublin. Addresses shall be assigned by the City Building
Official.
43. Street trees, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall be planted along the
street frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting
plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning
Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks or curbs
shall be provided with root shields.
-7-
„._
T
7- r � -.,,. .r .r, �,,,a°° ""'t°'a.'°"'.^�s+��'-���. i i _.3'-�y�x.,+ �.�,�P'�"�..,-�.m, �.•�,� ....y.-...r� ,-.�,.� ....r,...r _.
44. A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties
having any record title interest in the property to be developed and, if
necessary, copies of deeds 'for adjoining properties--and easements "
thereto, shall be submitted at the time of submission of the grading and
improvement plans to the City Engineer.
45. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be
accomplished at no expense to the City.
46. Prior to filing of a condominium plan on Villages I, II, III, IV or V,
or offering a condominium unit for sale, the developer shall have
complete& the following:
A. Recordation of the master tract final map subdividing the
individual Villages into separate parcels.
B. Completion and acceptance by the City of all public streets
serving the Village to be offered for sale.
C. Completion and final acceptance as complete by the City of all
construction within the Village to be offered for sale, including
buildings, streets, parking and landscaping.
47. Should the developer wish to file a master Tract Map separating the
Villages, all off site work shall be guaranteed and constructed as part
of the agreement for this Tract. In addition, all streets necessary to
keep from land-docking any parcel shall be offered for dedication and
the construction guaranteed by the Subdivision Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-8-
ORDINANCE NO.
DUBLIN AMEND ING',1Z ONING 'OR'I]"I'NANCE c"
TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
GENERALLY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
The Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION I : Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby
amended in the following manner :
Approximately 135 acres located in the northeastern corner of the City,
consisting of Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No. 4575 and fronting
along a section of the west side of Dougherty Road, extending southerly
from the County/City line, for a distance of approximately .4 , 200 feet ,
are hereby rezoned to the Planned Development (PD) District ; and
PA 85-041 ( . 1 and . 2 ) Villages at Alamo Creek -- Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development , California, Inc. , as shown on Exhibit A
(Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance) ,
Exhibit B (Approval, Findings and General Provisions of the Planned
Development (PD) Rezoning) , Exhibit C (Resolution regarding Tentative
Map 5511 ) on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department , are
hereby adopted as regulations for the future use, improvement, and
maintenance of the property within this district . A map of the area is
as follows :
S�)yly
1 � _
1
.�
l.f
i
won! /p
7 � p
V I
-o --200---400 ---- -� ----"zoo
a0 300
XHIBI,
� i
� az, . t SEC hONrI I : Thi)s ..Onainanae-zhall t -ki.e:.ef-fect:'Sand' be irr� fir=ce°tth"lrty��'� '
( 30 ) days from and after the date of its passage. Before the
expiration of fifteen ( 15 ) days after its passage, it shall be
published once with the name of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the same in The Herald, a newspaper published in Alameda County
and available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin
on this th day of 1986 , by the following votes :
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2
Ti � � � � � 17+1' ..-„•' �. - � � � i .. _ •, -
. ="
Lot t I
M BEDROO
BATH/`x/-5'
0
FAMLY
7T` x
7T
00
BEDROOM
noJill I 1 11 1 l6a,
QNfNG
BEDROOM
-T
UVING
Ll -1
4j
FET7
{
G
a�YI ``��ar / •J. ,� 414( •
M y`y
i ,
fit {'..
ft
Y.`
e'
If.t:
t•
Y
+ ;I
1
[, 1.
:l
i
`6t I 7
r
t.f
z•.
%S
sit
T�
a
t.
:e.
i
z -
G !f
r..
Y.
Nei a - 'i, ��� r .t ;• •��•
i
\---iiARDBOARD SIDIPQ
OOD SHAKE
a�+•r: ::i EXTERIOR PLO STEM
a ri
ofs
r t�}� }• , � . •6-�-. .(`�• �• �f � t. ., ., � � ''�!!! �111 ��e•
a4�1�`1 rY���111� h.• �,.. .s � ( :i• � tl Ir71� �//��\,�}�I����� l
'qta �C� }
x ��
4 .J' . •r 11 T !/ � '
_.� arm• J�4!.•W �. � � � %:F��. •�- _. � . .
i
9 i � 7' , � .�ri' 'Vin.!'.}RSr,_ µ y` ��//�' ��,,.•� � � '
�,il. t��• 4 + - _ 1 ! ,•:2. ..xn �^"' i � Ln.�i1�� - I
k
} ` fir t}y r ' Vim►" �iJ 5',,
t��� 1���:����N��1t ems',. t .. \ � .� .• ."✓�Yj�f`"I V 7�•� Ty .Y'✓ � .1
J
w f ', Pryfti•rt. '�"..--._•� yif`:. , r �- _ tom/ •T - ! 1
{ Y 1 .Mfg. ) ! ��. -� •. c�" �` � � � :�. '
} it h li;r �• _�• :��rlr-i+" �!�'•' '�"�!"'r f��l✓ [�,.�., •� 1•. ,!
�e t+
Y y.
+t� 1?
BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2
. 9bx/2 96xn
i
}ON BATH i 2 -�
G
s
E.
1{AST�E-R
BEDROOM
1
i
21
.0 :
�1 .(+r�Y' f,.+ .,,''J4l �� 1�.4, ✓r.�- f� .{/ Y. 1.1F T
Y 9 N '--�... .� � A""t S � i ; ^"*, _� n l�."Yt-�"y'F"Tjy-"�"'j Y �,41''� ✓ �Rl �c�u� q -•m-e-Yr•Y�'7rli�•'�7L^'F"ty x- � .._
j h..N r ,. s •na"S1o`" Te'f, ,?+r.a � P`°3"`,I�.'°'� 1 � y -'_i..;.><,.
35 _0 _
J
t -
r
DINING CO
/Ox/' FAMILY
/Z x/F
LIVING I 1
POWDE �A
, 1
�\ ''gym _�i - - � •�{(-
GARAGE l
. � •�i C7
ys � ; y � , 1 ��rr �.,��, 'r f'� n .'� r Sai rs•G !C' t � .
r ��-r t "'M s s 1 �„t� rs�...S 4 �S♦r;eg � s.L,� 1::3 4`� � ss?,:.+ c"/•*s s �,� '.� + � '' � .
� I SC + ~A 1� y tl�K f �y�/. ! `SY� f} l f �4S ,�, � .X fj• k �.T� '!�"f • Y � LJ j... j r ..�Y Y � + -\ 7 +..
d ( .♦ l }f- J,. � s *F r !�.; Y s off. r r? y' .>r, Y� Y
t I � •. P( r+rr! r �•�a.r+•f* z� � +''�• t•�y reF---f��"m�j*� h ; r-rt#,�-r•-•e 7 �n- ,.,-.-+-.�.a F•,•-
A
.j
-
s.
} �ySl�y{y` tic �l_•. \ \\ ! i
y'.t
4b4�'�f•kri,.�t . t � J tom. � i'
Y.
�
ns
zi
LA
v � xJ 1 •. . ^vtlh•f?.. a r-;h ';i:. .
1 ti 3 !`55•`
p aril
1 ,
S
stir la ' 'r „ ! Yiii J..�-
'
� ,
TC F ROOF
s .y
�j � LX'TERfQR Rt.A�.'f°EN
Y' fdtl v r REM
Y
!
t�, _ 'Ci,l�t , '`ti.��� t „+�'�.:<,rfiJ :i•�f�::-� KF ` 4���1����f�.`�,�3,..v!��i'f��j.!u�, 1 •���'ry" •f :'!4 Y � pW ,t,
x,
r
A @r 54
L�\�:i�4.] ��• �Y. �-.� y is ..
ot
i� vQ '.�• � Js��� Gt:�.-�G��1��i �4--��'� l�l brtJr`"� •
�1�'�iG-iM ►-� 102W
MIS MIN14wmm
i
��. • � � J iJG�,ar�"'L�--� t�--�1-�'T.'I�I Cat, � •,
7
� � �`� ��.__•._ '' `- 1. �\ t'� � C.o:�Q...�1 GJ 2a�af'1�'F
T �
t
N I
F A
BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2
/o x iz 9 6 12
I
1
ON + �BATH.2 _o
O i s
�n
0
iVi A
ER k '
BEDROOM
I
Nl.i"'(.+ .'.Y,!'w �J. R'tiS. Y 1 } K M 'Y 'n.G.c'4 ii!< ,y�h�!('1•A?�;F•7�I'S',vr'Y�,7t,F.;eU�i1. _WdLS'�r• Tj{���i'n�f'iR,`.j 't-A
_ .�r"'4�.^c$"?.,n F�'. .. r,:!�X:J(,f.±r�"7'.'?";T:;�i'is,n..'X'•'v%7"'�`�.,��*rt'°`.�,y�..s'"r�.,s''��"' t�---..__,--.
r1�. w'�"�`�•.S,iS+se..,�"•f`5K° �-`x�P+'rfdw 'r t A 'S,is.�.+Y"'i4 w.'hr k .1 i� f"i , ..
way., hie
35,_0
D NING -
10X';^ FAMILY
a`-x16 =
LIVING
i lox/9
!POWDE
LLt.
r+ GARAGE
Ty
{ — I
q 1 tl
(S1_ •0 20 - o
r �S l 1'♦ t41 r r1F L.a ,} y ti � r .�, .•Z�" ,J^ fi - rv! y �n f��xY7,��`5 t:;x ♦i.` ttST. 'r ,.
.. �. 1 ( 5, 4 } .'�l, ) ♦3 T ',;t,r r_ ,l,w:i T f1.rt!-�lf}r�e)n..�, t �-- � � 1
�.r t-n. vv, a>r �L. � X. c^. /,F' -;,,ir•i ,S't�-�,�'rW.Yr^�f+.•^.+e rr.-row. r 1" i+ >'k� �rtv�R'�'c`r"'�P aY�v- 1 1.C r r
.t. °4 M '^rp•+"�'rr•'• t..'^" ^^"ir. F-"""r t'°•v'�S '2'F'9R�"c'tr --i' -•+--^.r-em+s+a.-a_»r..rm. rc--�-^--�.-Y.„s rtxrn '�:sFo.'•-- +..-t cs.•+ .s�ts'^x�•.tr-.:T^-s. —
.. '. .. ...4 �. .h _.. ".-... .. ..,-. .-. ... .:.....,._.....y_1_r,+•.. �.'}r..�.��...,.mss.. .....-_. _.. ! __ ... -- � r�,y-'°'"��.'� �.r�'`�.;¢:. ....-s,z. ..,Y....rn ..:. .. '
�,■lniw�.�.. ���a�...�h.aw.��..�r�=6 ���11�+1����IIw�!!l�ulu���■Ati1�tA1.. `� .:
- "* 'f %L�`:('/i`/,.♦! �%�/T/f`%i/?;/��� �,;,��tr;� I/1i� iai�i�wi.>■iil �;�:�t ��
,,. � � l :ar�.:i�■.,��w�,����y'�i'�i.r� �.�.:�t�,l�..,�,.___���_ wlii�iir_ r�i��w�
�� �• rIN Il�llhw_ 1/x!1 _. � •.
hhlN�i ��Ml�i��ir_�1�l�riwww�lii�� ���. ,
.,y i� � �t°..l1�Q t fr � �•�!�.�t �����{J{/= 1w L..�v� > �����tM`- r{ � tl y._ _ .: rf. :4 s 4.;��- t6 .�� ��, / � ;i
r ,..: � � '.1. � •� ' r af�i L. !.1 I/• it x �It ��4 fj It:� � ♦ / '�/ / (e� ���I/,'�- �°
�.l�11. �' >•}I +�• ns'rat{�1 -- . �t.I,It�
rL W111
01, 1..wo
•R'�; � ! a:�}�t.� �•- ��_ ,.:111 t e,+.�.1� ( `�-`� i'�pi•� �� y� �� + �!
' ;�I to i� � � `• � t
•' 1
`.`r..:iii � {{ .1•'Fl
Ah
HARDBOARD BIDI14G
WOOD SHAKE .
( h< EXTERIOR PLABYER `•',�s �
IA
_ � of � �,• • � 1. -
X.
IV
REM
}
X11 .. .. .... .... .. ... .... .. .. .. - .. ... .... ... _ � .... __. t
^ fix ,1 r�l.i+ +: � ,j'4' 1 :, •� _ �� .. � .� � �� ,r. .•
-
,�
te
11 r
1.
y
4 �
s ,�.• ����'I;jam,,+ + I + s 3`` �X A�` t•`� [� s.
,tea 9 i ,r• �r;•'
t =� .v'i��"� 3r`k''�"�•'� �.. �'»:'� �" t«h�':.s .. I�pYi'vl M f�'� �'�•FS -
f. Y •tom !ja a�t''i�r -�r �1. •_ � ,�' .. " •
=tY-•'l�A;.�.f�t„�4 t 1N;>1 2`r •2',),` .. _ I _
'+ � µ•.� !j Cl•1•t��af 1 7 ,1��'r'l. f Y 1 r :t � � � •..
y,��+`: � ' <;t yet , -� ����� ` E-.1�. L%',r." `•' �T
yF•,} � 1;5Y �r y� i 1y _ � 'Y .ti�� �� 1 � ;"rh r.. , � -. � .. .. � ..
5� 1 yy_yr�/'ti rY �I h I •,'� f 41 [g''TTtf z rd ^�' ✓.., ..
ci+d f v ... t j, .. - T I 2'{� d' •+•. t ` ��/�/ Nom/ ' V .. � � -
s,•� �i �i t,St�- - ... � `t�,v. .fit Y i r•,y. X.
� L }
-�6e,
.,� .e �, r•o ... � � � t;.^ t . }!., r:, is �� f � - .
{ r ~ r' _ �''.� T' .i 4,wt �5• t2l
Nus j.
z _ _
tvy ,� '• •.r__:wn:_;:--.--rte- .-.— ��u
M BED. OO
• � 17X/3 c
l O
' ` O
O
B -r
B':DROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
E3 E •:
14
2075 'Std T
. >'., ..
Y�x
~1
N'
r�'�.�.?f .d9i �;4.:•':,'i.x•✓F;x``- .z L' ,_'•: 'f q,: et}y.-o..: .4.
F "/�,. f: , -\ 1 '�j.,r, tH'j,Nt.Wt)•,,�." /n j J"✓lY� �� 7'C. •v.4•T y';r 5... r a•�Ty - � 't
ri '�(' r� zE� �. tQ yi 'a�t `S• •J..�45:} ._� � r f7'•ti , ,> f. } � r z �. �
'� .��.. .R.�'1. �� t' Jv.T�J'1�h'�w1 r1.y�>}.'t'�t "�h NL� j�-:1 -Y�t:'Y �-� f r•. :`n Y. � ,j �
1:. y .. ,c. ' mss' t f v i' L.j n !.r} } r(1� t -n.r � 7'✓,J� > t - _s ..
r`,. -1fty..,4 f,..�t�ti�i' �'`a�L�r a.:�'..._�,y,.,.��z1` t` a '+1z s z t�.n•� :�.f t "s-^.�i" a^'*"�:rr, rt 17�"^.. ;e 'i _""'�. ... -.
r , '•,R]�tv�L°'Ql'".�il.+''o`�..H�,�}'`���c 2�-.y�'ic"�sr�„sdn / •st i' -,�•. - 1/"- .. .
Y
a � 1
do FAMILY
/lae x/3 c
OO
UP
� r 1
Try
1
BEDROOM 4
joX/o
I
a- C�1 a�yt •crt to t f t ..
r�
1�y''��I� ���I■����� �i. t.1 AI 1 `/� 1 � � 1 II ,,e�, `. � •�,,. :_ ;a4`�
is_���!ri__I�i�i�1 _l .i�i�il�i!��� Ri�•. -- - - r�t�■�i��
��1�_�rl�Il�l�_ ��:ill_■_���_�1�1.1��1�1w1�1���1�����11���� E." �,.,��-,
l�i�!II_.._i !!�ll���i�_■i���l h�li��i �lll�i�i�trrl��.lr�l��il��l.
4J'n�.y:'Fa,7�•..4.r t�.w ,�••�,t �'S •R/. r [ t• w � ...�.r_...�.-.. - _t A �r�y��,
opilpppp
i /�`I•�.'•� •i�.lf•,:��{�I��.Irr �- �u lam. 1 / . a ..}l:. �- .c • / +'. r • �� i � 4•f•.itgt,.••►• k,�P.'•"b; (per
f�•�i,�:P(�'i •••j"i�. `. t1. 1•L� �..�•� L� ■■I �■I• .1 -� •� -.�_: .}'�. _ >.. F. .�.. _.�. ./-,'. _r' —_.� sy ;�/••�.f�•� ••N��i: �f�, d•`);
•�ff. . 1�fj� t*f�t•�ti�.+11��1����!at �� 11`t t_: �; ..
All
III ��llll�� [I ■ m■i■� , . _ F. ! . ;
A r
b
i
t
jLv
ti LY`
HARDBOARD SIDIHG
OOD SNAKE ,
EXTERIOR PLASTEFf
'�` ' e,, ` err Il•�-' � •°
� =3 .�., a �,� • •• . .,�� o
}' _ b� ►
/ .
t• %t.
':fit .;. � ..r ,nr ,�► � ' rb '�� ,
-
f1 +J N/ µV
kI _ .. .. .. .._ _ .. .. .... . .. ... _ .. .. ._
x+�fr�•+ t ,
f ��.�,�� it �t t •rye .. _ _ _ .. Y� .
tf ,yt Jar � ! t�, ♦ t (
y t"
r.
�i
is ;•7 _
r �
SRO ll�%V%L
-.: h.eV Wl - PaiY Ste EIEY an ct.rV 114 GLEV 1a! .
(w rflP ftwp Ct 6K-rrrpCK.•ll� .
"CCfiy,
t RiY>te'=YlY Pu'D{. TFe3 hV hlh P»�oCrti'P!`nINO (Yw'.
UM IT b c4.2(ofY) [nMMO�Wh•K IYPlrrt.Uu1 G(7'R�I'-Y) ..daf ON foq,!s.MA Col-IPA [P.iIPEf�� 1'�CUG Y�aV`E rt`Y VN1 EP-V,** n-l?T°b1 M�EY+'EG• Ih^vECt
%V�H°+-I� ✓� 'iP n 40T fhY .
F'o",
iicur-O tv-:- mnt �FRPT Ira fNF QV4 uiv 6-cTOH
VGbEF
. SCALE 9'•20.0'
r
' t
SCALE 1'•201.0 w '
,r•.^
4`
1 N.GV yf4 Ll _ L1 .
Oil
i l:EV Mh 8/1V bbl E
ECLY 4'✓dg�lV obY
LG
(JMTVh Itm7 0.6Y IflAJA.tit)'• .''-I--:
GY'MI -
.�•,,:.:_..j p� ,ply Rr0 y 'w?H d,,a�� tYIY�L ud f� (n';•roP17 [orlr1oN Yvaf• Ti(Y/l.CWtT V He�st7W�°hN10r1 V•fl`�a TYPY�t-vm G... : Pc51OCNf YqFl+G Mmm"ewaw- .
IporT yGf sLEY.*T'�Or,( H To!a 610.'6 (i•tfOPf7 NiTll b)'+rl1Nb Cb'K TP=eh r���"") NITn riR(t7PK �.(l"Z>:1• ,W?HI`jG �+ PNSfJV)rTGV trYV�PCpVT'REO
:..r-:• I j CtYJ,GLB4`T101-1 LMN'IEF�PB6K HWJN I�� E+iD iLG✓KWH f FENL6 :„IF662N'IV bIW+NW HRH W'fSK plrypy{I
SECTION 0-0
.I, SCALE 1'•200'
S
I J1
J -
1
•J
Properly ina.';;. .
Story Building '
ti S :�h•
�T
�^ Trash
Enclosure ;"
f. � ,
Par ing HC
,fl IZI
a`
Gas Island A
(3 Pumps, Canop; Above)
w
l '
• —. .� z•1_t�I_JT• ':'��•). _•i' .tii• '` •/\ clgn S IPP'Ora _
\ 1
Dougherty Road
1
SITE PLAN
Scale 1". 401.
n•Jw...r..v.,....,......:-.v..♦..�.�y'...Ji.J•.�^'TT_.n•�.�..a.:..y:.�-:.. ".Ymu:iJl _ — '.�-YrW' •`fit•!-.rsr:t T�..f.•.. -. _ ..•-
1 - y
}Yr -.b Y"'l`"�'lVe. .,,.. / q-. '% .-••tom T I'.'
.r-ti-v-r�•-.n-�- ,7.*'3""`' '-K F TS 9.T J#_G `?"".',r""S_�•--°�. "3_""3-i".� -2r� 'Si - ar*tia�";s
.,�:.: � � �� j •tom',. _,�•;, i 1 ,`j
r
�`�.^'�r. _ gg _ ,�• \ '` , i � --� I � ' I i i � I' I I �' �I :i ;I' ;i II 'I '' � �f i;
rt}:L3 `I •�. ��, '��� , i ; 1. I ! 1 II I ,• { 'i it �� I it `,i !i I. ,� it i Q �li
k� ,� � .... ` i��• r�•I.li' •� it i� i � i 1 I I I I ,I . �I '' �1 '. 'I i� I! ,� 11 , i� 1 ty��:.
j.1 �- ! � � I i 1 i � I I I � i I 1i ,i li 'I jf i 1.� ', • 1 i 3.:�.` ;'.
if 1
���-� _.. � . � �, i :✓ ' � I 11 'I li ( ' j I I i !! it It I' �i 'I 1i it 11 li it �� I
�,z�. I 1 ,I I� 11 I I II ii 1 i � ;• ;, �, ;, ;�' 1. I�
u�. ! i > � •', i ; I 1 li li li I i �, �' � I I` it li it ' ii :, .: � '
��• �`� I I; ;j i 'I I� I ..Y•.� 1 I I I ! Ii ' ;! !I li li �I �� II 'i '1 I •
r
1
f c
a
Is
■�.� I Ij�
• _I111�11111111111�1 � _ r i .■u.■�,�,�. � �_ _ __L ___ __1®111111!11111111!11®I_ _ �
1
i aurrrj• . �i�5 ', ' '�-{r..' '" 'r yarrGfir • ICCS:rrJS-.r '�Y�r ,.,�lac+vrc+l� r.�+�a.,xsR,trrora '/
Noll-
Pf
77<r.y.4 gig. rI•'�'} sr 7+'.5f ry�n.w�R .w.r.�.l.'.'^"• ? ��j 1 0 �.•�1 j r'.K�. Y ISi '1 a%.S�r yam.
1.�.,e �yf �L •j ►• .y'�r r `�"`- >.e. �. iwi:�+...:ri:�.www {{ a r - : f r7'in:.. 1 +' f/JS '�/•' fIl/ �t �i� ; r1 f`' .t 1.'f1 r ■I�i��l■I
�••fir �� �' : .9.-9�. ��� ��,,'i �. � "t �f_ i4L711 �i� � r ! !.i .fr:` I Y� !�r IkkJ.rs,... .{�• .i'�f��.1r�..i:
j. rk 1 � r(1, �' V '! .v l t y;.l :x '.4. '} 1 1- J i tf1:1•�.•� 1t ��..r. '.
�y��� 4.I� � //i. ,,r �� !s r +_ >' •ti �-.s `ii v rJ r J .'e �:r ;� j�irfft�Q;r�tii�l�-Iptl�{�yl{r l,•y: r
1 �r •i `, F ; ii �1�j c �� 5�„` *ir v �j 1 1 � N r �� � 7 � (' �:y!i� ��if 1 .y��S 3}�II 1
s.�jt./ t:.� 4 { .i•F•�' 1 � r- Y j .��, �( � fyj( .�• r Y�.StQ•.
„TTT�r. j . r •t� 1 ...r/ar ((j 11,,: T.. [{yf1 r { } y, •...
�t ^j� r1J r lk.�.1•} �iuTi .�M��- .i.Y1y•ti•l j.;1'..: r;...�4 .�: G,T F r,:. r..�l i ,i i 1. .:: S.. ,". 'trNj�y'�
• I
AW
JF
, e{•�j',.m�yt� ! •f.�.Ii��� /ir
IIIIIN Vkl
OW
nn .+ I
' r
gl
r f �r t M r ���•!f j((
t` ',+• 4z orate„?^
► -r
s 41' r "ai
►fj $�� VS iS,^ :�•1 y CA�4.r WRY
rj
.,.
,• „� . • �G
It
id
s t'
�i C- +•rF;;,� lh �i i::�'..e.^'s.`'4��` �`per` � ...r�.
P.ti r
'#QK. �} f •— .. '" �� yam. �1+�....
INK
` �-�, '"rv �� *� :-�'rr:�ti:�:.� il� •�_=sue;.
'1:v� o3tr�l7b .!
c- a
• ;�' t aitlr.N,BYf• 'fir..� 'S`.,f:l5i0iry4giifititr��li�(itr� {
r
r.� rrta..✓is°�S � tr� y()ht+'�41�,.' ,� k�°i�j�g�"o y !
j�! -ra.. ° ,'�t• Z y �l ra..B� 'S :�`I�-,y. "1��� M•.. ,�`I �i Jy� ! \k'�a'��`t� ./
OR
�F t`�� � r/�¢a�f •:aI! �, i�.J.? t♦ �ss�ti s.�d s+' r {O gaqS) ��',ii�!+i.+ �..r'' '�•
:i•= ,'- h,♦ !`! s. r• r _ :r _.ir.,:a $�.=e� tr'M. •.Yjsi.:• (` .,`6 �. ,. + W
rj, :++: ,_may , , M� „�.�••� t �'•" +„S. NIffi +�Q: ,A�•d11.:• ':� '_ •,
i.-!°q �j;}} t 4i• /. ' •�Fi►4►'��"f� � t e.�, f �~��`1>t�qrd�� 'L`T"�i 1Q•y�� .T^ei •, N
[}s 'sue• ;ii1�lr.p' �•r• �• �7wary;�iji� �,-v+''" t3✓ �'tti•�. •rA�� �`J.
IE
.r �'�` ii {ji l� r •+ s,, •°i �:� emta I°• 'mil
a{} z1
,. ��� C'wl.�r♦•��''r'I•�i��
!ACC •.• r� �' ►/�I ,�
���'diyi�fbsccxi'}�rJt,�`T c.8
1 iiiiFFFFi.1 N �
it faJ.}���i pbr
:lir�:t.,{�yy,,-��e�.•,�����41Trdh�+f�"+,�d � �'t��*■■. �a/`z.' ..1r�• � .,�'-'�<�+J��r���,�;y��l���'� ��, '`'�°' �
ils: i a(1-J 'L �^-,"'�~f�tA• rJ �i +!r' �,
N+� t4i7 t!�!. tft ,r`y !
�,, •�� ��ra�te•
6.1 i,`•'r��e a Yom) -old
ti•YO.�sa � •��j-�-.... ,� �
�. �rpi X71• > _ t _.�spL`q�u � / �+l i .�J'.
•jt3_ •��;in'! Yf+li+.-., as;+ljs Yeiyy�•s. . ..t
�'y�'. '�.y./s> • � ctrl 3�,l1'
x,
t.
•,�•.�' ..ail.(- -:� •�-:•. - IT .. � .. .. a
i •J rww
P•a
t
I
.. •1 .i.. .il• Vii,")
1
�.ti• J!
r
j
ei.
•i` _
2 b
'i
- •t
'i
i
p b
>D
�J .I .•1i
_
:l
1.
't
a
z
i.
f.. r
" G• r Y Y.
1-
l•: _ 5
- J -
-t o�
..r• ,
{"P
F•r'� -
1
a .
f - _
I
�1
t 1'
•I ,I
I• u
I.
I
I'
I
li I
.I
I t.
s �,. „� II �L. � '1 p .'1 . '\fit,\• ,\ _ 1
t
.1
-r I
D:
I
I
.t•
I I
1
— I
11
i
I
p�
S \
1.
t ,o
s_.
D
_�• ;!; i r, is •_i
j
71 -
-M
' I
y
1
.l
n � ice' r�l.' \ // j. '\• �1�
IL
ijl 4 .).r- 1yoNlndd � Y,..• .f Ar
ps
sl i I'
1 QUA °"
fu n,Z'YY3
on �
21 54 j I
4 ,
j.a by
t � r.• ��,.JJaa rraru inr rcti
rwrFxc..U+1 j \�� A !1 / ii-rnr.wr{ ^�• 7
'FO l
v.s....• r.MM1 - m rc•r.n.w,a.L .. 4 .
<•r•ro. \���-�r,rr nrwcr .w..• LL
\ fill ' `' j�,,/-Yrr i �.G..»,.• me.+-er+svr<u,rrt. _ {t Q
irrorxr�(rrrrw). \ t�' •j•�' /� �TwiD rare 1 •r..ro rn.9 _ i
i :r(' I , �' ., /l• �' —PVYr+.M1'n r-rw!kAvAW .. �'
• -_"_"''_-�-_—_—�-=\ -tom-1�l�'�f/f' .•�nn r.w ,\ y1 ). � � �. /� - ..
1 rf
AN
_ F .� rw..miu.crN'r..ro•o l�� �f(.I, : \ ' � 1�tt{1 l```� _ .:1�: i
- L-" .w 1<.•�v.�,r M •�1' ` - �l�/11 . ��� � .. . 11`•\1�._ 4
w,„�,r w rr•,o. rNre,,or r+-oo rv.r• IvTn•,l _� ( ''r //! yi: � `„ten,°�,,�v• {..
i 1 ao .r,.i f. <r.•. w•.-rK .e.+r- •Mr e•..,nrr..,�,,,,,.,,.. �.cr onv�a N �. s' �i/ %� �is'..,- -. �' ' s�.l - ,
Ir�,• .� rtNFrw.�-w
• .eeenoN A-r. [mWf•ue+ewr�e)
• . I / � j/�� _ '.1 �,,;;\ z.; � 111. � <<
SCHEMATIC Pt.••Aiii A
- •' ;�;-�._F_,---- -_-<='.lam���• � Q
W to Z --zz
LM
ra
}
T7 r ;
zw
y, Q
zo
rc
--° —I '� y O — a a t
d,n "
Y 7 3 X 1 I k�-n-•�t
E A-I
x
7'-11-x 1--1�, 1 .
.':
is
Lu
cc
FE
® w
,MARTER 3 A 00W
O ryIRO R•fOW C :S
x t s J w-4 C}
29' 0'
f
Ar.711 It;1116
1017-11-I1
q— CORNER UNIT PLAN (lBR/1BA)
(3-STORY) XCAl1 IM FEET
748 SF GR03S 0 4 1
NneR°Rrt 1NOA•R,Low ER VMIT1'11MILAR1
k� I
LO
d pp
LA- w Z 0
Ac°C
lool
I'IJl/ Jri w LU f
p p 3} �
N rt H r
ul
AC
Q
• N 1 0 }i
n.Y e
En
39'-9 una TD, rtes ,
1317-1D-11
CORNER UN(T PLAN (2BR/18A)
878 SF GROSS o + t '
12: :;'
I � 1
1 .
R7,
Lo U,4 t
`t U !tri
Z LU
J
' W lL T
Z.0 4
L4 a
w
=
1'-01 x 1'-11 s 5 X S'- 7-1
�' DINING U
111111: O1V 111 IIIµII O D_ ��"y�J 1•_2.X7•_17• w _ r:.:. `.
Il1f V
o ? � z0 9 _
{.. J
r z .... _¢ ;4_
c U ;
Q} —_ \,.....�LIV IMO 10014 — `•}+
I 0'-0•x 1 '.f• 11'-1'x 4-1 ^.f
��� .........
TEA
O
. ;TUFV E -
P�
40,-o'. APRIL 11. 111i y'
1617-11-1f
C — CORNER Ulirr PLAN (7BR/2BA)
■CALA C FT"
957 SF GROSS p A ■
• j t F°•
I s.
Lo
z V ii} f
A
LLJ
e x1r- I uLx1+•T7
k
rn
/ .emu _ai! /a'•0'% -E-� �.�' K � �,'.
L I 0
W. o I -- J "'
�� ! Tit.
w
t7
BELrIOIT I • y"`Yt'•'•
cc
• /Y-10'%to'-
Ar
Y FJA Ut+•T OPI.T
t'.
— THRU UNIT PAP; (7_Bi2/2E3F+i A►%Il 19,tfas
' tL1T-1f-If •''�i
989 SF GROSS—and unit
6'
947 SF GROSS—Int.unit o a a
I urT"U(T 51 KrOM,LO:v wr sw%-An
i� I•
• F'.,:,
�.'r
8
f.
iii { �•
r x
PAno nELOw (
Iv-
a
i4'•6'x la'•6' I
STORAO
t O = 9i
.. I .LIVVIO'
!�1/{ d
'1�l�
LINE 1 C C
Lu CC
V Q i
y 1 w t.?
BEOR004f] i Q O Q
�I ll z i
+
LLS
I L
MAfi EA BEOR0000f BE ROOM,♦ (il k`
12•0' —� 1
I
iAPRIL lf, lfii
25'-6• Sall-14-10.
E•- UNIT PLAN 3 BEDROOM/2BATH
1055 S.F. GROSS ( INCL-F.P. ° + s
[:
(UPPER UNIT OHOWH•LOWER V"IT 01VILAn)
z• t;
Ihhz`q:
• ! =t it4Y
w
rG
1 y#
J
r to
LG
LU
to a
W Zo t
a O
a
C4 C F
r ., t .f •• 7 U kJ
MU
_
1` r � .•t tits
I END ELEVATION aluminum windows vertical board fence $r'
a.;
Siding Options A"-' BLDG.
grooved plywood scu■IN rccr. tz{`
horizontal masonite boards
plywood w/vertical baits o + o t h
horizontal masonite shown ''
F3�'l lJlr,�f'�
z
C
:�/A/iJ-H-:S:IaftHY1M fl.Y�[t��/(/.Iyfw�OCLh}!.{NrJrp i, � •�r�?,, :,LAY`^==Y �
�_ is.�w....w.r�:��, ,�_.. '•'.:ruwi.:,.i ..`I.,:�. �J�.r73,y�'id•:'.C�Y!7•Wivfi./.ri s'•/.:y✓iclYFO1t"'"�°�;.-. �' _ `•!''StY^'Y�iwrerAi3r��• � E'er/
,I r. a�I ��.Fi..%,s r%'��r � .JrE i� i �_■I ,;;;•N.(rrrirti./'��� .■�■�_
:�s II !'�'�—',I�r'�I+. .+ � i[ ■ r�•yt�■■ _ter
�.�..■ 1. ,� ■ ��, �ia rOr 2.;�;��1%+,Az• -
-IL_._.._-:Y�:,sl._■ 1,111111�I, IIIII'Itllll _ �I�Illlil. !,{.,.,. i�ll�•.�; II,IIIIIIIIiI illlll il, �� .�,,;,.•�_..._..-_._.��:._ .._.... ,��;:
�■�c��6►Jidf�YAi�0.�� -- _ _- -- /
l.�R•3.'thi:•+.'L? �.� .. . . .!�.
r; � it..,�ai;� .r c v► ... . .r.� � ��� 1V7 �r .,i'r/i::" +.'Ni�.. ��.�i
. .r.. r it S�. JswrsiwYi% �_■ il' ��■ ,
�uiviar+wgp nJIww _ i his' �' •�''� � frlt it.WM' rV�^
(•Y'Ji HI��.��I%%,v'ter. .:•,j a � i.�1- i`� ��/ � r es�'en pt i r e �: i
-�■.��1.: �,��:.�.t. � cc , t t'ice■ _ ,ri�(.�r.. ••"�r s�++� �'�•.'i�� % •y na.r.;�.��!�!� ■��■, k�3„s -s :►''M't.+�l�.�'_ •
rc�J4 ;�r�u,� ':'r ."_%III � �� � �. ..t �I��r. n • }�,_ r ..i.: �� �I�.. "'t r r _���.� �_
°$- ;.,: ��t,., , �► • ” - - �tl i'llillllllll
It
Il�i�lll,lallll ,.�, J 11 .111111111
wJt7fl�flL?"' :.Iht:.iyr3; A��Z■ :�J11t �r ,� •j`:j �Jhi7.�+r ■� I�,dfyv, �•
�: el /� .i.0 a��'�Yij� _:: _r..';IL _�i' ..%IJ�.+�: •�j� 1A�-�LJ� :�;.: •i�S�•`t' �+f�►. , •.try— Iy f •�' J .� �!' - � ��l�Yi�e4 ��!
� ��Ir Y ` f'?w• �r ■/• � 1 �' lJ�iy��s ST�•�,1`�`••r �Iw • .r �{ .;�5•� _ - a�ri•� 7 rr� �rl� � i��'�.sd••������^
i,r � �` re � :S,r �.rrc i! • � I ■ aN 1 / y . .� �.•r.%_ c■.i�.
► Yi7�mS'P�t �. ��.: _�� ►r�rrpy..t}, i�r. .�ij'.'3I�ra f•� i � '�■■�� +. r ��� YIr �- I i
�tiv`f: _.)rA ��.�1:�`/.n•w �,..� rrAr`ii■r�citrt�.��1.'w_lri.ilw'..w� r. •�uu•• c�.�:a�llr=�.�n r�a�•' ir�.•n►.��.r.�►.. a..r�►.a.��.��!.i�----•��•
FRONT ELEVATION,
Siding •. •
plywood
horizontal M asonito shown
Sri. trlfr �+� �....,,..Y+, i�.��.r-f•3• ��•�I.t►r•+.�� >��..,, �, � f
_ :lii�wii»ey�r�ri.r. t R �Y'"fi}. - .: t:4' Vl►.fr•}f
YnttliG Af-•—i.t/••r N.�.!Y.+�r..wo�►w �� M'xa,+•!ne�l i � I �.H wY�'.w�ilj,� r +w-a � ..`... /Mlf��i NYVGI�kry
•� ,. ��� � -: .�� ; I ; 11111111111 ' �
<I .�s� �� lillili_I�Iiilillli -�--- I � 11111�„TI 1��
�'�4'1:7 r:.v.i ;�,:�C ;k !,�+:�, ���'"'.. �rrr.�ii3 .� i -r� viY � r• f ✓."'�� '
—� •;�•�'I I s•s•srtm �..•cr•,., . israsss t.. a•.� r! I `'
.�n •��.1 � � 1 i�. i ' _�y/m�:3: ,_ .�� �3M���L�J.•�s���% ea:� cam..—sa.•.w. �•rr���r.
•
reF:e.w.uua�s x-8
ni r -
I
—
}di , zi .�5�� ,.w: a�f,...�mrs • �I err;,u,1� �r g
$ �.'�� �� ; +��! � s•��.�:i, � I rte°
`1� ' »•w,!'" f` • � ;�'�14(fi I .•�j�' �` I ���'wt�'' � •T�. •.1 I'�1 ,�i ����'1� � ��
o �' �r� •►k�;;��� I I��' � I I. :3.i,✓. w;p�j r�y-off'' � ; -�+t'� !�I
::�• :i' t; :;ci... / r,y- 1f:'•t`�t'•' �:^t...�:y�' tii,i �' '..,ytJ' i .'>r �^r•.•N '� J:) % r:r,. a'q./y:T
. F �' � t, Y� .. ♦ , t � ;/•.r.::. .4!f.^v .C„ar?.sr' 41r..,t,.Ttis'1. .�.- s �: � -Y- _Rv:��;rss r
its./ - I I _ -s.r•. I
s_: �:,:.j!.� ■■,uro�.6H•t► iou� ..��.• .s r t � �;:3 r t ',tom.��.r ^f:C:: U• •'ii,rr + �f �0
e•r:•7 ., .t,:_'. �tn4+r,�rr �. �f„f t..a ^ft t�Lill
-�.'.ii.- .��.•'a.': %� ��'I I r.. 'j':
■s��s/:e�. ( ��f'�!+:3./.:r5�jr�":•^•, L� �-- V , s�j/�/r' 'il I •�L•—'} —;f�.�1:�-•i�i i•//;i.,e
HIM r 1•, �i� 4 1!�!�c�.:'./.h.,�=1%3 I___aI r.t�.I..���i_�3',��... !,. i!'r1.P°S{Y ±,tr Y..�/J✓.�'i,
�
�.
iiTJll � .� .�• �1�� �/�—.��� O�i.r—'�>�i�f �`i11�Iti �'
=1�dSS�IKC
4.Yev:yn •
afl11J7inRfiwWlN'1^r;•;!
i$uiflN{ ,'lttltgf."fir`
lull
•..o.��_e ,�. _;�:�. _��,. III _ ..�.,.� �<>
i� — - + r r - - -•���•9aac:''s0.-'. r,
Illl�rl!''' r.11 ++ Ir�I�llrli���!'yi,.��i 1����'�[I�I�_ � � i- -�►r :� -- -
I
it�i�i�il.i!!�!i!,�.r,�,�.� _�;� _ :.� ii.iiiil�iiiii.,.�.i..�tf ,�, ,i ���.n�,i�.itli�i.�a.i�iiiliii.���ouu� �k,_.•!,_� i�i.i.�i.��.��.i.��i � .
•'� , +-n I �� r�. :r � e •��+�E1, v'� f. �t;V' ��' ..t eo: d- Kis: � .r it ,- ` � 1
'•,Jfv4; .• + i I I� / t ♦ _ v' '' y r_ Ir j+�—I■I I � I +. �; - ` ■ I�
� .•�• /. I,� ♦ f• '-� , A,. 1 � raj a: ,1 i,� # fi-
y'fit- 1. /.. s. i j � ry ` •s t _ r .� .,
—
__ `mil �� •� l,�.e � ,��/
j+ `I If♦, �- 1 to t��r' �IS f'r�l� r��'mod! S�,i r
II�.. . - I��IIII���II � /•.'. ,•.s Y:� ..YYY�t�n� �I���� .yY�'Y/�nl.] tiY 1 ��.� 1_.—. ��
•
+sOkr�,?iGtJ al
1
� ;T.y��--;i�•� y^/'I:N '+,::F:;a: �I �,. - .y��a a�: i..y^^. ';'S± J
// N,.. .•�•� � {;•f/(� � a a� ;• `� � � � ��r3�K,
17��jY�j� Nn. �. _ , .P � H� _.1/ r ....�.1 t �!�'. f�11. SR .J 4 • J{•. ✓./S.r�!;ij
I �SVpyi � :�_ _ _� _ -� __.� — .ay.•...x.a.a.• -(. Ja n '
1 Up3ns - ��}t•�;'„+.abrr,JS.r 3►.-ac�..asa!�,f;^ �wsia>..`3 �'b�i'd±iw.#.+.<wr,•:na rt�o,•,rJ. w;w•.►.:ii 1
lit
rE au 1
���p{r='. �.�Iffr! ��'r_ :ljfttyv�,..�:F-•:�, '�{rr�� :.I1lu�r! ,r`{�,`'p)�- s,.• �� �..
'''�II '{�i {���;�ii (I'Y" .ir�iir./f �1 a t.l�iNh"•�f3r�a�1►���i%'� i:: �i''Kly4lwrrMt�lfs�+�49t�� ! a� �S�
' a i e.wY, ll i•1�fa ! '1 1 a°rri� aY ! li ..�� 1 �+ry ll��1.„ / .. 1.... ,
..� � ..IIl�A�;��{ �,% I-♦ -i `�� i+����!P � �� i I.�S�tr � r Ss ' lI' �r .���i�► _ A it -� i. �n i,
If'1•,• , i'�:'�II#a'It��.� 1,�. ,'� �j{i`�9)'y �� �' ����� i � ;• '� � 1;:-.:�i;. r•� e a :a a}�+�� :�I:I�� '.% 4• '3;,/ I :'t i
'•
1��.tr:9'i71
�t '�nf, 4::J•:S•'` i �:f(���Glt��I� 1 � �{ � �n•:::'&S'��jfl:1 i �Y_`'��,�1Sht►' �j .•�i�fl ■II� �`...�:,ray a�t`<I
i,
rt
comyes111an-shingle root Eonrd and ballee olding
4.1
.1' n. �❑ II I I �a �
6
mslal rrsnelr aver• weed peel ;
/ (ENTRY) ELEVATION WEST(ENT ' a
' melshplekel Is ns• stuminew wlMSr rI mvnllgsJ r
.r z
_j CCt i-Y.r
LU w>
U.
A
22'R J!'FOOL 1, Ix
tt
■2[RCII[ROOM _ I `liy
t l ro vnlel ,� _
doer
� 1 W
ki
I I •
L.�
1 71AL[[O►TIC0. SOOL IQUIr'T.
.:1
2R00 LTO\AQC'
.`'''y�^rY; I colt g � I E���R••-f•�..
I anrnr►onto.// [xTRT►ORCIY
v: . .
R[xTALORICR t.nuxgnr 1�-------------� - -
i
/ \ I
North '.
fee ti.'
Iv,
112 Y�
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Vty Manager
SUBJECT: Villages Development Park Dedication Proposal
DATE : March 20 , 1986
General Background Information
By law developers are required to dedicate land, pay park fees in-lieu of
dedication of park land, or provide a combination of land dedication and
park fees in-lieu at the time of City approval of the developers
residential final subdivision map . The law also provides that the City may
at its discretion give a developer credit for private active recreation
areas . The City ' s ordinance provides that the park dedication requirement
for a similar planned development is calculated based on the following
formula :
Park Dedication ( in acres ) = . 009 acre per dwelling unit x number of units
if the City is desirous of receiving park in-lieu fees , the fee would be
based upon the nark dedication calculated above , times the fair market
value at the time that the final map is approved. A piece of raw land is
more valuable when the final map is approved. Staff typically calculates
the fair market value of land for park dedication based on comparable land
sales and approvals . If a developer questions the value established by
Staff, the City obtains an appraisal and the appraised value is utilized to
establish the fair market value of the land and thus , the amount of Dark
in-lieu fee owed the City by the developer . To date , residential
developers have accepted the fair market value of park dedication
established by Engineering Staff and the appraisal process has not been
utilized.
The Villages Park Requirement
Based upon the City ' s Park Dedication Ordinance, the park land dedication
requirement for The Villages Development is calculated at 10 . 485 acres if
1165 dwelling units are approved; and 9 . 774 acres, if 1086 dwelling units
are approved, as recommended by the City Planning Commission .
As part of a previous parcel map consideration, the City Council agreed to
give the developer 5 acres credit for the dedication of parkland presently
known as East Dougherty Hills Park. The actual park land to be dedicated
to the City is approximately 5 . 6 acres in area, excluding Alamo Creek which
traverses the park .
The remaining park land dedication requirement is 5 . 485 acres or 4 . 774
acres depending upon the density of the project approved by the City
Council . If the City were to give no further credit to the developer for
private recreation areas provided in the project , the park in-lieu fee
payable to the City would be as shown below, depending on the established
land valuation :
Park In-Lieu Fees - Range Based on Various Appraised Land Valuation Rates
Assuming 1165 Assuming 1086
Land Value Dwelling Units Dwelling Units
$ 2 . 00/sq ft $ 477 , 853 $ 415, 911
$ 2 . 50/sq ft $ 597 , 317 $ 519 , 889
$ 3 . 00/sq ft $ 716, 780 $ 623 , 866
$ 3 . 50/sq ft $ 836 , 243 $ 727 , 844
$ 4 . 00/sq ft $ 955, 706 $ 831, 822
X H
The following land values were used in the establishment of park in-lieu
fees °forr other ,,p.Ianned+°develop.ment.s, :,Twhirch...the,. City,,-h as,-Iapproved::.
land values calculated times the park land dedication requirement resulted
in the payment of park in-lieu fees shown below:
In Lieu Fee Equivalent
Land Value Per Dwelling Unit
Amador Lakes $2 . 37/sq ft $647
Arbor Creek $4 . 50/sq ft $1, 590
Morrison Homes _ $4 . 50/sq ft $1, 917
As part of the review of The Villages Planned Development, Staff has
contended . that the land value for the project at the time of final map
approval will be in the neighborhood of $3 . 50-$4 . 00/sq ft . The developer
believes the value of the land to be much less . The developer has also
indicated his desire to have the East Dougherty Hills Park built in
conjunction with the construction of his residential units .
East Dougherty Hills Park Development Cost
Although the design of the East Dougherty Hills Park has not been
completed, and that design has not been reviewed by the Park & Recreation
Commission or the City Council , Staff has requested Singer & Hodges to
develop a preliminary cost estimate for development of the park based on
one of the simpler preliminary park designs . An itemized breakdown of the
development costs is shown below:
Basic Park Development
s
1 . Site work and landscaping
a . Site preparation and clearing $ 8, 400
b . Grading 60 , 000
C . Drainage pipes and inlets 25, 000
d. Lawn 57 , 600
e . Irrigation 67 , 200
f . Trees 21 , 250
Total $239 , 450
2 . Walks , Parking, Lighting, Furniture
a. Walks $100 , 000
b . Parking Lot ( 24 spaces ) 38, 300
C . Lighting ( 20 lights ) 64 , 000
d. Park Furniture
( 1 ) Drinking Fountains (two) 1 , 600
( 2 ) Benches (eight ) 3 , 600
( 3 ) Trash Receptacles (five) 2 , 000
( 4 ) Park Sign 2 , 500
e . Water connection & drainage fees 20, 600
Total $232 , 600
3 . Fencing
Open rail fence ( 1 , 000 linear feet ) $ 40 , 000
6 ' Vinyl clad chain link fence (1 , 250 linear feet ) 11 , 875
Total $ 51 , 875
4 . Design/Inspection/Survey Cost ( 14% ) $ 73 ,350
5 . 15% Contingency $ 89 , 600
Total Estimated Basic Park Development Cost $686, 875
2
�tt—t'�
t��
Enhanced Park Improvements
1-. Group picnic ' & individual picnic areas.. - $ 21 ,800
2 . Bridge (across creek to provide southerly access
to park) 50 , 000
3 . Children ' s play area 40, 000
4 . Restroom 79 , 800
5 . Lighted Tennis Courts (two) 88, 000
6 . Improvements to creek to improve access unknown
7 . Design & Inspection (12% ) 33 , 600
8 . 15% Contingency 471000
Total Enhanced Park Improvements $360, 200
TOTAL PARK DEVELOPMENT COST * $1 , 047 , 075
* Does not include improvements to the creek.
As shown above, the cost for completion of this park' s development is
estimated to be in excess of $1 million . If the City were to phase the
development of the park so that the basic improvements were installed
first, the cost is estimated at $686, 875 for the first phase .
If_ the land was valued at $4 . 00/sq ft, the park in-lieu fees would fund the
basic park improvement and many of the enhanced park improvements .
Compromise Park Proposal
As stated previously, the developer has indicated a desire to see
construction of the East Dougherty Hills Park occur in conjunction with his
residential development . Initially, he is interested in only those
improvements identified in the Basic Park Development identified above .
Staff has indicated that there are insufficient park in-lieu fees generated
by other residential developments to fund any portion of the East Dougherty
Hills Park without impacting the City ' s ability to improve other parks ,
including Kolb, Dolan, Shannon and Mape Parks . In recognition of this
fact, as well as the fact that Staff and developer disagree as to the land
valuation, Staff and the developer have conceptually agreed to a compromise
which Staff recommends the City Council support .
The compromise is as follows :
Developer Commitment
1 . The Developer would construct only the basic park improvements
identified above .
2 . The Developer would build the park to City design and specifications .
City Commitment
1 . The City would not require appraisal of property and permit the
development of the East Dougherty Hills Park to proceed with
development of The Villages .
2 . The City would withdraw its condition that a swimming facility for the
single family development be constructed. This would result in a cost
savings to the developer as well as maintain two single family lots .
3 . The City will utilize a Request for Proposal process to select a firm
to provide the working drawings and assist with inspection of the park.
The City agrees to invite David Gates & Associates to submit a Request
for Proposal as well as other consultants .
4 . The City will endeavor to supply grading plans of the park to the
developer in order that the grading of the park can be accomplished
within the developer ' s overall grading time frame .
3 -
5 . The City agrees that drinking fountains installed in the park shall be
located adjacent to pressurized mains within the irrigation system.
Pressurized pipes will not specifically-be extended for the purpose of
installing drinking fountains . No sewer hookups are required for the
drinking fountains .
6 . The City agrees to permit the developer to design the masonry and
tubular steel fence along Dougherty Road consistent with the
development sound wall and entry design, subject to City ' s Site
Development Review.
7 . The City agrees to allow the developer to have input into the park
design process in order to effect cost savings . The developer ' s input
will not be at the expense of proper specifications , but will be
intended to avoid the inefficient expenditure of funds .
Under this proposal the developer would not be given credit for private
recreation areas . if the City Council were to support this compromise park
proposal the developer ' s park contribution per dwelling unit including land
and improvements is estimated to range from $1, 337 - $1, 435/unit depending
on the approved density . This assumes that the 5 acres dedicated to the
City is worth $4 . 00/sq ft . If a lower land value is given as the developer
suggested, the contribution per unit would be even less .
If the City Council requested a contribution for the net acreage toward in
lieu fees based upon $4 . 00/sq ft, the developers contribution would be
$1, 568 per unit irrespective of the approved density .
The developer has submitted a letter dated March 19 , 1986 which requests
concessions from the City related to other issues involving other aspects
of the project . Some of these concessions Staff cannot support because the=
committments are too vague and broad, specifically items 3 and 4 identified
on page two of the Rafanelli and Nahas letter dated March 19 , 1986 .
Staff recommends support of a compromise park proposal as identified in the
Staff .report .
4 -
77
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development _
May 23, 1985
M_r. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Kevin:'
Transmitted with this letter is our application for Plan Development
Rezoning and Subdivision Map for the Alamo Creek project. I. have
attached a list of the submittals included with this application. We
are electing, Kevin, to submit the tentative map, preliminary landscape
plans, building elevations and preliminary improvement drawings for
Alamo Creek prior to completion of the traffic report, Poise studies
and biotic survey. We are doing so in order to expedite your planning
review process for the project. Although those studies are not
complete, these submittals will be sufficient to commence the internal
plan review process.
Alamo Creek is divided into seven phases. Five of those phases are
multifamily housing. One phase consists of 146 single family lots on
standard subdivision public streets. The final phase .is an
unsubdivided lot reserved for future development. We have provided a
maximum land use intensity on the lot and have designed the access
roads to accomodate the maximum density allowable. We have also
instructed Chris Kinzel of TJKM to prepare traffic studies based upon
the maximum allowable density. We have reserved this unsubdivided site
to enable us to respond to future market demands which cannot be
ascertained at' the moment. As you know, when Tract 4719 was approved,
the property containing Amador Lakes was an unsubdivided parcel
containing a maximum allowable density for multifamily use. We would
anticipate the same sort of structure on this parcel.
Kevin, I would greatly appreciate vour reviewing the application and
the plans and letting us know where additional information will, be
required at this tire. Timing is, as you know, very important to us.
We have always appreciated the interest and .cooreration of the staff.
I particularly appreciate your willingness to j-amp into this
immediately prior to your vacation.
1Gy'y
o0nal ,
d C. Nahas
Enc.
CC: Rich Ambrose
Larry Tong
r` 2 ig85
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486 DUBLlNT PZANNNp-
A 13
2=AC
T] HM
:7':�„.Y.,%Ty•..Y':'',•t``J;� :.ti,ti `-�'%ti r t :�J stt i '.;� �y'�' s zR.t�. e .{y Y ors >7�-^"r;a'n'°'Y`i,�:J �s F X�� c ;,�.`.:"'.��.��" si�; �
� ;«.i••+,s, ,r--� x.rr, ••^-' :. .,S '"�, ,.�,.,.+++'�+�'.�,+'�-4 S7�ttt5dx�F x-x�,r .tt t',� ':�y"k��-sa-�r��-.ss s- ,zs'+�z'_ sc-', ^� }9�•T`Y "��' -•- --
..
CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning/Zoning 529-4916
P.O. •Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0S22.
Dublin;=-GA 94565 Engineering/Public Works,.,:8294927
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR:
PA 86-041.1 and .2 Villages of Alamo Creek - Rafanelli and Nahas Real
Estate Development Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Subdivision Map
(Tentative Map 5511) for a proposed planned development with 1,165
residential dwelling units, a convenience food store, a five-plus acre
neighborhood park site and common open space parcels.
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2100, et seq.)
LOCATION: The 135+ acre site is located in the I northeasternmost corner of
. the City, consisting of Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No. 4575 and
fronting along a section of the west side of Dougherty Road, extending
southerly from the County/City line, for a distance of approximately
4,200 feet. (APN 941-500-2-1, 941-500-2-4, 941-500-7, 941-500-8 and
946-101-1-2)
APPLICANT
AND REPRESENTATIVE: Ron Nahas/Mark Rafanelli
Rafaneli & Nahas Real Estate Development
20638 Patio Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94546
PROPERTY OWNERS: Larry C.Y: Lee, Campion Investment, LTD.
and Standard Nominees LTD.
1275 "A" Street
Hayward, CA 94541
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planned Development (PD) Rezoning proposal for 1,165
dwelling units and a small convenience store. Subdivision Map approval
for a' 156 lot subdivision is concurrently requested and proposes the
following lotting pattern: Lots 1 through 146 for the proposed single
family residential lots; Lots 147 through 152 - being one lot for each
respective multiple family residential village (to accommodate a total
of 1,019 multiple family residential units which are proposed for
residential units which are proposed for subsequent subdivision into
condominium air-space units) ; Lot 153 - for the proposed '17,500•; square
foot commercial lot; and Lots 154 through 156 for flood control right-
of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard right-of-way and improvements, the entry
road right-of-way and improvements servicing Villages VI and VII, rough
grading for the entire project. An individual Final Map is proposed to
be filed for each Village as construction phasing begins.
-A-TTAU'2hHM"02"'T
Eli
7.-1-
_
4 '
s
r 7 fa r
7.� y ro� lw.i.�.f d.s wwf� C o J .a K Y,,.. r � i Y �Y.>.,✓ _ .
%'
-:"d+=•`^.'SJ�.� , x ..,,tt �a• �tr""{t {N �•`r� yvt rc.,c�tea-'• 3 Sm
"ir+jK�
FINDINGS: The project, as now proposed;,will not have a significant adverse ,
impact on the environment. Observance of the -mitigation measures
outlined in the Expanded Initial Study dated January 31, 1986, .documents
the steps necessary to assure that the subject project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment (the Responses to Comments
documents dated March 12, 1986, and prepared by the firms of •TJKM and
Wagstaff and Brady, and incorporated by reference into the Expanded
Intitial Study) .
INITIAL STUDY: The Expanded Initial Study dated January 31, 1986, provides a
detailed discussion of the environmental components listed below. Each
identified environmental component has been mitigated through project
design or through binding commitment by the applicant; as outlined in
the Mitigation Measures Sections of the Expanded Initial Study.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS:
1. Land Use
2. General Plan Policies and Zoning
3. Hydrology and Water Quality
4. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
5. Biological Resources
6. Traffic and Circulation
7. Air Quality
8. Noise
9. Municipal Services and Facilities
a. Schools
b. Sewer Service
C. Water Supply
d. Fire Protection
e. Police Protection
f. Recreation
10. Visual Resources
11. Cultural Resources
12. Energy
SIGNATURE: DATE:
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
-2-
-_.>,....Y? •:\ J ...1 'er«,i K,.!::•d•.�yL ySslf.y �.' `it�:,�e�'L.Ynr+M .k mn rte. r.'Ar ".;^ .. .. 4 a:�'•.:-+ .--. - - ..
—7.
r.> + � ,n•�a 1>.� F �; rF}v r>;i,� �f����.t in i '�>r; `. ` ia tr f
+ -' y - yr r Lt yy��,,tTy ,> .s.> •� r
..�,t' C > y.., .�• r yF r ,4y, /V4�✓k-inll,`��•t r n'f xy:r .+r.- 1 r+'�' Jn it '.{rte" .� T -.'v r' �'! ./r.Ti7�Y.•�''`ih r '•, ..
-,��':�.:;; '. i r. �+' ''{Y.'�7�•t y.lr` .� tr+✓` ,�,�. .� i hw'�'`'v �•( Ry��...:.!_.-t%•i:rl �r- 'i•.0%�_.P/J�,.�sj.rr`i a•>+�T`� x,-'rJr' 1.,,g2 �-b•` r .
v.s:L?3"+.t fie- ..:,r+,way....+•.J-- a Lw'u.:�-�✓,:Y�'L��T�4�:(7L.� 'iZl�'p�'`+t ���F.''S".,,".?"� 7 '< 4 •�".. :rY�. �.!� t•u` f- �r�,....x.'''1�t S.•
j f:.r! •,�..Y f�:.t. .}7,"r.-t�. •.`..�t. �"J t. _ ••,i S., rt>-. ��y��t:-:'.•, 1 '� i.r K}Y� •C,^.
' - >9 it tF-�" ,L' 'fr'r •y }l1 d R i -c.-"��c-rw.^.s•-t•c is -
r^
c #�scy�a,^cr*+`us_ � t'a• � '•a•S'a. rT f'a 'S-:_ � ..i xx.'AS�f.�a+ L•OY,,a>y..-1Y C .,,�T .sa"d, w•"��-.� yK'�' r�im•�-,E`7? P,Y r'r�'.`t •+*zn�,c. �t�,�r.Z„+tr j!, t-4 r"*,s r
•, ..�, :!' ,•.,.:t., '-. ..�.... a _ .,.r::. , _ •L.r,.., .. .. _-.''.'>. ,.. r,-. ...,..s�..:':».,. 4><,,-.. -r rr. ,...._ ...�STt - ..u_i'. .-. . .
I
)
l
,
9
•V
r
I
i�
1• `
c
.a
a
.t
.1
f
cr
n•
d \
trV •� •'•r''
1
'rI n �•
•'7
•M N
A.Y O
S
RA
°•r
a
t
j
'S
t
5
-:) ,I :'.•C.1.NP••PARXS•• ••V.•3.AR,tI Y•::
1
V P(\
O
t
O
I
a
.y
)r
1
l
f
1
\
o a'•
2
n�
9\
:•E 1° �, �
.� .tom�I •'
Y
4 �
7
a'll
O
Y
.1
J
r
Z, r
r`
NA
r _
r
r;
0
••S
n
A
r.
_�r
a.
,i
z
N
,t.
Q
r
f M.
b
1
w
)
f
� n-
\'a
JCL -'i � � i \�\� •'I '•� ^t �r � 1f � � _
ost
r.+Mr::>:::�:::;:::: ••Ynfrrx:�: ' ••.:�::'::::::
r� _ _; I _ � awl '.(::-:::. •,::.:_
Ir..T ti 1 1� '�_ _ .1 _ }!r - �.ic- CF:YTF.R•.
:5
e'
i
\'r
r,
"4.�J � A •)\� .rte I e _ -�� a'� 't:�::::::::'.�;:
.q
_ 2
• 1
•tr
vl
i�
a
d
:I
rre —
- �f
�r1
�I
c�r
a
YN _
3.
+Y
w
r C
a'
7 \
'l -
1 •i....�• \ -I` J y r•�� _\/�'�� �(\.(./J•' 1 � rte' .'L..S...ARM�Y:'.::;':.•.: _
a\ '`_, •-, •__�^.__,,mss .j
- 1 -
I�
i
I '
T .
A T
3
J \1>
:a~
a_ f DUBLIN
pair. 4r ♦ G�:/� ��}:1 � \ y{
p r
i' \� n`�� �^'�'^•~J, \2. \- •� '� ter....\ Z `I•=i�..�•-
FiGURE 1
SITE LOCATION vM
rr�1QcA,Tro ti PTO Wjdl jq
ff in
uA"'HMENT7 \3
-^'!+"^ .F M r nr-• ..;-r-ra•r•�.;. T -r„r_-•-:".Y� r ;K••' r r .,.-'+ w-- r-t - -:
�. f r
��M Q RAO
a
/
t
o,
_ I -
V -
.1-."
IL
Yi
Irk,- .t ✓
95 0
��%.� y �� tit � � �� •
%'/--� I �'�` � .;��������._1 r .��� J �• � i Icy
IC
I
•-+ .. 1 1:11.1♦ 1•^1• a
AIIH
No
art. . `—• '�.J / �' ,J / 1II��\'YIYI ` � .tJ rr,n r .���• '' � I"l1 rnrr SSr/ •!.-.. —rl �. -_. •...-__...-• �•__-. ; "� ( ��+
�- rr r. cl tr No �i t'ly/?1� `� �_,,`_ .�• �J` -r�1�n i~ L}
Ai
' •tl 'YI ,tl t 1/1"7F V.1:111., t�I11tNt 1 \ j1 �,' -• �-�i�li ,,�j _ _ .. �-� �)�.� '.�' .�-... ,;•'.'r yr
�i�y `���� -._ ./�—•�� �" \• t+ %. •� , � ���1 L 11�� .,f rl I I i i '� � t �` �t 't't `•�-�
'�! f ."'�/ ./ � ' I.r' '� rll.• •�• li J.r,.� tI,1N� .�, r�,j�,�• �'- ! `�_. ,� �, I
( l�y�. G :/; `l a, 1• I,., � J R _JI -1 � •t' _.h ;f-..4":•'.e.-.�$..
'Lj�^ \� / �r 4.1.. . I�I � V,•;/ .. .. .. .-+..-. .IN- ._•" 'I._.•. -� i � Q,... '•ili•!i
('.t_' .:�:- P' !'/� f ^ 2 I r _ I } ._ _ I `, '.F t wh tiy. l•.r
BFI 1 • A\OU �r.• �jt] �.i�14•---. I -..�..! �,-I � F� {}� t ti, t\' ��SK
1 1 1 Vr A: I •.31111 i . .\� + {•1'-c;-e fat '.
1 `t SQO•' . �- - .� -' ••H 1. �•`�.. I• � h i` , i��-.�,. � wo
KAr
Do
co
'`:- � • �- - •:`=. ,���•�> �,. .. •• p., � tai `��• �; - � - �� ° :�: -.: .0
it .� t. �. ,• '.4,'� •7•_ s*'= -. �`'•�, -9/' r�/�� -.� � i, • t,�•ll �.•.'•+-�����.�.-I�•!, 1 � It , }�l r�re ��:
,11 vw` • •�,- Q�:r� : `Y 7 t•� , -•-.-.,.�-rr.�. i�lh -,i I I�� \, _}• I .r' � rt rt �j�.
R r �,�� -•�•:r _ Y". c•"�y • ��� _�(.'J �_ =II�._,,.'l� r' - u� r , � a'G't ?c:
J1�`�tc - o --�. - V•. /• - ��_ `�i�i�►%IjliiiJ w.l oar i , � .. s s
I;"s4�+ ...�.- � •' '�•::� _7•)�^;`. .�:>�-`��l r• -..irl.coJl.-..-.A, ,..J� S r M J + }� + r
=t;� ;�• -' • • �• •�- =fin.. -.�_ _ . ' . � _
qty. -; �• k t _�., x _ �:;::
.i -
'tr
r
r
fc
i
t J'
t
E
v
ac
.y
="3
v
I
NJ
cia
t. �
t'
.r?
i.y r I
�r
l
1
;x
1
4 -
r1 -
t, 1 ,
;;.. . '�. ---- --- — - Y Yt1<1►*.Y. �Zr1u91Q
.�._ -- - x-191• I .. •r .M. Y/� �,i�:?� ,... - _ - °..
• •'r ;;,aK,. .1.- •' � r_.l�' - � 1. � 'fix'' ?`1
b t'
l
Yy �,'� y, ,�T'`�T��r, 7. a•1"'9ti4 ^�. ...,fit.::--±c)yi�;Hl�.�.�:�. -♦ .'i; 4 .��;'•a }- 2: ,.• 1.
W Y
.: my- 7Sl! ?-ii'C,:.1'-ai>;��� r.' �.:s 7� '�+t y�sXan?r�',k.k... .s'YSa"?' �i„K•�. ,.t ibs;. t r} _r 6W+:s'cr 1. .1•.ma•'''- - ,f � s•:r a )
} fir` ..«• f �... �d �•-r "'y`r IRMa r
• ` 6�>tap:,J� ,^ tM+ ; i. !. rb..��c•�±e.iti�t�a,•?-(• .fit` ;wt�r ` �.1�'��J\.}.'.•.�/� � �'`1"'(;
�,;_iy... �' ,rte.4• x^' rt'� '�- S'i ,., � n Y.d -�"'aS` YF r 3:'?i«^_ `r iw
ii�+F. 't',r a.:-w�� ';,'t�A�.c ,•,r,_.. r,�� r•'t�}t -" �'• r , { r -,«,.1 ti 'fPFf - l t� .�..,(J 0
1 fM ,;�tl�Pi+�;4Y`/Y;?'f •:yl�Yq's' iG. �'y. �t�;a'
;V'Ja ;}Nh�sc: 'i Y..6,`� jr .�c +•� '\ t �.v hl - � -! �
t
1 V V M 7:1`!y.�,� ;
��,��'J,.� s�;if�ILi•.yi pi l-C. � �t s:4��. t. ^ � �. � -1 ( ° 7 ( a .rrs� ,
r J r.r. r4'r.,..S'^' }4j' t v t i-1't' `• a 'L 1 .. t , - r-. ~
Rafah'611 antl Nahas Y -° T
/f !1'� ..ay: :.q lJ.d'.vA,.rc.a...r,{v;1'r Cr`,7. . i`•a. M\� J ryo 9\�)t'ti r c �7
PLAN ri>'•'s-L=ts}
:.r:.Real Estate Development
f f
November 22, '1985
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 _
Re: Conditions of Approval - Alamo Creek-
Dear Kevin:
This week we are commencing construction of an apartment project in
Richmond. The project was approved as a subdivision with a tentative
map. The conditions of approval of the project, however, allowed us to
draw building permits and commence construction in advance of the
filing of the final map. All of the conditions wnich related to the
improvement drawings and building permits were fulfilled upon issuance
of the building permit. The final map simply had to be filed within
the appropriate time period before expiration of the tentative.
This process, Kevin, allowed us to save a significant amount of time in
the preparation and processing of the final map..
In the case of Alamo Creek, all of the offsite improvements are part of
the master tract. The final map for the master tract would be filed in
advance of any 'construction on site. We would request, however, that
building permits be issued upon approval of the building and
improvement drawings within an individual Village prior to recordation
of the final map for that Village. If this can be accomcdated, it
would be a significant help to us in securing sewer permits and getting
underway during the summer.
Cordially,
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm
cc: Larry Tong
Lee Thompson
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
"
a ) r
�1� ).� i J.a• I a, �... Jf,C'a. 11 t l'/ N ) r.:iv ^{C Vt�,14•J•fI�AC,�JSJ {'"j�l';I / Nom, _�,)�'�ti� ;-`114, .- .J I.n--1 •til r•-if J T -
;i t i{• r< �° r 7 r'. '�S'.iSm'n^"rM �firy 77tr'J� t : der 7) )ya�afi^y ';Y Cs "r";• ,s1.1',���i + ��wf�' �� i
�... -4ba, ?r^'+^Ir !lt'.'K 7 so-r- e*,.•y.+..e f`•- 4s K +� 1 a-ar-,*,+�^ ,.
•5'„, .," .:..:i", f �:. `i� s.:...f,.'?, -` Vii.. '.. ,• '.,,"mot .� r rs,. ,'+err.:s.4'.'�`'.�� .. . .. M-�..., ...,'�,". w.t „t�'�kC�:•k. s a'��^Y�'r4-�+`?�'?7 t-�ar � _
p ., . . R � C .FD
Rafanelli and Nahas DEC 11.1985
Real Estate Development W _ _, . .
DUBLIN PLANNING
December 6, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gailey
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340 -
Dublin, CA. 94568
Re: Alamo Creek Park' s Proposal
Dear Kevin:
This letter is intended to follow up your request for clarifi-
cation of park dedication requirements 'for Alamo Creek, I have
broken it down by Village. As you know, it is our intention to
file a master tract map which creates an individual lot for each
Village. The park site has been reserved for dedication to the
City on' Parcel Map 4575, and will be further dedicated on the
master tract map. Approximately 50% of the total parks'. obliga-
tion will be met with the filing of the master tract map. We are
suggesting in the attached breakdown, an .allocation system for
that park' s dedication. We have followed the general guidelines
on the Parcel Map by assigning two acres to Parcel 2 of the
Parcel Map and three acres to Parcel 3.
We are proposing to meet the park dedication requirements thro-".
ugh a combination of land dedication for the neighborhood park,
land dedication for the Alamo Creek corridor pathway system,
private open space and in-lieu fees.
1. Park Dedication:
As mentioned above, we are anticipating dedication
of the park to the City upon recordation of the
master tract map. The assignment of acreage credits
as shown on the attached exhibit, will be detailed
on the map. Although the total park site, (inclu-
ding the portion within the creek) is approximately
8 acres , only five acres will count toward the park
dedication per the requirements of the City Council.
2. Alamo Creek Corridor Pathway System:
We will be conveying to the City not only the streets
along the east boundary of Alamo Creek, but also a
landscaped corridor between the street and the creek
right-of-way. I have assumed for purposes of this
20633 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
n
ACHMENT
-y y�
r-n,t a.+ '�i r.. oyn "' v'. �.... r.a«--•1--y+.��i--'rz.+-t 1* Fv' .�...,.�.r'..-�' -
,.r
.a. ;.. • .. ., ,�_?�`s37m PL:... . ... � �..K. -�.4'�l�r?.-,,..rS.�.1''.`.' r�r .. .'?tee° _
{ Kevin Gailey 2 __-cember 6, 1985
proposal, that that corridor is 15 feet wide on the _
average. . There.,:are some areas, Kevin, where it is
- ' up to 40 feet" wide Wand• other areas where it-is nar=
rower. ':. The exact acreage must be" determined upon
preparation of final improvemetn drawings for the
individual villages. For purposes of concept appro-
val, however, 15 feet seems to be a reasonable estimate.
3. Alamo Creek Corridor Pathway System Improvements:
I have. assumed improvement costs within the pathway
corridor of $21 per lineal foot. This is arrived at
by taking the cost of a six foot meandering pathway
and deducting from that the cost of a normal sidewalk.
I have then assumed landscaping within the corridor
of $1. 50 per square foot for a total cost per lineal
foot of $21. Again, these numbers will have to be
fixed at the time of improvement drawings.
4. Private Open .Space:
There are four areas which qualify for private open
spaces. These are the four recreational facilities
within Villages 2, 3, 4 and 5. I have assumed a
setback of 10 feet for purposes of calculating the
100 foot minimum dimension. I have assumed 10 feet
because a typical building separation is 20 feet wall
to wall (15 feet minimum) . These four areas amount -to
a total of approximately two acres divided between
Villages 2, 3, 4 and 5.
5. In Lieu Fees:
I have calculated in-lieu fees at the acreage price
which we are paying for the property ($48, 148 per
acre). We strongley desagree with the concept that
our expenditures to improve the property be included
in the land value for calculating fees.
There are certain villages which have net credits be-
cause of other dedications. It is our assumption
that each village -will act independently. To the
extent in lieu fees have been paid by a village in
which such fees are due, - those fees will be refunded
to any village with a net credit at the time the
tract map for that particular village is filed.
Kevin, this proposal seems to us to meet the direction of -the
General Plan by providing onsite private recreation, enhance-
ment of the Alamo Creek corridor, and dedication of teh eight
acre park.
:-...,.:;::...,,..: .....;r,. ., .. _ ....;.... -e, .r. '-s. 1e' r.^ -ry _.. 1'•r"'^•S t°..ro '?'?e'}"':mnC "'°' ["'.w-�C c•-vr'1S"'3` '
2 ,jecember 6 1985 -
` Kevin Gailey ,
I believe it responds well to the overall timing and schedule
_of this project.
Cordially,
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/j cd
Enclosure
cc: Rich Ambrose
Larry Tong
Mark Rafanelli
Lee Thompson
Credit For Credit
`? Required Credit Credit for Creek Creel: -Pathxva.y For Private Acreage In Lieu
: ...
1 Parcel #L Units Acreage For Park Pathway Dedication Im rovements Park Space Credit Fees 48 148 per
acre)
Village 1 60 . 54 ac. $25, 100
Village 2 248 2. 232 ac , 1 acre
$56, 700 or
93 acre 1.. 18 acre . 25 acre 4. 36 acre (8, 860)
Village 3 216 1 . 944 ac. 1 acre
'e\th
Village 4 152 1. 368 ac. 1 acre
$52, 920 or
. 87 acre 1. 10 acre , 25 acre 4. 22 acre (54, I1S)
._ Village 5 .192 , 1 . 728 ac. 1 acre
, , Village 6 146 1 . 314 ac. G1 , 000
Village 7 148 1. 322 ac. 1 acre 1 acre 14 , 950
Totals 1 1G2 10 . 458 ac,
9. 58 acres $38, 072
;';. .. ,
e '_y
0
r ,
RECEIVED
Rafanelli and Nahas. JAN 2 21986.
Real Estate Development . -•
~` DUBl N PLANNING{'
Jam ary 20, 1986
Mr. Larry Torn
City of Dublin
P.0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re.: Site Develo=ent Review
Alamo Creek
Dear Larry:
Following up on our meeting on Friday, I have reviewed both the Amador
Lakes and Alamo Creek plans to identify areas where separations betAem
building appurtenances are Jess than 15 feet. I have enclosed drawings
which .iaxhcate those areas. These measurenents were taken on the 20
scale improvement drawings for Amador Lakes and on the 60 scale
tentative man drawings for Alamo Creek and as such, may contain errors
where the dimensions are close to 15 feet.
You will see that I have identified 26 locations on the Aamdor Lakes
project and approximately 27 in Villages I through V of the Alamo Creak
project, which represents 864 multifamily units.. In each project, these
closer dimensions occur in at least cne location on roughly half of -di:
buildings. It Auuld appear from this cursory examination that the
shapes between buildings on the two projects are co�ble.
As I mentioned on Friday our architect, Bob Arrigoni, is extremely
concerned about having arbitrary building separation requirenents loch
will have an adverse impact on the large open spaces within the
project.. We are hopeful that in final design scare of the larger spaces
can be increased in size. This may cause a�,-�ditiom-1 tightening betweex
patios, walks and stairs. Having gone through this L-rercise of
stLdyina the building separation, we would be averse to resolving 'ch-is
question by establishing an arbitrary percentage of buildings that
could be within the 15 foot diiransion. We believe it would be more
workable to establish a minimum 20 foot separation beetwe-.n building
walls (excluding stairs, patios, balconies and entries) and a 10 foot
dimension between all other appurtenances. This would be a more stri.c•c
criteria than was applied at Amador Lakes where we had several
separations less than 10 feet.
Also on Friday, Larry, we discussed a resolution of the recreation area
requirements for the single family lots. I believe we concurred that
the only recreational amenity Much' could not be provided by the
cd7mmunity park was a swinming pool. We would suggest the following
approach:
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY.CA 94546 (415)537-0486
d1111 *V7�5 &ree,
A HM T, .
TTAC EK-
2.
y �
.{l•LC+g1'1.
'�y�'3C'(•'-n+' *` {'•' 't? -�+-n-�-.•e. `S• :�.t.pr•-` s+F��cT ��'„�'"Yir''" i-'.-n.,Y e�;'u-, cs,F-r+�r.,t •,r�e.. ter.+ - � ab-^Mc-•°�K'k:---•—.• � _�:-vr .s.
d ,
Mr. Larry Tang A -2- January 20, 1986
1, ?de would set aside a site of sufficient size to accomodate an
appropriately sized swimming pool (20 feet x 40 feet plus
ancillary-service buildings) .
2, The builder for the single family lots would set aside a sum
equal to 50%'of the cost of improving the site with a swimming
Fool and would provide the documentation required to set up a
discretionary swim club. Club membership would not be mandator-y,
but would be available to anyone owning a lot in Village VI.
3. The 1-xmeavamers within Village VI would have a period of thr°Q
years to organize a swim club and raise the other 50% of the
funds to build the pool. Upon completion of fund raising, the
developer would construct the pool for the benefit of the swirl
club and contribute the lard to the swim club.
4. If, after a period of three years follaving sale of 90% of the
houses in Village VI a swim club has not been formed, then -the
developer would contribute the site to the City of Dublin and
c=mit the money which had been set aside for 50% of the ccst of
the Fool facility to the landscaping and other improvement of the
site.
Larry, I believe this provides an easy method for satisfying the need
for swimming facilities, if indeed there is a perceived need, and yet
ccimiits the single family lot amers .to a significant involvement prior^
to conveying the facilities.
In addition to final agreement on the above site plan issues, there .aa.s
several other outstanding conditions which we need to finalize:
1. we proposed using the same configuration of patics .as used at
Amador Lakes, but excludi.rg the air conditioning ccmr)ressors from
the ratio.
2. We can meet the goal of 35% open space on the multifamily parcels
as a whale, but we are under on Village I. Although parking and
pat}u,,ray lengths can be reduced in Village I by ad+jesting the mix
to include two bedroCM Units, the 35% open space goal will not ha
achieved. We would request that the ri1 tifamily projects be
taken as a group in determining ccmpliance with the open spaces
criteria.
t tr n y 'r+•'"'77's. ^"'r-^..er "+a'^�?r. �n v.vr"y�+y'L}f-r, -re.-sxn-n 1» 77777 — ro-.'.7
sz �t`r ji��....s'J�� �� f.. f ! t
i
Mr. Larry Tong -3- January 20,.1986
3. As yet, there has not been a response from the City on the
structure of the park contribution. Although this is not a
required element of the tentative map, it is in the best
interests of everyone to resolve the uncertainty at this stage. .
4. Revising the method of calculating parking requirements does not
appear to adversely affect Villages II through.V. Village
I,hcwever, will have difficulty. We would, therefore, request
flexibility in the conditions which would allow us to substitute
sane two bedroan units in an 8-plex configuration in order to
meet the additional nine spaces for guest parking.
Larry, I believe that this covers all of the cutstanding-issu.__ . ;":e
look forward to a meeting to resolve these as quickly as pcssible in
order to meet the February 18th Planning Commission date.
Co ly,
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm .
Enclosures
cc: Rich Ambrose
Nark Rafanelli T1
,�.`a.T°"''.i,"*"^` `. :'C.,a'^ ""�'
Jr..'C. .. .A .. .K••- n.,. .,i.?e, f.Y ._. ._z-.i ... i.",.. }�n.:+}.r r ._ nvH ., .+k ,y: !?" . ._..
-;v.. :'L4., -Y✓"::•C'`R:. \.: n• _ .. --- :___.,.-tom i -_ \
` o
� -' / - .. • - �� .. G=289. 4� '-° --- '_ - _
ez
cI
•I �_ o a -1 2 - loo
o ,
6 - 25
a .✓ , / / 4 Z7,�iI �, � � 78 — 115
Zk
r;� • .-' •O$ 31 J� Aeo;�&r � � �•�, 71 , 12 _ 16 0
12
13 14 -
1 5 5
15 , 16 -
17 ,18 - 150
e 19 22 - .140
47,,q � W 23 ,'2.4 _ :100
,
25 26 160
i sxao
27 , 28 - 200
/T/L ' 29 , 30 - 180
0
'''`'� - ��oJl3f Zl,2z' 1 �.2• T_Y_
-,-�- ,- 31 ;32 _ 1 170
33 , 34
351 36
38 - 100
41342 - ,
L�y�'_ G?� f4v 43 44 61
-�. 45 ,46 1 0
:i- : ; �' Z rtv•3uf h 47,48 - 80
{ , I 4 9 , 50 _ 20
V1 oAO Sj
/ `
H=9L,�f Lfl-E 51 , 52 0
���i I �l"i'�i''►� 53 , 54 - 30
�rz.� -�`,, T; \ � ;°, ► S '�. �; �' Vii, .,, 57 , 58 - 50
59 60 15
I tj
= , p
I
i
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real.Estate Development
February 4, 1986 R E -C E 1 V E D
FEB 6 .19861
Mr. Larry Tong .
DUBBIN PLANNING
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568_
Dear Larry:
I have enclosed the sections through the single family lots which you
reauested. in reviewing the sections you should note that they have
been intentionally cut through the most severe grading condition on the
site, which is not at all typical of the overall. plan. The engineers
have also prepared a couple of minor sections illustrating the change
in slope where the cuts meet natural terrain. The single family lots at
Alamo Creek generate a total cut of 178,565 yards or slightly over
1,200 yards per lot. By way of comparison, Tract 4719 generated
610,000 yards of cut on the single family lots or slightly cver 4,000
yards per lot. I do not have the figures for other projects in the
region, but I think you will find if you check some of the grading on
the west side of town, that the actual grading for this subdivision is
modest.
As was requested, Larry, we- have also enclosed a revised layout which
reflects culdesacs on all streets within the tract. Follcwing our
meeting, I spent some time looking at other subdivisions and am
convinced that the benefits which you, Kevin and Sheila identify are
worth pursuing. The enclosed plan is an attempt to provide the Traxi stmt
number of culdesac lots. It does have three drawbacks:
1. We have lost at least one, and possibly more, lots.
2. There are areas where the slopes, which were largely three to
ore, have been steepened to two to One. I have circaed those
areas.
3. T!.e engineering department and fire department may have
significant concerns about all of the dead end streets.
From a construction and marketing point of via,7, we are
comfortable with this revision and suggest that it be built in as
an alternate, subject to approval of the engineering and'
emergency services people. To the extent that lots are lost-
through revision in the layout, it is understood that the
allowable density on Village VII (currently under 10 per acre)
will be increased by a like number.
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
CHMM
i f
":i.;',iT.' c � >,:. T 'x"x` +...tv. '1.�x a.r pt�.� r�'(r^_'?`2 �, FiN ^r-7 ti�°^!s.., r •_.+---o.vc+• F i r -
y. Y ey ✓ t r � r.S r ��ti�1 a r�'•� H r T � r r .� •�� s
r'F""`' ��•^"F,. w .,,r;. s r 'x..-..r t -t•`--.,�'rmr -.•-.-t . .•�"�-au.T.�'�-.r-' �.�•"`a,r� -s r---sic t' t�'-�'�•-,... rn., 4
e 4 ..�t:i •, .._^"-. ..,. v t'i...,;$? +?..«.Ys,.s^�t..r.V':.nn��et5r�.,.�+yx''S i=.w5 .. �. ,n �`f .n�a ...�'��.?. �.5-'.. . 1 , � !.,
:.,
Mr. Larry Tong -2- February 4, 1986
Tarry, I have tentatively set up a meeting with Kevin to review staff
conditions on Wednesday, February l2th.
Cordially,
Ronald C. Na`-es,
Enc.
cc: Lee 7h- son
Kevin Gailey
Sheila Brady
Mzrk Rafanelli
yrb. _ s,.1 t ,, rr,.v.:..n r ..... I(�n/.•� .,.:+4 .. J!n-:4..Y` �/ } �S'it-:...:w.. :I 'i'.. �PJ i.1 �,3N�.Wr<H2•'i� /.•�::. - ,
s,ta,, - )' ._ � L m•-'(., ��.}_.� 3 I �; r �� � :r�•.�rr-•.,�,...�r,.z .,L`E✓r iq• .,Q - graj4' �Y..,. °-- -
.,p „?,. '::' ,• '�^ � ';'.Sn .�� �-S }e'� 0'���x �� x} ry y tk k ��.�,��z''�.'d-�+-=.,��� b"rA� 1°' h.`Ih^iY-.-�-�`�'� �6��an',:y"Jr y f'',. i-�
41. Y�"i� .f. . �.5;4._ 'F�r�'�f.,. .N ..� ':.i^�S i �.•=•�...s... 1i•�' '�f�..., • (�y.�x`.. � �+-
sY
�t.......`, i�
r=
c -
s /
Olt ip l3 Af
67
r
�x y
71 74 ZS
;. 7Z
-77 V 73
F4- F•S bF rG �
ale
l Y /v3 SO
—9
P3 92
SS rZ
' �\
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development -
February 4, 1986 C V
FES 6 .19
8s,
Mr. Larry Tong D1j,8111y p44 11J1j
City of Dublin G
p.0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Larry:
Kevin and I had a -conversation Monday afternoon regarding the Exparx ed
Initial Study for Alamo Creek. There were a few items included in tl---
final draft which were not presented -to us in advance. Although these
items are not of such significance that they will affect the public
comment which is currently underway, they could create significant
design problems if not addressed with flexibility. As you will note, a
few of these items are simply errors Mich say be corrected if they are
ccm ented upon by arty outside agency.
1. Page 40, Subparagraph S provides that bus turnouts be provided on
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. It will be extremely
difficult to acccmodate a bus turnout on Amador Valley Boulevard.
There are only a couple of locations on Dougherty Road where a
bus turnout is. possible if we wish to maintain the landscaping
width called for. As a practical matter, due to the construction
of the sound wall on Dougherty, there will be no convenient
location for bus turnouts. We are suggesting bus stops along the
loop road on the east side of the creek.
2. Generation rates for students on page 52 are not entirely
accurate. Amador Lakes has generated 51 children, 29 of when are
preschool. The generation factor, therefore, is less than half
of the .10 shown. Likewise, the generation factor for grades 9
through 12 would be .02 or a total of 21 students for the
multifamily homes in Alamo Creak. Even with the single family
homes .included, the total w-culd not increase to 166 as provided
at the end of Section A, Subsection 2.
3.• The 15 foot landscape buffer on 'the north side of the street
dividing Villages VI and VII was mentioned. We believe scrrre
landscaping there would be desirable. Fifteen feet is a Ia.-ge
area. We will attempt to acconodate it, but may reed flexibility
in order not to lose a significant number of lots.
20638 PATIO DRIVE.CASTRO VALLEY.CA 94546 (415)537-0486
-
'
Y�•,k�'t±er�l<�i�ity,wc;j,., !. •t.�vPWiJ'W'^i.nJWYU4�i.�w.krw'!"'1^].. .yt /nV 'w ti]P�.=.rx�.wai� �?�a9�xins+�,�k.4.'v'+�+�"i'»�`fral .il+•i<�.r.'sajaJ..��.dr.,xr�x:.?]•✓.-e�.ymi� -;s:±
I
r
r yly.• J , z'Q �_s Jr '.n /`air� �]ti.Yr' ,J kV:..Y. :'.i"t�:"�t ?�M vlsr i"`!•t..w�' 2���.ii l.f-]ti� Y- +Z!�f.;y, rrJ�js.. StRylXayV&
� r:...
,:c�..���n�Y+r~ L." ! .T iti`(,-. .A y .C,. _r<;�,a,�t.3:.y.�i�'.d��••:r _�F1u'CJf of•�m �N .n`� 4�•��?•`���s�!�•r +t�?�.`tY�^ � .2 ��"d•.�;y,,.:
r
l� / 1•, Y"!E. ..� - � � � ?��L�v .i*»57�']]'FS"�,r�.�?+' •k 4tl"y�,Y'��.icy y .i•�..�=rh^'. ""w^,�'� S�r.,'M i�"'' S`�` .,•..
"z! r :a-�-.rrr- 5•. m..?.M 7.�.,..i ,..".�'c'.�.".•.!1'"'"p'_..Fu7;•S=�l�'. +'�'"'7'"E'r�'t`rr„y`+" < f d n_L- 't..,w .•^,7. r
.�. ;�. � P Z s ��'i rr�;c� K 3 Pt F�r ' t� +��`;�'�r "'.G �{x, , e�•i; '"i��';�"x���-�,�s 3�y _�.�,,,,., ,�-•,...
Mr. Larry Tong -2- February 4, 1986
4. A minimum -12 foot dimension for landscaping along Dougherty
.Road is a new one. Again, we will attempt to acccmodate that,
but it depe-
ds upon final grades and width of sidewalks. We have
assumed on the sutmitted plans a standard width sidewalk.
5. Uniform tree plantings on the graded slopes in Village VI were
limited in our previous discussions to the interior slopes .
between tiers of lots, and would not be required in slopes above
the upper tier.
6. As a point of clarification, on page 24, paragraph B,
subparagraph 1, it indicates there are a total of 34 feet of drop
structures proposed with structures varying in 2 to 6 feet in
height. This is riot correct. 34 feet of drop structures are for
the entire from Amador Valley Boulevard to the northern end
of the Lee- property. There are nine drop structures_ pro_ro✓ed in
our section, each of which is tvo feet in height, or a total of
18 feet. This includes one drop structure wtlich is a part of the
boxed culvert crossing into Village VI.
Additionally, Larry, the requirement for revegetatizng- trees in the
channel has been increased over previous proposals. Requirements for
horticultural improvement on the existing trees has been substantially
increased to include trees falling into the "C" category of health. It
is our intention to do Our best with regard to maintaining existing
vegetation and revegetating. Havener, the cost impact of these
changes, which we were not a,,� of, is excessive. We expect soma
flexibility on the past of the staff.
bark and I are very pleased that we met our first deadline turd -t_hA
February 18th hearing date. We are preparing our materials for the
hearing and look forsard to meeting with Kevin on the 12th to review .
the staff recommendations and conditions.
Cordially,
:nald C. has
RCN/mmm
cc: Kevin Gailey
Sheila Brady
Lee Thompson
Mark Rafanelli
1," - ✓l+'i+r•y�I•.l ::s...- ._aip,;;a-;,;,:vr?' /vwvn..Jn.:so:��.r� l�wTV
Y.
t
T'.yr SS.. t t. wu,::..:;_:: .>." ! i� w^��'�,Z't��+.t 'C'-•.� s - 5x?if,f-TF °-n�"�r--s�r� „w r�� ��r•,�.���r� risr•�-or '-•�•s
'Y,'T "`+ .;`' -Ta.r, s•'bfr"• •T..T'a r,T R-/��t't'`n`^G1C' w.. x�,'zTw ,ry�•7�Ci;^t+x o�i,`i�•2�.0`'�^ t;i .xy�ca• S�+R. mo:.�j�yml * -� 7-¢.+n,...+iti.,.. --.-:r
.. .; ' .. •,:-,•, �. �.... L .6_,�.'i"c ...,'N K..�i 7:_�r ..... ,. �'. ��.. -.,... r^Sd Mc,.:. .N ,.?4,.,i_ .,,°F.s,..i" .. ,l!".r_-.:�
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
March 18, 1986
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Modifications of Staff Conditions
PA 85-041.1 and .2
Dear Kevin:
There are several small modifications to the staff conditions which we
are requesting be accepted by the City Council in their consideration
of the above plan develorment. By and large, these modifications
relate to the final revised conditions, which were prepared prior to
the March 17th planning commission meeting.
Condition 18E - The six foot black clad chain link fencing shall be
installed by the developer on both sides of the creek, for that
portion of the creek within the dedicated park. The developer
shall be responsible either to construct the fence along the
creek right of way, or to contribute an amount in cash equal to
the developer's cost to provide materials and installation, if an
alternate design or location is established by the City.
Condition 24C - The minimum height of the berm should be reduced from
10 to 8 feet. There should be a note at the bottom that reads, "It is
understood that this berm is to be constructed from strippings and
other excess material from the grading job."
Condition 28E - Roofing materials shall be a higher grade of asphalt
shingles than provided at Amador Lakes in order to produce additional
texture and shadow pattern.
Condition 46A - In the fourth line after "50 feet",. add the words,
"of asphalt paving width".
Condition 68 - This will be revised to read as follows: "The
undeveloped area on the west side of the site shall be offered for
dedication to the City or an appropriate recreational district. Areas
which are not accepted for dedication shall be either included as part
of a private lot, become part of the public street right of way, be
included as part of the creek channel, be maintained as part of the
landscaping and lighting district, or placed in a private homeowners'
association." How these areas are to be distributed shall be subject
to review and approval by the City Engineer.
V
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486 A7ACHMENT
Kevin Gailey - -2- March. 18, 1986
Condition 76 - In the seventh line, regarding maximum deviation of
pad elevation, the word "generally" shall be inserted between the words
"shall" and "not".
Condition 84 - At the end of the last paragraph, add the words, "During
the site development review process, the developer may request and be
granted modifications from the above minimum rear yard dimensional
criteria in individual situations where such modifications would add
diversity to the project or privacy to individual units which in the
discretion of the Planning Director, improves the overall design. The
builder shall strive to maintain a minimum 1,000 square feet of flat
and useable area within 80% of the rear yards and a.minimum of 900
square feet of flat and useable area within the remainder of the rear
veards trough the selection of appropriate houses to fit individual
lots. Additionally, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of
steepening cut and fill slopes to increase the useable pad area without
impacting the stability of the slope design. The purpose of this
condition is to encourage the proper matching of housing types to
individual lots and adjusting grades to increase useable area, but is
not intended to require a reduction in the number of lots during the
site develoament review process."
Tentative Map Condition 3 - This condition shall be modified to'read as
follows. "The developer may request and secure a grading permit and
commence construction of creek imurovements following the first reading
of the PD ordinance. The developer may request and secure a grading
permit for all of the mass grading upon the effective date of
the ordinance (subject to the provision of security agreements to
ensure completion of grading, erosion control requirements and
environmental protection, or to return the site to an acceptable
condition as deemed -appropriate by the City Engineer)".
. Kevin Gailey -3- March 18, 1986
Kevin, we wish to appeal the planning commissiqn condition cotlich limits
the density in Village VII to the single family density provided for in
the General Plan. Our appeal will also relate to other conditions
which reference Village VII as a single family site. It is our feeling
that the project, as submitted, meets the requirements of the General
Plan and that limiting Village VII at this stage to single family is
not justified.
Cordi
y, ;
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm
cc: Larry Tong
Lee Thompson
r
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
March 20, 1986
Mr. Larry Tong
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Mitigation Measures
Dear Larry:
Rafanelli & Nahas, the developer of the Alamo Creek project, hereby
agree to be bound by and incorporate, within the project design and
construction, each of the mitigation measures contained in the staff
summary of conditions dated March 17, 1986, which reflect the
mitigation measures provided for in the expanded initial study by
Wagstaff & Brady.
Cordially,
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm
I-A H
-N
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486 ATom C""MENT I I
VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK
=1 PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT CHART
City of Dublin — 2/11/86 ► 'j:
5 Proportional ;
t ' Dedication Net
6 1
k Village Proposed Required Assignment In—lieu
}
Area 1 Unit Acreage For Parke' Requirement !'
Count/Rate* Dedication Area
)(( .
0.540 ac 0.258 ac 0.282 ac
s Village 60 ` y
,..{.^ ,. 1 @ .009 (5.15%)
r ac/du i. .. .
V 248 1.064 ac 1.168 ac
illage 2.232 ac
}} t
a
(21
2 @ .009 .29%) i.
4 #. .
a ac/du s
1.944 ac 0.927 ac 1.017 ac r<
$j Village 216
3 @ .009 (18.54%) t ;
x ac/du '
tt Village 152 1.368 ac 0.652 ac 0.716 ac �•
Y' (13.05%)
4 @ 009
s
ac/du „
1.728 ac 0.824 ac
0.904 ac
Tillage 192
5 g @ .009 (16.48%)
r7ulf ac/du
0.627 ac 0.687 ac 4
Village
146 1.314 ac r
@ .009 (12.53%) 1
C.
ac/du
x,. 1.359 ac 0.648 ac 0.711 ac
+ O
Village 151 ri
7 . S @
.009 (12.97%)
;; ac/du
a 1 5 10. 85 5. 0 5. 85 ac �.
o to s t
units acres acres
one dwelling unit @ 5,000 square feet, allowing the
The overall project density equates to less than t; '
a p L
E - application of a 0.009 acres/unit park dedication rate per City Council Resolution No. 74-83.
Credit for the proposed neighboCouncil to 5.0 acre credit. Credit
rhood park was limited by the City-
for the park should be assigned on a prorata basis, based on the unit count of each respective r
ij
A..,..
r.,::r�.::: � village. •y
SK j.
O ���Vi ��� DISTRICT SAN R� N _
/ =General Offices: 7051 ;D.ubl.imZou1evard - Dublin, CaJE,fornia 94568•!,_,x.415). 828-0!5,15
April 10, 1985
0
Mr . Kevin J . -Gailey , Senior Planner
City of Dublin .
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568 "
RE : File No . PA85-021 - Furnishing Water, Sewer and Fire
Protection Services to Parcel Map 4575
Rafanelli & Nahas/Ponderosa Homes
Dear Mr. Gailey :
You are hereby advised that the parcel referred to above lies
' within the boundaries of Dublin San Ramon Services District , Ci,"y
of Dublin portion, and is entitled to water, sewer and fire pro-
tection services in accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations set forth in the District Code ..
Water Service
The District is capable of providing an adequate and continuing
supply of water for domestic , commercial , industrial , ins-ti-tu••-
tional and fire protection uses to said parcel map 4575.
Water facilities must be connected to the District system and
must be installed at the expense of the developer in accordancti
with District specifications . All material and workmanship o..
water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of
the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the
District and will be subject to field inspection by the District .
Fire Protection
The District is capable of providing adequate fire protect_J.cn to
all structures in said development at this time .
All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connec -
tions , and appurtenances thereto necessary to provide water
supply for fire protection must be installed by the developer -nd
conform to all requirements of the applicable provisions of the
Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District ,
the Insurance Services Office , and the applicable provisions of,
A POLITICAL nc TI,E STATE OF CAUFOANIA - PROVIDES MONICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF AMAOOR-LIVERMORE AND SAN RAMON VA,LEYS
ALAMEDA A.NO CONTPA COSTA COW'T:E S �S/
7H
ENT
• .. _. .. ...._ - .. ., .... _.: ; . war _. .......
.mil''.... _. .
Kevin Gailey , Senior Planner
City of Dublin
-Page 2
the City of Dublin Ordinance Code. All such work will be subject
to the joint field inspection of the City of Dublin Public Works
Department and Dublin San Ramon Services District .
Sanitary Sewer Service
The District will make sewerage service available in accordance
with the provisions of the Sewerage Ordinance No . 157 adopted
August 5 , 1980.
Sanitary sewers necessary to provide service must be installed at
the expense of the developer in accordance with District specifi-
cations . All material and workmanship for sanitary sewers and
appurtenances thereto must conform with all the requirements of
the officially adopted Sewerage Code of the District and will be
subject . to field inspection by the District .
'dater and sanitary sewer service should be made available to each
lot in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for disturbing
the street pavement , curb and cutter, and sidewalks when service
connections are made .
Any necessary relocation of existing public utilities shall be
accomplished at no expense to Dublin San Ramon Services District .
Very truly yours,
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT.
EK:ns Emil Kattan
Assistant Civil Engineer
cc : Rafanelli & Nahas
-
APR 1985
I 1 r
SUPERINTENDENT ✓
RICHARD F.COCHRAN
``
\ BUSINESS MANAGER l
'• STANLEY L MALESKI
DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM
URRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT VINCEANACLERIO
7A.1 6 BRIGHTON DRIVE • DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA 94563 DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
ION
,. HEINZ GEVJING
OMINISTRATION OFFICES (A1'5) 828.2551
DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVIC25
April 16, 1985 JACK S.TAYLOR
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
. P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Larry:
Mr. Ronald C. Nahas has informed me of plans for
developing four acres south of Amador Valley Boulevard
and approximately 140 acres on the north side of
Amador Valley Boulevard. They are projecting a
development of:
258 units - single family houses
60 units - multifamily 3-bedroom units
480 units - multifamily 2-bedroom units
320 units - multifamily 1-bedroom units
When this development is completed, we will have _
space at Frederiksen Elementary School and Wells In-
termediate School . As you know, we are a declining
enrollment district and would certainly welcome any
additional students that would come to our district
as a result of this development.
Sincerely,
. � 1
Hei V Jwi na 1
Assistant Superintendent
HG/mp
EQUAL.OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
�%� S-D/7�/
iC""Ac' mslon
JUN 4198 -
5
June 3, 1985
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Gentlemen:
This letter is to advise you that we will be serving Rafonelli
and Nahas' new Alamo Creek development to be located along
Dougherty Road in Dublin.
Very truly yours,
Myrt nes
General ager
R E C F- 1 I L
JuNII -
DUBLIN PLANNING
6(,14) Sit•rro Lahr' Telt•Irhom- \ 1)1%1riml .1f
Dublin 415 828P> 510 `fJ V inr ,ni Irrl rrr:rli„n:rl Ir,.
r,. F ”. i n ^^,A-�.J•L' Y t t '`• ! 1 T`j /'f` ' y. '; `^^:f•-;=ti:.:'P�`� �,. 'F
•ye`.-r �tztrz s.•-:m•-•r a";°9x"..'ray'.'^ � e"'�'—"'C. rtrcy�� '�°S-�a^n�� e:}� ?a+^^"f.'�—'c.{,.a-5'w«� •+'3'T3't5F'�s+�^t i ^r, - -
PLEASANTON JOINT .SCHOOL, DISTRICT
AMADOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
DR. BILL J.JAMES E p NEIL SWEENEY
Superintendent of Schools 1 Deputy Superintendent
R C' 85 BUSTER McCURTAIN
_ ���, Assistant Superintendent-
J�1V Business Services
—A,jAS11AG RALPH LAIRD
DV$L� Assistant Superintendent-Personnel
June 5, 1985
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
'P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
I am writing at the request of Mr. Ron Nahas. Based upon information
he has provided, I have determined that the location of Alamo Creek
Villages subdivision falls within the boundaries of the Amador High
School District.
Our district will provide high school facilities for students from
this development.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 462-4225.
Sincerely,
Iyf,
Ray yenning
Assistant Director of Special Services
RP/br
P.O. BOY 130 123 MAIN STREET 4 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566 A TELEPHONE: (415) 462-5500
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
/7'
�
IRACIFKC BELL
6377 Clark Avenue
Bomn 200
Dublin, CA 94568
June 6 , 1985
City of Dublin -
Development Services
P, O. Box 2340
Dublin , CA 94568 '
Gentlemen: '
Re: Alamo Creek Obdivision `
Dublin , California
This is to inform you that under its present plans Pacific Bell
expects to be in a position to provide telephone service to the
applicants in the above subdivision upon request in accordance with
requirementi of and at rates and charges specified in its tariffs
on file with the California Public Utilities Commission.
This tract will be served with underground distribution
facilities. In accordance with the above-mentioned tariffs , the
applicant or customer on his property will be responsible for:
1 ) furnishing ; installing , and maintaining conduit if
Pacific Bell requires it for the service connection
wire or cable; or
2) providing or paying the cost of the underground
supporting structure (usually a trench) if Pacific
Bell determines buried wire or cable is to be used
for the service connection.
Very truly yours ,
71L. F.L/Woods
Manager - Engineering
; kar
R E C E I
-
\U0 1
13�"., �
\
' DUBLIN
'
`
'
'
`
-
'
_
--
GAS AND ELECTRIC C014—
N Y._. . .�
Z E -+-- 998 MURRI ETA BOULEVARD LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
L. R. (LOU) HOLVECK
MANAGER LIVERMORE
June 11 , 1985 R r.
✓Ug�lia ��;�.1*a�r1:y .
City of Dublin
Planning Department
P. 0. BOX 2340
Dublin , CA 94568
Attn : Mr. Larry Tong
Gentlemen :
Re: Tract 5511 , The Villages
at Alamo Creek
A tentative map for this project was received and reviewed by this of-,"'ice.
We anticipate serving the various phases from the overhead electric line
in Dougherty- Road. The overhead line will require relocation or under-
grounding depending on the City' s requirements. Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dougherty Road is the proposed route for future electrical circuits
and the developer will be responsible for (2) 6" conduits.
The gas main is proposed to be extended from Aimador Valley Boulevard
and Stagecoach Drive or from Dougherty Road and 8th Street, depending
on right-of-way acquisition.
Facilities will be in a joint trench wherever possible .
Sincerely,
Roger L._,,Mt ers
`lea Building Represerrtati ve
\RLM:kf
•
%TE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRAN cTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Govemor
PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
).BOX 7310
N FRANCISCO 94120
l5} 557-1840
Mr. Kevin Gaile7, Senior Planner R E C
City of Dublin
Planning Department ����
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, C k 94568 DUBLIN PLA►�NIN�
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on The Villa>,es
at Alamo Creek development File -,� PA 89-041
Our response is indicated by those comments which are checked .
F/ The proposal .is not in conflict with any existing or planned State
highway facilities.
The material received is being given further review. You may e.-pec_
our detailed comments by
The plans do not contain enough detail to make a positive
determination of the effect on State facilities. Please send us . the
detailed plans before they are approved by your agency. We
particularly wish to review the grading and drainage .plans.
! IThe State currently has no funds programmed for any improvements o.-L!
this portion of the highway within the next five year period.
M The proposed development will generate traffic which , when added to
that of the other traffic generators in the area, .may tend to congest:
the highway. A traffic analysis should be prepared indicating th'a
effects that the traffic generated by the proposed development will
have on adjacent State highways or interchanges . This analysis should
be submitted to the undersigned for review.
A study should be made of the possible effect of freeway traffic
on future residents or occupants of the proposed development. Any
not-se attenuation measures or devices deemed necessary should he
provided as part of the development .
4PD 803f (Rev. 11/84)
Z. -
---,r-- ..n-^;'� ;•-n.^-.cT` e ,� •.- z' r^'x'?'s. ,rr^•r-- .;.-+, :c T.-`v- .s..- r, �•r^-JC^r-.-. ri a°s -I.=". 'n�•.- !t'�","```S.._ __
! I
This application appears to involve a change in ownership of the
subject property. If ..that is thz_„case , any existing encroachment -
permits are now void and a new encroachment permit is required .
No work may be done within the State highway right-of-way unless
authorized by a State highway encroachment permit. Application for
such a permit should be made to :
Permit Engineer
150 Oak St.
_ San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone ( 415) 557-1984
The permit application shall be accompanied by three sets of plans .
In addition, most permit applications also require that an adequat:,
environmental document, prepared and processed in accordance with
current State requirements (State Administrative Code Title 14 ,
Division 6 , Chapter 3 ) , be attached. Application must be accompanied
by a fee , which will vary depending on the nature of the encroachment..
Pleas` be advised that your Letter of Referral does not substitute
for the Notice of Preparation for . projects requiring an EIR/EIS
under CEQA/NEPA regulations . Also, this informal Caltrans review
letter does not constitute consultation with the Responsible
Agency required by CEQA if either an EIR/EIS or a Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental document . Formal
Responsible Agency contact in the EIR/EIS process is accomplished
through the State Clearing House. Consultation. contacts with
Caltrans are made through the District 4 CEQA Coordinator ,
Kr . J. M. Ellis . His address is P. O. Box 7310 , San Francisco ,
CA 94120 . Telephone 557-8532 .
Other comments : _ The Traffic Report should address effects on
RoueL �.-580; the �'orvard-Douhert7 Rd/I-580 interchanze . Route
T-SRFQ, and the Alcosta Blvd/I-580 interchange. The cumulative
traffic from this development and other developments in Dubin
and Pleasanton needs to be addressed in this stud7,'
Steve J.C. Lee
Senior Engineer
Caltrans
Project Development C
4PD 803b (Rev. 11/84)
I. .
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
June 25, 1985
ALAwtEDA COUNTY
Edward R.Campbell
Shirley J.Campbell
Fred F Cooper
Frank H.Ogawa City of Dublin
R
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Development Services Department
Thomas J.Corcoran P.O.Bax 2340
(Vice Chairperson) AJ 0
Sunne Wright McPeak. Dublin, CA 94568
MARIN COUNTY
Al Aramburu Attn: Kevin Ga i l ey
NAPA COUNTY Senior Planner
Harold I.N,oskowite
SAN FRANCISCO CCUNTY Dear Mr . Gailey:
Harry G.Britt
Carol Ruttry)Silver
(Secretary) We have received the application for approval of a Planned
sAr,MArEOCOUNrY Development Rezoning and Tentative Tract Map for The Villages at
Uus J.Nicclopuics Alamo Creek. The project would include 1165 residential units
K.JacquelineSce:er and one-third acre of commercial development on a 135-acre site
SANTA CLARA000NrY located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley
RooDiridon boulevard. Though we do not have any co=,ents on the
(Chairperson)
RilphPDoetsch.sr. completeness of this application, we believe that the project is
Roberta H.Fiughan subject to CEQA review procedures .
Susanne Wilson
sOLANOCOUNTY We recommend that the City prepare an Initial Study for
Osby sby Da
sON Ll v,s;s the project according to the requirements of (=QA or proceed
Helen B.Rudee directly with the preparation of a Draft EIR. We expect a
project of this size located in the Tri-Valley Area to have a
significant air quality impact individually and/or cumulati,lely
with other development .
Please send a copy of any CEQA document prepared for this
project and direct any questions to Jean Roggenkamp, the Tlanner
in our office .
Sincerely,
v
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control O.:
IS A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 194604-2688
Telephone (415)464-6000 R E C F I V E D
June 27, 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
_Mr. Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
WILFRED T. USSERY City oaf Dublin
PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 2340
JOHN GLENN Dublin, CA 94508
VICE-PRESIDENT
KEITH BERNARD
GENERAL MANAGER Subject: PA 85-041.1 Planned Development Rezoning-The Villa-
ges at Alamo Creek
DIRECTORS PA 85-041.2 Tentative Map-The V i l l ages at Alamo
Creek
BARCLA.Y SIMPSON
1ST DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Gailey:
NELLO BIANCO
2ND DISTRICT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed
ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS project. As it is our understanding that the city will be
3RD DISTRICT preparing an environmental assessment for the project, BART
MARGARET K.PRYOR staff would like to Offer the following comments.
4TH DISTRICT
ROBERT S.ALLEN The BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Study Update
5TH DISTRICT
Analysis was completed in December of 1983. Subsequent to the
JOHN GLENN completion of the Update Analysis, the BART Board of Directors
6TH DISTRICT
adopted a portion of the LPX alignment which extends along SR
WILFRED T.USSERY 238 and the I-580 right-of-way from the existing Bayfair' Sta-
77H DISTRICT
tion to the proposed Dublin Station at the I-580/I-580 inter-
EUGENE GARFINKLE change. This station site is included in the City of Dublin
H DISTRICT g
General Plan. BART staff will proceed in the near future with
JOHN H. IST oO
9TH DISTRICT a supplemental analysis which will investigate alignments east
of the Dublin Station to downtown Livermore as alternatives to
routes identified in the LPX Update Analysis. The two primary
route alignments identified in the Update Analysis are the
I-580 alignment and the Railroad Corridor Route. The purpose
of a supplemental study is to develop recommendations which
would assist the BART Board in completing the adoption of a
preferred alignment.
The LPX Update Analysis identifies two site alternatives -For
the Pleasanton Station, reflecting the two BART alignments .
Consequently, it is anticipated that the supplemental analysis
will result in the recommendation and Board adoption of one of
the station alternatives. The I-580 alignment station alter-
native is bisected by 1-580, with nine acres of parking to the
south of the freeway and fifteen acres of parking to the north
of the freeway within the City of Dublin' s proposed annexation
area. The City of Dublin General Plan contains a general
designation of this station alternative. _
q.
...,:.;. _. r•; .. .-:'; .:', a :4 t. 1."r . Y..
Page Two
Letter to K. Gailey
Dated 6/27/85
As both the proposed Dublin Station and the Pleasanton Station alternative would
serve the City of Dublin's proposed project, BART requests that they be consid-
ered in the environmental assessment for the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mari-
anne Payne at 464-6173 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, -
Barbara A. Neus adter,
Manager of Planning
cc: Dick Wenzel , Supervisor of Planning
Marianne Payne, Livermore-Pleasanton
Extension Planner
R: LL .�..rep• �u' l
i
^^ •"'""<f't 1' ( -- ,..-v-ecr u,r - ++r :,_y7'n°x�'" "'..-.'3'iT'E
; .�.,...,..'+.err.
of San Rama. .
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583 9
(475) 83 8-2424
JUL
C1_1 ( Ci= null
July 3 , 1985 UID!.'d; !r•!: ^T G�r Q�'t'.
Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin., '
Development ` Services
P . O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA,'• 94568
Re: PA :85-041. 1 &":: 2 .- .Rafanelli & Nahas PD
Dear Mr: Gailey:
The City of San Ramon .Planning Department received your request
for comment on the above application on . June _21,..,,19 85 , 4 days
prior to deadline for ,comment . .We,. '.therefore, respectfully.;
request that you extend the- deadline for comment an additional
14 days, to expire July 8, 1985 . ....-,,---.
In the:`:interim, we notice no .indication of the CEQA status for
the project . Will. „an .EIR ,be. required? If so, - and we support
that conclusion , please ensure the ..initial study includes
reference to potential traffic impacts on Alcosta Boulevard,
growth inducement (type - and quantity) -on adjacent lands -:to the
north, and .cumulative impacts on community character/visual
impacts for lands to the north.
Sincerely,
: - ,.Brian Foucht
Associate Planner
BF/sa
_. . •.l,-..f:,,�:Wv. - f.. _ _ t.►i .. _r•.9/ ^iiwd'Ny.+. . J y.SY r Ksu in±.r: � _ q
r
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone:
9399 Fircrest Lane Dublin, California 94568 829-2333
San Ramon, California
July 5, 1985
r ,
i
Mr. Kevin Gai ley
.Dublin Planning Department
P. 0. Box 2340
Dub I i n, CA 94568 _:! �`= li l_. -: �! D�?i.
��.
RE: PA 85-041 . 1 and PA85-041 .2
Dear Mr. Gailey:
Following are the requirements of the Department with reference
to the above development:
1 . If a traffic signal is installed in the area, it will be equipped
with an Opticon.
2. Plans shall be submitted detailing the street and building locations
so a determination of access and turnaround areas can be made.
3. On-site hydrants will be required and will be located by this De-
partment at a later date.
4. On-site hydrants must be fully charged before construction with ccm-
bustibles begins.
5. Street names and building locations shall be indicated on a directory.
6. Building numbers will be visible from the street.
7. Extinguishers shall be located on all apartment buildings.
8. An all weather roadway will be provided for fire apparatus before
construction of walls begins.
Should you have any questions, please contact this Department.
Very truly yours,
G9
CecilylAxtell
Fire Inspector
CA:cb
f
-DUBLIN SAN RA ON SERVICES DISTRICT
General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard o Dublin, California 94568 (415) 828-0515
August 14, 1985
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey,
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Yx. Gailey:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation during the last
n-nnth regarding the various application referrals within the last two toners.
1. File No. PA85-041.1 Planned Develop_ nt Rezoning - The Villages at
Alm Creek, dated June 7, 1985.
We are in contact with the engineers, Tetrad Engineering,
Inc. , and the developers, Rafanelli & Nahas regarding the major
sewer truik lines and water system within the develop=t. The
District has major concerns for the various utility routing, and
is reviewing them with the District's consultants. We will
advise the City -when more concrete infozmaticn is available.
2. File No. PA85-035 Hatfield-Investor, Inca- Prezoning' and
Annexation Applications dated June 20, 1985.
We are in contact with the engineers, Wilsey & Han of Dublin
regarding the overall facilities, including suer, water and fire.
This develop=t is tied in with the Icons truction of a now reser-
voir within our third zone system. We will advise the City of
our concerns -�anen we review the various improvements that the
Engineers will provide us in the near future.
3. File No. PA85-045 Dabney Site Development Revi_a for a Proposed
Two-Story Office building dated June 11, 1985.
The District' requires the usual water and sewer service lay.-
out for this property prior to final approval of the project by
the City.
4. File No. PA85-055 Hoffman., Site Develop=t Review for al Off-i r,
Cosnlex dated July 5, 1985.
The District requires the usual water and se,,er service lay-
out for this property, prior to final approval of the project by
the City.
5. File No. PA85-057 Ibrrison. Homes- The Center -
Site Development ReviE:a for a proposed 174 lot Multiple Family
NOV 16 1933
A POLITICAL SUeOIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF Ai.MAOOR-LIVEP.MORE AND pS•�AN RR�AMpON VALLEYS
P1 LJ!.BLI
ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES.
r.
Mr. Kevin J. Gailey
August 14, 1985
Page 2
Residential Project dated July 8, 1985.
This project is a continuation of a previous development
approved by the District. It appears that the utilities layout
is acceptable to the District.
6. File No. PA85-062 Enea Bros. - Site Develor=t Review for
Theate---Addition and New Retail C=, lex, dated July 22, 1985.
We are in contact with the architect, Ronald Findl eton,
and have no major concerns for this project. The District re-
quires the usual water and s uer layout pii or to fi na1 approve_
by the City.
7. File No. PA85-067 13 Enterprises - Consarcial Project
Construction Office, 2bbile Unit, dated July 26, 1985.
The Dist ct has no objection for the use of a tempor=y
construction office at this site.
8. File No. PA85-049 Agri c .'r! City Truck Stop, Conditional Use ? llii
dated July 24, 1985.
The District has no' objection for the continued operation o-
a true stop and weigh station at 6117 Doug;iert-
.7 Road.
9. File No. 85-063 Arbor Creek Mfr. Project, dated July 22, 198555 .
The District has no objection for the use of a teimorary
construction off-ice at this site.
Yours very truly,
Frail Kattai
Assistant Civi 1 E:Y-ineer
E:K/ch
cc: Doug McMillan, Office Fn,,=eer
Fire Depar :=-Lt
F� s. - 1
N 0 V 163 ?093
I?US SP 1
j
` 7
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4 .
HEADQUARTERS STATION 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone:
9399 Fircrest Lane Dublin, California 94568 829-2333
San Ramon, California
September 4, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner
City of Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: PA 85-041 . 1 and 85-041 .2
Dear Mr. Gailey:
In regard to our letter of July 5, 1985, on The
Villages at Alamo Creek, it has come to our attention
that only one access to Village 6 is being planned.
This single access does not meet with our approval .
We will require that additional access be provided to
Village 6. If you have any questions, please contact
this Department.
Very truly yours,
Cecily
lit
ell
Fire Inspector
CA:cb
E C 2- 1 V E D
SLP - 5 1985
DUBLIN PLANNING
- -
\ I ' SUPERINTENDENT
RICHARD F.COCHRAN
1 1
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT -
\`• / HEINZ GE1fViNG
.. // BUSINESS MANAGER
STANLEY L MALESKI
URRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
• DUBLIN.CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVICES
7418 BRIGHTON DRIVE �� JACK B.TAYLOR
ADMINISTRATION OFfICLS(415) 828.2551
DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM
November 15, 1985 VINCEANACLERIO
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 101
Dublin CA 94568
Dear Mr. Gailey: '
This is to let you know of the interest of the Murray School District
to reserve adequate space for an additional elementary .school in the
area of Stage Coach Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and
the Alameda/Contra Costa County Line.
In reviewing the data pertaining to new housing units to be developed in
this area as well as reviewing data about housing development in other
parts of Dublin, we find that there will be a great increase in the
number of housing units in our school district. Currently, Dublin has
a population of 15,608 and .4,814 housing units. The projection made
available to us by your department indicates that in 1990 Dublin will
have a population of 23,758, and 8,342 housing units. Our current
projections indicate that we generally get 30 students for every new
100 homes. This projection is a slight increase over the .2 child per
home which we have been seeing in the last few years.
In addition to this increase, which is a result of additional housing
and a larger number of students per household, the Murray School District
also expects to be responsible for educating the children who reside in
the Arroyo Vista attendance area by September, 1985. These children
currently are part of the Pleasanton Elementary School District, but
as a result of legal boundary changes, these students will be attending
the Murray School District.
If there is any additional information that we can give you pertaining
to our need for future planning by the City of Dublin to enable us to
reserve space for an elementary school , please let me know at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
R E C ;F J I/ E
Heinz ewi ng i' V 2
Assistant Superintendent
HG/mp
EQUAL'OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYXR
t _ t
;{tom. Vh..tc.Y J, ,J • ..+... b... ,�•'s . t 3:.'^ �S.,v.•t W JJ.. ..\... i.:aa..�FJ.J )..
,. -
1
J��"'�'•jc(aa+ t�}'"�s ! Ci4 Q t . � i .:• t. x'�J�'j kPa1) f7 � ,,Jqw �,.t ry �, .fc_. i�,s,}'m„s.p�r 1 9 d7;{t+S.•4r1-`+�J .�+"'J''r >�.-[i �" 7.in
y'n_4'�+�.�!•rJ ^"1 .: - __`-�i'`. r`r4..Y •-a--• .� '-�'W%�"'.`•�"�� fj��.m.;Yi`'t�r�,...i�,h'�r-.'f�:r-c,r. �-',".,.�•-i,�.t�_"�� :tart._�dt'a�.'�4.-,.,:+�,°tP'�"sfT��,.-..�.rt!..,�A...--... y�
.:..- r�.:)':�Y•_. .... . ..
vABAG .
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
MetroCenter
Eighth&Oak Streets
Oakland
(415)464-7900
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland,CA 94604
September 23, 1985
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin , California 94508
Re : Notice of Preparation , The Villages at Alamo Creek
Dear Mr. Tong :
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. The following staff"
comments reflect general concerns expressed by many locally elected Bay Area
officials as embodied in ABAG's Regional Plan 1930. ABAG's Executive Board
has not taken a position on this document , nor on the proposed project.
The DEIR should contain information about the projected income levels of new
Dublin workers. These data should be used to determine whether new housing in
Dublin, both at Village Oaks and in the city in general , will be affordable to
people who will work in Dublin. This should be discussed in. the DEIR because
if people who work in Dublin cannot afford to live there, traffic congestion
and air pollution will increase.
ABAG has developed some information about income levels associated with
projected new jobs in the I 680/I 580 Corridor. If this data could be of Lisa
to you in preparing the Villages EIR , please do not hesitate to call .
Any questions regarding these comments should be refered to Patricia Perry of
our staff. her direct-dial number is 415-454-7937.
Sincerely,
Yvonne San Jule
Planning Coordinator
D�'BLIr) �'Ar�tTti�i
Representing City and County Governments or the San Francisco Bay Area
.._;..--.•-+'r,y: sr[:.n:�r 'v,.r:-�,. _,u.t .rc:.�. [ .�,: �.•,._.. .., :.,.... tiwf w--irn ��i r :,-e,�+. �;,-?!.+..;.v.._.:r� `� ... .
�!�✓�fi�crz Me
A I I TA M 'N--.
CH
—'....,.�..:�"4r K n:.,::-:.:.:;... _ ,-.rnh Fry;ra. .�.`.%F�,"''xa?sYax+.,tr.fr•} •. .c Y-h:w•3` ,tr p r W
..•.r 7.fi". --e j 1,ntcV..v =y �:
• r
h -
R E 5 p�Rp
aP Fs
ALAMEDA`rOUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND <)
DISTRICT �>
a a •
1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD i LIVERMORE,.CALIFORNIA 94550. 1 (415) 443-9300
1
'V4GEM�Y_� September 25, 1985
Line F
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin -
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Notice of Preparation of EIR for Villages at Alamo Creek
Rafanelli & Nahas (City File No. PA 85-041.1 and 2)
Dear Mr. Tong:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments:
Initial Study
Section 1.4 Existing side slopes greater than 2:1, unstable areas
and slopes on bends need slope protection.
Section 1.4 There will need to be four box culverts not three as
described in the initial study.
Section 3.A A letter on Woodward-Clyde's investigation of an
inactive fault trace uncovered at the Dougherty
Reservoir site during construction has been enclosed
for your information.
Mitigation.lHeasures
Section 1.0 Hydraulic calculations have been submitted to Zone 7
and reviewed. We have found no major problems with t_ha
calculations. Final approval of the calculations wi7.l
be reserved until after the final channel improvement
drawings have been submitted.
Section A.3 Riparian re-vegetation should conform with the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Revegetation Manual.
Section A.4 Hydraulic capacity of the channel should reflect
increased friction from vegetation.
Section D - Grading should be such that no surface runoff be
allowed to flow over channel banks. All drainage
should be directed to a storm drainage system that
discharges to the channel through an outfall structure.
RECEI `/ ED
P 2 1985
N
4.
"t .'!.:r-(::. i :.:.. •r:t5 :.V•L..J:' 11 ra.0 'l't P':. ,f+:: .r .-fI: i .. .. ..u — . -,'
. v .
44
Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director -
September 25, 1985
Page 2
The double 10' x 10' box culvert should be included in the design of this
project. Even if the culverts are not constructed as a part of the channel
improvements, the location and alignment need to be set to determine if the
proposed channel right-of-way can accommodate them. It may also be necessary
to dedicate right-of-way on the property south of Amador Valley Boulevard in
order to have an -access road on the east side of the channel.
Construction of the Alamo Creek channel improvements should comply with Zone 7
of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards.
Please give us a call if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Mun J. Mar
General Manager
By
Vincent Wong
Supervising Water Resources Engineer
VW:DG:bkm
Enc.
s
rr. x n s,�^ aa rsa '7it"`' r+� i'�,:,m�^'J�^'LecM.-•tK�K-v�*�.,t;c.�.'^„'r��c-xs rF'q.' "nag' � Via•t.#tom,. r..tS��j'ml✓''v�,-e'R "j"`.. r.
.. ... ...- .. _ !��-t. .F°: J7Y'_F�.,�k.4.�C_.,•"�'�r,�,�t. .-�.�.a:.4t' Jti-�.'-YZr n.....Fi t�."t�_ �N. �.f ,z_HL'?�'.a . ..T�.,....y _ l ...
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-8USINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goremor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOX 7310
SAN FRANCISCO 94120
(415) 557-1840
October 2 , 1985
ALA580-PM19 . 86
SCH 785091009
AL580097
Kevin Gailey
Dublin Planning_ Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re : Notice of Preparation for the Villages at Alamo Creek
Dear Mr . Gailey:
Thank you for including Caltrans in the environmental review
process for the above-referenced project. The environmental
document should address traffic impacts in the following terms:
a. Trip generation, distribution and assignment;
b . ADT (average daily traffic) , and AM and PM peak hour
volumes for State Rte 580 and for all significantly
streets and highways ;
C . Volumes for all through and turning movements in the
affected intersections/interchanges should be shown
and intersection capacity utilization calculations
should be done;
d. Data should relate to existing and future conditions , the
latter with project traffic and with cumulative traffic
generated by approved projects within the study area;
e . Proposed mitigation, including modal alternates and
highway improvements and their proposed financing
mechanisms should be discussed .
We look forward to reviewing the draft EIR. We expect to receive
a copy from the State Clearinghouse . However , to expedite the
review process , you may send an advance copy to the undersigned,
contact person for this agency, at the following address :
WALLACE J
U . ROTHBART
District CEQA Coordinator
Caltrans District 4
D P .O. Box 7310
R E C San FRancisco, CA 94120
00T
DUBLIN P1AN1,IING
4.
� �rz
AL580097
Page 2
October 2 , 1985 .
,Should you have any questions regarding these comments , please
contact Peter Estacio of my staff at (415) 557-2483 .
Sincerely yours ,
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
By
WALLACE J. 7CB. AR T
District Coordinator
R C IYED
0::T 85
DUBLIN PLANNING
,S.}sc{r°'n_.;vn.:!h..+ •r, t. s 4�-e fP1YP1 �,G f.Wiw� n(t�t,Y 1fC[a}+c?IH'?k'•'.+)• Q%tr-�`'`' Y{: '<v�" rs Tr^^'.,�d.w.ii �tao�an.'^"t'?'r�.+a•nr �o nu<-r,cv,=Y.^.'"Y.. a - .,
� e
.rra^ . s- t^."'R°"x' '-•r-`: ^w"f"'.'.`'=,ti " ;! 4y„d„T.CCh � .'y�"` "'`T -"rta ^r 7"okzu*' S"^p.^n's••u' „'�'ZL n+., -*-r^ ' 'T94' .". '- 4s-pm^,-' z I
r { } ryv t, y, Cp{r �,�,1Y.'.Y,t 'k y��' Afi� 'i✓"j..ais. i'r. .+. � 1� 4 _ .. .
-
yp
K.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FRED C. ROBERTS
John R.Anderson MANAGER
President Alameda County CONNECTICUT STREET
AY
William M.Spinola HAYWAR CALIFORNIA 94545
Vice-President
(44 15)7113-7744
Haiveetary.Scudder
Secrretary
Mosquito Abatement District- '
James N.Doggett
Sidney F.Dommes,Jr.
Stuart Flashman Apt
,
Manuel Garcia _ - .I< . .0 :E '
Paul T.Garcia D
Michael Greene
Mark J.Hanna C C T
John D.Hughes ( J�
Frank M.Stead
Edwin J.Suchman T r'�
John P.VIaollni iJ iJ LIN PLANNING
l�l
W,Vrtl G
NIN
October 4 , 1985- 7q\7
Mr. Laurence L. Tong , Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mr. Tong :
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report; Villages at
Alamo Creek; City files PA 85-041 .1 and . 2 .
The above proposed development, because of the proximity of Alamo
Creek, has the potential to create mosquito problems for future
residents . Some of the problems have been adequately addressed,
others have not.
A mosquito source could be created by one of the two oxbows that is
proposed to be cut off from the main channel . The northern channel
is proposed to remain unfilled. If that were to occur , it can be
anticipated that rainfall may accumulate in the depression and
create a source for mosquitoes . Perhaps plans can be made to
establish drainage for the oxbow to the creek. If that is not pos-
sible, it might be appropriate for the designers of the project to
contact our agency to enable us to recommend mosquito prevention
measures .
Another. area for concern is the construction of temporary siltation
basins . We are not concerned that they will be a significant pro-
blem during the construction phase. Once the disturbed surfaces
have. stabilized, however , the basins should be filled, drained, or
modified in some manner to prevent mosquito production.
A number of measures have been planned that , when incorporated twill .
do much to reduce potential mosquito problems :
1. Grading is to be conducted in a manner ' to prevent stand-7
ing water-
2 . Right-of-way on each side of the channel will allow
access for maintenance equipment.
3 . Soil stabilization measures are incorporated throughout
the plan.
Community health,comfort and prosperity are promoted by effective,continuous mosquito abatement measures.
:\.
r x r� t r— Ae*.•"'xY� e� i+Cfv-. � NW+Ca7Fr��j}wc ,.T�."'9,•crt r-r w',r'' Kinc"sa"�S'.°x ry.•-f .r*•.a+s,
a � - -s �t�, .,r �'f r'rJ � �h�rh t"jre�.1�:.•. w�a �'lt F i j ,. ..' � -. t � i .
K���.p'"'".X"'y�.:�^..?,;p�yv�-r..w�' i..�.a`}�e"ec!r�''�t�+`,k'.r'ryr,"'F^���Fa"r2-Yi`�i•�°�„'.' C"` ,7.h."v`'at,:.�_-u•i.,Y.y w�.t!.P-�'.��'.'�^"":x'';.rr,�"� ac.'.>ar'y.. ._., r _ _
4. The southern oxbow, if cut off , will be completely
filled.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plan. The documents
were unusually concise and readable.
Sincerely,
Fred C. Roberts
MANAGER
FCR:ep
lap',)
DUBLIN pjANNI C;
r•..,-;...y•. y."I:r.c "vr,• ..•::: t `1.a4h'': Y'r7•M"rt i''SP .✓cs .a ar•iu `ie--.•Y+�s T.'_77i°
•
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT -
October 7, 1985
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Edward R.Campbell
Shirley J.Campbell City of Dublin
Fred HCooper
Planning Department
Frank rank H.Ogawa
(Vice Chairperson) P .O. Box 2340
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Dublin, CA 94568
Sunne Wright McPeak
MARIN COUNTY Attn- Laurence Tong
AtArambun, Planning Director
(Secretary)
NAPA COUNTY Dear Mr. Tong :
Harold I.Moskowite
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY We have received the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR
Harry G.Britt
Carol Ruth Silver for the Villages at Alamo Creek. The proposed project would
(Chairperson) consist of 1,165 dwelling units.. and a convenience food store on a
SAN MATEO COUNT Y 100-acre site located west of Dougherty Road between Amador
Gus J.Nicolopulos Valley Boulevard and the Alameda County line.
K.Jacqueline Speier
SANTA CLARA COUNTY We recommend that the DEIR contain a candid qualitative and
Rod Oiridon
Ralph PDoetsch.Sr. quantitative description of the project 's air quality impacts .
Roberta H.Huchan All pollutants which may be emitted from the project itself or
Susanne Wilson
SOLANO COUNTY
from project-generated vehicular traffic should be analyzed .
Osby Davis
SONOMACOUNTY The vehicle-generated pollutants of concern are carbon
Helen B.Rudee monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and particulates. Calcu-
lations of particulates should include those resuspended from
roads by vehicles and , separately, particulates caused by
construction activities.
We suggest . the following process for analyzing the air
quality .impacts of the project :
1 . Describe the existing land uses of the project site and
its vicinity in regard to air quality concerns . In
particular, note the location and emissions of direct
sources of air pollutants and airborne hazardous
materials and the location of sensitive receptors,
including residential areas, schools, hospitals, nursing
homes, playgrounds, parks, and recreation facilities .
2. Calculate worst-case air pollutant emissions from the
project and due to project-generated traffic .
3. Consider mitigation measures to reduce the air quality
impacts of the project. Useful references are "Local
Government Guide to Project Mitigation and Other
Improvement Measures for Air Quality, " BAAQMD, 1983
Draft ; "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments ,
R E C E I V E D Section V, " California Air Resources Board, 1983; and
OCT 111985'
DUBLIN PLANNING -
939 ELLIS STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 @ (415) 771-6000
r
t'S•ti. r a. ter^. v!+nr' �.r. r v-�..r,,. ^. +:. �,`n y.,..l•r
� �m
City of Dublin
October. .7, 1985 -
Page 2
"The Traffic Mitigation Reference Guide, " Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, 1984. Commitments to imple-
menting proposed mitigation measures should be iden-
tified. Mitigation measures to reduce traffic and air
pollutant emissions should be incorporated into the
project to reduce any negative impact it may have on the
environment and to help the Bay Area attain and maintain
_the State and federal ambient air quality standards.
Where mitigation measures may significantly reduce local
concentrations of carbon monoxide, we recommend that
reductions be quantified .
4. Estimate maximum ambient carbon monoxide concentrations
at points or areas of maximum air quality impact and at
sensitive receptors . The estimated concentrations should
be calculated for 1-hour and 8-hour averaging times. For
projects attracting over 3000 vehicles per day, we
recommend the model CALINE3 to estimate motor vehicle
carbon monoxide impacts. For smaller projects, some
simplified modeling techniques are contained in the
publication Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Analysis
of Projects , " available from the BAAQMD. Be sure to add
the appropriate background concentration to the estimated
locally generated concentration and to explain the source
or the rationale for the background level selected.
5 . Compare the total projected carbon monoxide concentr a
tions with State and federal air quality standards.
When other development is approved or proposed in the
vicinity of the project, we recommend that the air quality
analysis also evaluate cumulative development impacts on air
quality.
Current data from District air monitoring stations are
enclosed. If we can be of assistance, please contact Jean
Roggenkamp, the Planner in our office.
Sincerely,
R E C E 1Y E D
Milton Feldstein
;OCT. 11101)85 Air Pollution Control Officer
DUBLIN PLANNING MF:ce
Enclosure
- 7 . _. :A. >r'1:rN 1i 1, .ik.{. RT* t `�•^„�11 ,L�.� 'l,"'CY• Y '3 '.Y. ;.'+.!•+ia' a 7 __
- I..tc'^.•:c--:: :- n a-r�Yr * _ -"'-.,- amaw�:e e..-c- .. -..
----'-- -----... . . .. . ...-----
--
AIR POLLUTION IN Thy = BAY AREA BY STATION ANA-CONTAMINANT. 1984
.,
For ozone(03)and for nitrogen dioxide(NOZ), "max" is the highest hourly average value in parts per hundred million. For carbon t
` monoxide CO , "max" is highest 8 hour average value in arts per million. he one-hour standard for CO was never exceeded
( ) g P P Cr '.
during the yeas)For sulfur dioxide(SOZ)"max"is highest 24-hour average value expressed in parts per billion. For total suspended
particulates (TSP), "mean" is annual geometric mean in micrograms per cubic meter. "Days" columns give number of days per .
` year on which an air quality standard was exceeded: Federal for 03, CO and TSP, State for NO2 and S02. For TSP, Days refers to ;
j
. ? Federal 150µg/m3 secondary standard.The 3-y
ear average for ozone,adjusted for instrument down-time,is the governing Federal
standard(called Expected Annual Exceedance).Monitoring for 03,CO and NO2 is continuous:monitoring for TSP is on the Federal
.r:.f j .
• rf ,.r systematic 6-day schedule; monitoring for SOz includes both time scales.
j OZONE CO NO2 SOz TSP
STATIONS 3-Yr.
Max. Days Avg. Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Mean Days ;
j f ;
,< San Francisco 10 0 0.3 10.8' 1 14 0 33 0 60 1
$ ` San Rafael 11 0 0.0 5.8 0 12 0 6 0 55 0 ='
"
Richmond 9 0 0.0 4.8 0 13 0 16 0 56 0
f - r Pittsburg 16 1 1.0 4.9 0 7 0 35 0 57 0
# a. Concord- 14 3 2.7 5.9 0 10 0 11 0 46 0
} n Oakland 11 0 0.0 8.0 0 - - - - - -
r
San Leandro 15 3 2.4
'- Hayward 15 3 2.2 - - - - - - - -
"' Fremont 15 5 5.1 5.1 0 13 0 3 0 49 0
15 7 5.4 4.3 0 9 0 3 0 55 0
Livermore
Alum Rock S.J. 15 4 4.1 - - - - - - - -
San Jose 16 7 5.3 11.4 5 18 0 4 0 76 2.
Moorpark, S.J. - - - - - - - - - 46 0
Gilroy 16 3 2.7 3.4 0 - - - - - -
�^ Los Gatos 17 13 8.4 - -
�t?; > Mountain View 12 0 1.7 - - - - - - - -
S!
Redwood City 11 0 0.7 5.6 0 9 0 2 0 44 0
Santa Rosa 9 0 0.0 4.9 0 12 0 3 0 37 0
Sonoma 11 0 0.0
I ,f1� f q: 1
Napa 11 0 0.0 7.1 0 9 0 3 0 50 0
w
;s , Vallejo 14 3 1.7 9.8 4 11 0 7 0 41 0
rtF "Zs ` " ` Fairfield 14 1 0.3 - - - - - - - -
k ' Micro-scale site (Ellis Street) for street-level CO maximums Y
a r.
Woi�$$
B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street
bd P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Telephone(4i 5)464-6000
October 21, 1985
WILFRED T. USSERY -Mr. Kevin J. Gai 1 ey
PRESIDENT Senior Planner
JOHN GLENN City of Dublin
VICE-PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 2340
KEITH BERNARD Dublin, CA 94568
GENERAL MANAGER
Subject: Villages at Alamo Creek,: Initial Study; Notice of
Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
DIRECTORS DE I R
BARCLA.Y SIMPSON
IsT DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Gailey:
HELLO BIANCO
2ND DISTRICT
BART staff has reviewed the Initial Study for the above listed
3R0 DISTRICT T
A.RTHUFJ.SHARTSI project. BART previously submitted comments on this project
:MARGARET K.PRYOR in a June 27, 1985 letter (attached) in response to the city' s
r
4THD!STRICT June 7, 1985 Application Referral . We request that these com-
ROBEFT S.ALLEN
ments be considered again in the preparation of the Enviror.-
r•
STHDISTRICT mental Impact Report for the project.
JOHN GLENN Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
6TH DISTRICT
WILFRED T.USSERY Please contact Marianne Payne at 464-6173 if you have any
7TH DISTRICT questions.
EUGENE GARFINKLE Sincerely,
8TH DISTRICT
JOHN H.KIRKWOOD
9TH DISTRICT
Barbara A. Neus' adter
Manager of Planning
BAN:MAP:mjo
Attachment
cc: Richard C. Menzel, Supervisor of Extension Planning
Marianne Payne, Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Planner
RECE1Y :ri
OCT 2 2 1985: -
DUBLIN PLla�,l�lla':!
Community Development Department Contra Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Community Development
Costa
County Administration Building, North Wing -
P.O. Box 951 County
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phone:372-2035
R E C E I V E D
OCT 2 8 1985
October 22, 1985 _ DUBLIN PLAID NIN(
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94563
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for an EIR on the Villages
of Alamo Creek project. I certainly concur that a project of this size and scale require the
preparation of a full-blown EIR.
As the covering memo from your department indicates, you have attached far more
information than usually is transmitted with such a Notice of Preparation. A difficulty with
an outside agency, such as ours, digging through so much material to try to determine the
validity of the conclusion reached is the total absence of maps (beyond to project
application submittal maps) which place the words into context. There is, however, no way
to tell if the requirements in those reports are agreed to in their entirety by.the applicant.or
if they solve the issue raised. With that as background, I won't try to comment further on
the details of those documents. I presume that they will be appropriately summarized in the
Draft EIR.
There were, however, several issues that need to be identified and discussed in the EIR. One
such issue is the whole question of public safety by allowing new residential uses directly
across the street from the Camp Parks Reserve Training Center. Watching soldiers at play
is exciting. The potential for the project residents children to .tresspass on the base would
reed to be explored along with other safety issues when such a military base abuts adjacent-
urban uses.
A second issue which the EIR should explore is the availability of sewer services to serve
this project. As I understand it, there is a short-term capacity problem. The competing
projects for the available capacity need to be identified rather than presumption that
service is available.
The noise analysis needs to consider the problem from both the point of view-of meeting
interior noise standards as well as the affect of noise on the use of outside recreational
facilities and general liveability. The noise analysis material seems to suggest the military's
responsibility to mitigate their noise. One cannot presume that the military will expend
funds for that purpose.
2
Lastly, the traffic analysis report points out that at buildout situation the road improve-
ments may be insufficient to handle the problem. If this is the case, each developer,
regardless of who's jurisdiction it is in, should be required to help contribute to solutions.
For example, the traffic report identifies severe problems in our County at the intersection
of Old Ranch and Dougherty Roads. The EIR should look toward outlining equitable
solutions such as off-site fees to offset their impacts.
As always, our staff will be available to work with your consultant on the EIR preparation
effort.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Community Development
James W. Cutler
Chief, Comprehensive Planning
AAD:JWC/mc4d
a
i tier �y .r —
....,... n Y M:1•Sr!.tY7.uµ xa`•T,+Y r� ! ;!} r:++':., F sS. ....
,ry r
Y:. .. V
City o San -.Damon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon,-California 94583
(415) 866-1400.
October 24, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gaily
City of Dublin Planning Department..,,_
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin,CA 94568
Re: Villages at Alamo Creek PA 85-041.1 &.2
Notice of Prepartion of a DER
Dear Kevin:
Thank'.you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the
above referenced project. The documents submitted appear to be of adequate scope to allow
preparation of either a DEIR or as a basis for consideration of mitigation measures sufficient to
warrant a Negative Declaration. Several areas of the Initial.Study which we feel should be given
additional emphasis would appear to warrant preparation of an EIR::,.These areas areas follows:
l), Traffic: given themagnitude of the project, projected extremely low service levels at
Dougherty Road and 1-580, at Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway and the exclusion
from the STIP of additional 1-680 freeway access within the City of Dublin,we believe
that project related or cumulative traffic impacts on Alcosta Boulevard and at the .
Alcosta/1-680 interchange will not be potentially negligible as indicated in the Initial
Study. Convenient access to 17680 for future residents will be*available via;a) Amador.
.Valley Blvd./Stagecoach Rd./Alcosta Blyd. b) Dougherty Valley Rd./Old Ranch Rd./Alcosta
Blvd., c) Amador Valley Blvd./ Village Parkway/Alccsta Blvd.
Therefore,during periods when other;points to on/off ramps of I-630 are operating
below service level "D" for northbound and southbound traffic,we expect the service
level of Alcosta Boulevard to be affected by the project. It would be appropriate to assess
the magnitude of that impact, especially considering development of properties
immediately to the north in the City of San Ramon'and sphere will also use Alcosta
Boulevard for fre--xsy mess.
2). Yisuai Impacts: We believe the analysis in the Initial Study to be correct regarding
impacts resulting from development on the east facing slopes of the property. The initial
Study hints that an appropriate mitigation may be the location of open space surrounding
areas subject to mass grading. We encourage further exploration of alternatives to the
proposed site plan and residential land use mix as one method of mitigating potential
R E C
OCT. 2 9 19; 5 -
DUBLIN PLANNING
71'+'.3Yt
j
f
r ✓i- v rmy. ,. r t •l71��"�r`+�'-.F�f`' �yy)+S�^•'ei.3+p.'+i r.r/e Rtio,rn r,•.ygs,�.��.,7•ry�a7�'t�.`+m�Y"'vn�+�a"�-�','�'rjNi'4a»•.Fi:. v -
's:� ,x,.'-,�""","z}'raxv'7 mr r�� '„'^^t?"'c'r�"-�k•us `e' '7- •� '�- c•.�.axe�•�- '
fr�rn . Y' .iY' :} - ?�. n"f:'° r, ad "' r�"Y�"r"+t�-.y+ r'��-r��7., ';�*T^�i� T' �•
_ :.•.
_
Kevin Gaily _
October 24, 1985
Page 2
adverse visual impacts resulting from construction on and below the east facing slopes of
the property. We consider this approach especially critical given that the subject
property serves as the gateway to the undeveloped Dougherty Valley, the majority of
which is located within the City of San Ramon sphere and designated planning area.
We are extremely concerned regarding the precedential and thus,cumulative,effect the
proposal will have on the type, quality and quantity of development within areas of
interest to San Ramon. In this regard, and within the limits established by applicable
Dublin General or Specific Plans,we encourage an exploration of design alternatives to tipa
proposed plan. For example, in village 6,we suggest additional mitigation measures
including redesign of the subdivision within the village to include a greater use of short
blocks and loops, cul-de-sacs, intermediate landscape islands,split roadways, tree
planting easements, requirements of the developer for forestation of areas within the
eastern most portion of yards and intense planting of all exposed cut and fill slopes.
Within villages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 we encourage visible and obvious intrusions of open space
within these higher density areas linking perimeter,creek and hillside open space areas.
3). Water: As you know, this portion of Alamo Creek is at the base of a large drainage system.
As far as we can predict, proposed modification appears adequate given the level of
potential upstream improvement to the creek itself. As we have discussed previously, the
City of San Ramon will be attempting to preserve and enhance the creek as an open channel
integrated with surrounding open space areas. However,there is potential for long term
impacts on future residents of the project resulting from the location of the project and
the high probability of significant development upstream. Some attempt should be made to
address these issues through a discussion of the width and depth of the channel and the type
and location of channel improvements relative to anticipated changes in flow velocity and
volumes due to upstream development.
These are impacts on future residents of the subdivision. Ho%-rever,as previously stated,
the project will likely serve as a precedent for development of properties adjacent to and
north of the proposed subdivision. Given that precedent, cumulative impacts on water
quality and creek habitat,we recommend an E!R be prepared addressing these points.
4). Wildlife: analysis of cumulative effects on wildlife should be prepared in the same fashion
as we suggest for water - considering areawide cumulative impacts.
5). As you are aware, the Cities of San Ramon and Dublin share parks and recreation, fire and
sanitary sewer services through the Dublin San Ramon Service District. The project will
require an expansion of these services in addition to increases in the carrying capacity or
water services, increases in police services and expansion of school facilities. The
relationship between increases in service capacity to accommodate this project and any
resulting growth inducements in the area north of the project should be addressed. The
potential for shared facilities within the Dougherty Valley should be addressed as to the
nature and size of facilities anticipated to be developed to serve the project.
f.
r
.. � r:t,•_v.,..• '.C*:y � A rN.i., ..0 •.,�,•, ..^ ),Zi.+i^'T+: •?2"-67+4•HT.•;r,•n�7�t,'t 1+4W V .t`r ir.�'+' wiaK7iCJN''�G"Y•'¢9F„r� ri�`,','4`z3 of t.w.� r^i:s.. -
V ':j '>rfiTbtCq.. '�•!4=. ',�-'.g. { '.^yaps„ -7� �' r � � � •~ i"�.t ^r1 Vj.
-s,,:-.-.•.;.,.;n+ rrs---'^'�'9_,.� r.Ti'a�'."'^" ?nx^'^�. "`i a"'°"`srdn'Y�_f q-nf+]'�F'xfR'4�`°'p�r'"'.�'t acn ,l'K y"'�sS'k..�'�£""t ��i i` k� ,F?�1.,m.,,a. x 4 ,A"'�,e' + 5'?._
• :_. ...'i h i . i "• f {..:,.,f�F _•iK T A{C � .�t'S .f� 5_ a '�' �. din �it'
Kevin Gaily -
October 24, 1985 _
Page 3
Finally, in order to aid in the evaluation of potential impacts and respective mitigation
measures,we recommend that studies be summarized and packaged within a Draft E1R for our
review. Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact me at 866-141 1.
Sincerely,
Brian Foucht
Associate Planner
BF/mc .017
y+r, rKnar.y -. r ^z ..y-a.'ye^o-+r,r ` ��,3 �-.�^r��`�'N'"raa�.a-a�hrr of q••�` w,t r +...••s•*=�,�*^.�.,rr aT".�^fi�ii ; z -r "i'��`;jyr`.....ry.,i�' _ '�..
...-'' �r _. . .(, J• t� ..1 t � t..: .�"-�z ....... .. ':..-_ .. ,. -5 .-._ .�.use._ s....'-ir,c. f.f•:f;e S ..?'. i i ;� _
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
October 24, 1985
Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner
Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Kevin:
In response to the City's NOP on The Villages at Alamo Creek, the County
supports preparation of an Environmental Impact 'Report analyzing the issues
presented in the NOP. The County is particularly concerned about:
1. Project and cumulative impacts on traffic congestion on County Roads,
particularly Dougherty Road;
2. Impacts on drainage facilities, both on-site and downstream;
3. Impacts on Alamo Creek, a natural watercourse amenity and biotic and
wildlife habitat;
4. Impacts due to proximity to Camp Parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this NOP..
Very truly yours,
i James Sorensen, Planner III
-Development Planning Division
cc: County Director of Public Works
1783D
R E C D
OCT 2 5 19$5
DUBLIN PLANNIIINIG
�..__
DUBLII�T/SAN RAVION DISPOSAL SERVICE
.1 _ -
... �T"�'''f f'Or.,1?!t"e� ii:i�--:..:..'�s..a�;�+:- .=;i,t.oti,,.".. .•::.ate�. ���s: .. :z:p.upr::�.r:f'w��_�:ae:.^.�. ra�...t�..:...:-e _ r ....
6175 Southfront Rd . 2612 FIRST STREET LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
Telephone 447-1300
October 25 , 1935
City of Dublin
planning Division
p.0 . Box X2340
;r
Dublin, Ca 94565
Attn: l;ir. ,.;evin Gailey
Dear ,:;r. Gailev
egarding the �;lamo Creels development by =oafanelli and .
Nahasl, our ,iiain concern is that there be adequate provisions
allotted for solid waste storage and disposal in the cluster
home phase of t1le project .
-he most comamonly used container for cluster hones or
aparti,ents is a 3 cubic yard size which measures approximately
4 feet by 7 feet .
I
would recor:mend that container enclosures be at least
S feet by 10 feet square and have a concrete base and
tended concrete apron. -his size enclosure would be adeq'a e
if a 4 cubic yard container was found to be necessary.
lease call c�e if you have any questions or need r,o�,e
information on this latter .
Sincerely,
Livkrmore Dublin Disposal
r
°.;rn. Drandi
District ?:tanager
p = c
OCT �g
t
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC _• COMPANY -
IP(27Sirv+ '+ 998 MU RR ETA BOULEVARD • LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
L. R.(LOU) MOLVECK
MANAGER-LIVERMORE
February 3, 1986 R E C E I Y E D
FEB 79%
I)UBIJN PLANNING
Mr. Larry Tong
P1•anni ng Director -
Development Services
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Real Estate Dev. 85-041. 1
Alamo Creeks, Dublin
Dear Mr. Tong:
Our comments on this'-environmental information are the same as in my
letter of June 11, 185.
Sincerely,
Roger . Myers
New Building Re es tative
RLM:hme
•
�'•Ail''{aR raT �'� � it eb%ti. 4i 3.M'.`.+.Y,.t'iF"-!.n i �r�Px''�! S�-i•h�h�.�'Y�..gl�aZ��y,+"*,"'z'`arzl�q�i:.t"}tG"Y""F1'�12�7 '(-ha°+{' F::�' *'Fn�trt,'�c,"^'-^ T-< '^"7r✓' �d'+'''T`('�''�'reFT+•yr�.. K''1`rt+»f'
•' in
� '� - i M t NJi' 'iii Lr �!•.yr: :k...•<'. 4 � k R M, ) c..
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 GEORGE 1 Govern
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 Capitol Mall, Room 288 -
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-7791
February 4, 1986 R E C E I Y S D
Kevin Ga i 1 ey f 1986
Dublin City
P.O.Box 2340
U$UN JPLAr11?q1�40
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: The Vi�l1ages at .Alamo .Creek
SCHtt 85091009
The Native American Heritage Commission appreciates the opportunity to express
its concerns and comments in the environmental review process. As you may know,
the Commission is mandated to preserve and protect places- of special religious
or cultural significance to California Indians (Native Americans) pursuant to,
Section 5097 et seq of the Public Resources Code.
The Commission has the further responsibility of assisting Native Americans in
cemetery and burial protection pursuant to Section 5097.94(k) of the Public
Resources Code. We request that the .County Coroner's. office be contacted if
human remains of Native American origin are encountered during the project,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety
Code. Should this occur, the Commission will assist in expediting the preservation
and protection of the remains in a respectful manner.
We request that you consult with the local Indian community in this project area
in order to mitigate potential impacts to burial sites and other cultural resources
of value to their particular tribal customs. I have enclosed a listing of those
individuals and/or groups who can be of assistance to you themselves or in suggest-
ing those in the local community �;ihich may have concerns regarding this project area.
This information is provided to assist you in addressing the cultural heritage
concerns of the appropriate Native American communities, and as such, the enclosed
references are for agency use only and not to be considered a public disclosure.
This information may not be released, distributed or reproduced in any form without
the prior written permission of the Native American Heritage Commission.
If yoL,-have any questions please contact me for further assistance.
Sincerely yours, :
Alihette Ospital
Special Assistant
AO:jg
Enclosure(s)
i ,•
Amador-Pleasanton Public Schools
123 Moln Street a Pleasanton, CA 94566-7388 G
(415) 462-5500
February 5, 1986 R E C E aj
EE3
DUBUN
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin _
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
After reviewing the expanded study for the Villages at Alamo Creek and its impec-r can
the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, 1 have.been directed to file -1 he
following statement to you. With the growth that is occurring in the City of
Pleasanton over the next five years, it may be necessary for the school district to
direct some of those students to Dublin High School. This project could pose a
negative impact at Dublin High School since it appears to be moderately priced,
multiple and single family units. The school district has experienced larger student
yield in this type of housing rather than higher priced housing units.
Before the school district could give its approval to this project, we would need to se-e
the overall residential long term growth management projects projected to be built in
Dublin. It appears from the housing developments that are taking place in Dublin, that
we would need to begin to explore its long term affect on Dublin High School in order
that we may properly plan for adequate space to house the new students that would
result from the new growth.
Please mail to us your long term growth management projects in order that we may
make a final impact statement relative to your project.
Sincerely,
I
Al
Buster R. McCurtain
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
OAADS OF TRUSTEES
).SADOR
ianlla Haugen,President BRM/bl
ack Kendall,Clerk
,Jack Bras
rank Oamerval _ -
avid Melander
LEASANTON
onAld Ott,Ph.O.,President
:ark Gunson,Clerk
ancy Hawtrey
r.Bruce Merrill
amestlne Schneider
UPERINTENDENT
r.8111 J.James Amador Valley Joint Union High School Dlrtriet•Ploasanton Joint School District
q.
......,
r......•I:r.... .,,,� �s e,.:•... t. f.. .1-Nw;W` .a.::'� ' _ J,✓ ter'; .. °ZL .. - -
.:,. ; . 7" "7{r.F. a .-�l S 1.•']
.�., .,..:_� - ..,..: y ...F ;'.: f f4..'*�+,7-Y 2a•"l y...il' ,�1 �'irYtti '1 ro2F,F'y:�?�{-�,:y;�'i1M'r>RF KV M kF"n,1 f�'" .
I D EPARTM ENT GF•TH E'=ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRI:CTa CORPS OF-ENGINEERS
I 211 MAIN STREET
'y SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 — 1905
March 6, 1986 RECEIVED
Environmental Branch MAR 11 '1986,
DUBLIN PLANNING
To: L. Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin , California 94568
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance -
Villages at Alamo Creek
Your request for comments from this office was received on February 10,
1986 by your notice dated January 31, 1986.
The proposed construction project may require Department of the Army
Authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A copy of our pamphlet-
"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program, A Guide for Applicants" , has been
forwarded to the applicant with a copy of this notice. For additional
information please contact our Regulatory Functions Branch at 415-974-0418.
Any impacts on wetlands, threatened or endangered species, other valuable
fish and wildlife resources, or on cultural resources are among the important
environmental considerations for all Corps permit applicants.
Questions concerning this environmental review can be referred to
Maggie Hooper at 415-974-0440. Thank you for including us in your review .
process.
Roderick A. Chisholm, II
Environmental Branch
Planning/Engineering Division
Copy Furnished:
Ron Nahas, 20638 Patio Drive, Castro Valley, CA 94546
t 1� /+YA' �.:.J!tyI'1 f,+f 1l H• � .fn( �•"•p b ICR 'M'•�
s tw•r—••. r�a'N^rr•�-rmsnas' � Yz'nI. me ..c;<t•"t •,°, :ztr..°r ...>—n, ya^ _
City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583 _
(415) 866-1400 ^
Fcbrunry 12, 1986 F E
g 1 b 1y86
City of Dublin
P lanning Commission
P.O. Box 2310
Dublin,CA 94568
Re: PA85-04 1.1 and.2 - Planned Development
Rafanelld and Flahas
Dear Commissioners.
This office has no comment on the proposed project, other than our earlier comments,especially
regarding traffic. From the data presented, we are unable to evaluate claims that there will be
negligible impact on San Ramon street traffic volumes. For example, no trip distribution
assumptions are presented in the documents to substantiate the claim of "negligible" impact on
Almsta Boulevard or the Alcosta/1-680 interchange. We would accept a final determination of no
environmental significance, if this information ds provided and indicates the level of impart
anticipated in your initial study:
Finally plans show minimal setback along the City's boundary line and, in one case, greding is
shown off site within the City of San Ramon.' It is our request that all grading be shown within
Dublin City limits, and that an appropriate landscaped setback be established along the north
property boundary - 30' or,-,u of landscaped setback would be appropriate.
Sincerely,
Brian Foucht
Assm, fate Planner
BF/mc
.087
.-
- r
i
N, I ,. ♦ , fit b' :. .'7.. . r . t ,Y ♦t. f f^ ... - '
a,
.. •._ r .-�•.....2. - ... � rr+�-;° _ I a'b".,:"-vi.. >4ni E_ 'S-�`.a+z;2Ye .+, z .G. -_ _
-.-rs
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "`
BOX 7310 >•
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 '
(415)923-4444
REC � � yg
February 13 , 1986 FEB
8 X9$6:
Ala 580 PM R 2143
DUBLIN PLANNING SCH-None
AL 580112
Kevin J. Gailey
City ' of Dublin
Development Services
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re : „ Site Development Review for a Proposed Shopping Center and
44-Lot Single-Family Residential Development
Dear Mr . Gailey:
Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced projects and forwards
the following comments :
The number of trips generated by each project should be shown.
together with peak hour volumes . If you decide to prepare a
Negative Declaration, you should show that the traffic generated,
along with cumulative growth traffic in the area will not have a
significant adverse impact on the ramps at Route 580/San Ramon
Boulevard interchange . if , on the other hand - . you would decide
on a Draft EIR, please submit a Notice of Preparation for more
information on the requirements of an EIR.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments , please
contact Peter Estacio of my staff at (415) 557-2483 .
Sincerely yours ,
BURCH C . BACHTOLD
District Director
By
WALLACE J. R IBART
District CEQA Coordinator
� � iN ft i •:i �, Ir � j .f L. 1 h
. fir,. +;-,;
1 !.
x
State of California The Resources Agency
RECEIVED
Memorandum FEB 271986:
To 1. Project Coordinator DUBLIN PLANNING Date: February 24, 1986
Resources Agency
2. Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner Telephone: ATSS ( )
City of Dublin ( ) .
Development Services
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
From Department of Fish-and Game
Subiect: SCH 85091009 Draft (EIR) Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Initial Study of Villages at Alamo Creek,
Alameda County
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the 'Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
and the Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo
Creek and we have the following Comments:
This proposal would place 1165 residential units on 135 acres
of grazing lands bisected by Alamo Creek which drains into..--
Alameda Creek . The study states that 65 percent of the
existing riparian corridor along Alamo Creek will be
modified. The current 7300 feet of watercourse will be
reduced through straightening and filling to 5200 feet, over
one half of the existing riparian habitat on the site will be
destroyed and at least 35 percent of the mature riparian
trees will be eliminated. Mitigation measures described ir_
the Initial Study could off-set some project impacts on
riparian woodland but a substantial net loss of riparian
habitat would result . Riparian habitat is a severely
depleted and threatened wildlife habitat in the Amador Valley
and further losses of this kind are unacceptable .
As the state agency entrusted with the protection of fish and
wildlife resources we have determined that this project will
result in significant environmental effects which cannot be
avoided if this proposal is implemented as proposed.
Therefore the preparation of a focused DEIR will be
necessary. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is
inadequate and should not be certified nor should this
project be approved as proposed.
Our personnel are available to assist the City Staff in
defining the scope of a focused DEIR.
l
't
e J r.'r T t 7 y T rFti f r
jC�, r; •r Yet -.� a} i, r f. tt r � rte' �I.l -��` r
.t .N tF i t„ ,et � � r t t J m, ✓ T r ,.l - 1, t
f K."+ tr ; 'rr fir,) .. � s •• I '. 'k r'�JyY' •/j° � rnrX. �I . .v'T ._ t
Xs,"}�. }JJ Rr 47. + t '.' v � 3f dY"•Cr > >.M era
t ,�jr�v �1.v"t� f I J1i'JW S r I.r _� �. ,ft !'+Tr ^;r ..j. 'F F `.L"-? R'�'�f-,�1�''t- �•M" •� ..SAfax.1'.+45` ' 9•
tj'iryF �fBf r � t+ •IJ IJ i T r T �'r f 4�•''t � 'i1` S�+I J
•r+ H� F� t f.+ r s .J .. n, Sr � _!''"'t rL�4+�-�1"•'7.r�''� �rs f
4•h�"jT K 4 j 7 5 t.T•J t J. F',�rf .yr-.+pw Mi-•7e^-° _ ,r'l Stich°y,.r-s��e�k:+Y''c'ac+s.»r=a'r t tjY�y2� r J 4'r?•z-«.+t•y' -ra�i..�n'�'�.f]�,TRSw'y�r'�.*�'1'TM.e.•r,. _
1 T l r T T � 1. `T`f x' S �4 1i \ Q'4y��'7' �a,l••� � Y. I Y L1 4 a• x. .•.
rah-'.'.�.L'•. rx_.a.•v�-.4""•. :7^ 1�,% M'r. zt-kx'r¢�--rn ry-r '"•k�'xT+r.7'3c--+CST'-F t.2 *�''t� 'r'Frm'F'.v'3 C
• •: r ,.s'., ,.. _.. ..•..._,-..'..'Y.a--„ n.._..a,.!�'. W _xt._1•._++i ..t. .tY:'f'. Fa?. ^y.'•r.°..'TL.'F.,: ,•n� .h,c
1. Project Coordinator -2-
Resources Agency
2. Kevin Gailey
If you have any questions , please contact Paul Kelly,
Wildlife Biologist , at (415 ) 376-8892 ; or Theodore Wooster,
Environmental -Service Supervisor, at (707) 944-2011.
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
t t,
f
/ 1
1 r / -..rl S 1 Y y �r 3�F .if r'h� t{yv j. r+ ��✓n T � e
r+`t � S' r*1 l•1 Y � ,✓' _YYrIC ,,�a.� �� �r a tiE>L�� � r -
�Y7���RN?
�..w::r..,;'': .1• :`%' „' ,'X `f P i�' 37 ynr.)t+..,,,y. !i'rn'N>-:7/-""•v-o^c i�-,+ i.44 �( lr,'-r^�—'.r 5� .." �•�y _.
' .. .rv. .: ....ya..-....:�_.�-,,., 1.,:-:a, (�^r• _: 1 i'.�Yn _ iT 4'. +7. IF-t �6t v`}�i"l�f< N.
. s
-- TIT
11:
• i i to \. i .
. i f I • � � t3 .11 .�
\ .
� I 7
t
S �
TO TAL NO.. OF' pWELL1I-IG [iptT", GO
VO. OF..E-UW1TS 44r -
t� ,
}_t O. OF G-U I-1175
-i,�DTAL NO. OF
PO. OF OA!f:f0•fC-{-
')-O IAL laO. AGf=�:,.(CxGLt^_GMME{�GI�,L.) �T.QCo �' _ ' � '•,4 ��� , ' .' �, `
E?Utt �fi 1" C vaE LACE ( 20
VILLAGES (2 ALAMO GP- EEC, � .
DATE: 14 1956, \
Ile, \
t
1 CE-7
t-D SITr PL
Sl r _
..w^._., .n... 'r.•.w::.,.•Y:y-ur.�^tr.^y3•'iRF'F sl'R_: 1C'y„F4 � A A'x+Fv[*gr•K •7'' �A:,n �•:'F J F'+�^w 1�'n _ �-.
•_....: .�y,:,.a � �...r •� n..sr-.c• ',.;: ,..:.,i .Y.��•;4 r��.�r•'t .�Y _ .,°'°rc• awa+.w �'-"r',�r•t"F'�xr•Yk-�, _
�_ ti
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development -
February 27, 1986
Mr. Larry Tong
City of Dublin -
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
.Re: Phasing Villages - Alamo Creek
Dear Larry:
Condition n=ber five of the PD application provides for a term of two
years from the plan development approval. We do not anticipate
commencina building construction on all seven villages within a two
year period and will, therefore, need to build the fcllcwir_g phasirsg
plan into our plan development approval:
1986 - Commence building construction, Village II.
1987 - Commence budding construction, Village III and Village VI.
1988 - Ccanmence building construction, Village I and Village IV.
1989 - Commence building construction, Village V.
1990 - Camneence buildins construction, Village VIE
Larry, in a project the size of Alamo Creek there will naturally be
need for flexibility in the phasim schedule to respond to conditions
of the marketplace. We vx uld, therefore, request the right to a---tend
the PD approval beyond the dates outlined above for a period of up to
twn years on any individual village. `
Co��ly,
.�nald C. Nahas
RCN/mm
CC: 4ark Rafanelli
Kevin Gailey
Lee Thompson
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
9T
AftUH U.7'.
i
.. .. .-
l: 1
1
Rafanelli and Nahas
R E C `/
Real Estate Development
" ^ FEB 2 7 1986.
DUBLIN PLANNING
February 27, 1986
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Water Features - Alamo Creek
Dear Kevin:
The water features shown on the illustrative plan for Alamo Creek are a
part of the intended design. The .e.Yact length and configuration of
those water features has yet to be determined. What has been presented
is an artist's conception. We are assuming that final review will be
accomplished at the site development review stage. There may be
trade-offs in final design between stream length and pond size. This
will have to be determined by the professional designers; however, we
do not anticipate the total size of the water features, including both
pond and stream to increase or decrease more than 40%0. frcm the
schematic illustration.
Cordially,
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
ATIACHMENvi
am m
i
r
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
February 27, 1986
Mr. L,-rry Tong
City of Dublin -
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Dedication of Public Lands - Alamo Creek
Dear Larry:
This letter will summarize the lands that we anticipate being offered
for dedication to the iDublic. Parcel numbers referred to the tentative
man title sheet.
Offers of dedication to the City of Dublin at the time of final master
tract mao:
1. Lands required for the emnansion of t:ne Dougherty Rcad corridor,
including all lards up to and including the sound wall. Also
including the lands of Cam,p'Dell lying easterly of Dougherty Road.
2. Lands adjacent to Am ador Valley Boulevard between the
right-of-way and the fence line of Villages I and II. These lards
will cermrise the area of public paths-�ay and landscaping alcrg
the street frontage.
3. Park lands, including the nark site lots P and Q. Lot 155, which
is she creek corridor lyirg betv4een lots P and Q may be c=, eyed
to the City as pest of the park or to Alameda County Flecd
Control, depending upon future agree__.n—._ants between thr�se two
agencies.
4. Oren space lot A and F.
5. Loop roads, together with the creek frontage pathvry right-of-s,av
traversing Villaces II, III, IV and V.
6. The main entry road from Dougherty Road across the creak and
including all residential streets within Village VI.
Upon recordation of the final map for Village VII, we antici_r.,ate
_transferring the open space lying west of lot 147.
We anticipate offering for dedication to Alameda County Flccd Control
District, lots 154 and 155. Offer of dedication of lot 155 deDends
upon contractural relationships bet=R&--n the City of Dublin and the
Flccd Control District.
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
. i
y
;cr `i
r
No. Larry Tong -2- February 27, 1986
Larry, I hope this appropriately summarizes the timing and lands
0=1 ed in offers- of public dedication. If you have any questions,
please don't hesitate to give me a call.
- Cox��a� lly' %
Ronald C. Nahas
RCN/m mn
CC: L�-e Tho=son
M
Ago
1 r J �r7 r� ��Y r• � � /'.Sry -� 1J i r� � 4 j rr
f. �; -Y•r l , .r:•F 1 tsr � y 1.� b r�i)� �'S 4`Lx ;- ti �r ... � i 'ar-. - i �
..,. Y •,- ,,: ��r.2.- i��,{,,x+ .rr" ,r.�Fr�4�:'.r .f j-r�Va!dhna'"� a ,A.nat� Y.�-,��' .:. t_.
t �
J S r*
" S J - h i, t Z 1•
'{,...a a er : .. 'r Y .f.`�a�.c�u+Y[�E�i7�+a'r:'�`..SCt.+.K �'g:oi'`Y ..f+' .i:.e'ot .1^•� d3'nS.•.l�y!?+'^Q.^V�+nY.•f'�Sr._lLC-3 at-f f
_ .ll.�+�1 may.. •::... ."� •r-. :- \ ?`, __ (ZS l{J�7
February 25, 1986
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN GENERATED By MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROJECTS
IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-AREA
Introductory Remarks:
The following information was based largely upon conversations with the
resident managers and with the property managers of the ccmoleYes
listed. The information listed for the Amador Lakes Anartments was
derived from actual records as of a srzcific date and, therefore, we . .
were able to obtain an accurate breakdown for each age group, iybst of
the other complexes listed did not .have breakdown by each specific age
groin, although �-;e believe the overall numbers are still meaning-ful:
Through the conple_xes contacted did rot have a specific breakdown by age
group, most stated that a substantial percentage (25o to 50%) of -the
total number of children in the. complex w-ere _nreschool age. We have
attached a summary of our findings.
The Springs Apartments has aporcXim�ately 45 children rich the Resident
Manager estimated to be apprnX2*nately ore-third presci-col, one-third
elem-antary, and one-third junior high and high school. The nznnber of
children per unit in The Springs is appra--imately three times the
overall rate for other multifamily projects in our sarvey. We believe
that this may be due to the fact that The Springs allows four occupants
per two-bedroom unit versus three_ occupants per t•Yxa--bedroom unit Ti•& ch
is the standard requirement for nest multifamily projects. In
addition, The Springs has been operated =—''er he HUD 221(d)4 Program
which controls the rents which can'be charged by a project. Currently,
the rents at The Springs are $600 per month for a one-bedroom and $695
per month for a two-bedroom, which is approximately $100 per month
below the rents at either Cedar Pointe or Amadcr Lakes.
ti c
r
0
... ....1 y.w( +\1,yT.'.`�lH/.tf^' .���1f��Y�•�T`Y?-M^Y�/31�_ ��t 5�1:]Ir�ft{i�vC'f�, V'1rYJy'.NM AT lY i.3 '•M+.�';..+y.c't � .rwypJ'}�,r�iJJr�q F•L �'1e/L`a�rb R'l ;Y - -�
3
-
i to .f.. .r• - _ _ r.
r I Y? � Pjx� ✓r LN.w� Y Y / z t y �.
+ r 4 '� iP1-'1.•". �. • l l' ,11,�'�i.'tf�"> ,� ��d rro L .f• 't I I�. j 1 Clf r G- ' + � E -
c+ ,i. + �i Y �91M�3�o.i'�,��.,�' ' yl�,�.•rte �../"�. >w�rr'� r;;•e 1e-1"`•!' �'7 S � 1q.
_{`
- fY , r r♦ •c +♦l`rt Y Y'\ ��S (+ � nom' � �r r z. '�'
, !1 L, + 2, .•�" ^', :S�` ?T�.�%� ..1.p7� !Sn+,y�,+T,; tii Y���.'�M'�:Z K.,,�r.ci:l .a .fit y �.
�}.Lrao+:•r C' l.+*.1 ` � �r,1 4 r4 r,4;! 1i7.y''r .,, irY t p fC �� ' raY.` r�, '�'CC�i�f�'� �`,'r-}s,f r n !^'l y Y.
�a..,t...tt. -t. :5 r.74�wy�f;.��-9:C fti:.y4il'��v�i,,Js;f6�:�.n�i,n:�'1�� ����rYl�-ri f b:��'T, �+ �t y/.✓+1�i iL�.t'Jrl �`f�'�l�.raCe,�C+ ? ,.'..,r---.4.. _ _
�w�ht r rA�f *!71"^'S Ct*" a Ic J t• v._..-; ,.+ r ai.,, �A !1- N„t�^ -*'t r,i �e e�'.^.'n`"'"'�' '�x^.T+-.'3'`c"
>;.,.-.`+... '' t v( -^! rl 'L 2+r 1Attl >i �- ..cQ c ..� r�YLr 1[ [ Ish ���h��� n-(R�b.!"'�•�� .. .
'.,.J :,cc� ;, _ .,.��-n"."?•sC:`—^ g'F" S <a •�y�,pf"µz.; s.'�E`•'" veyR'•r�.t.'"/, � :sr"w=q+x �� d'! r'P• r+�-yea °'.' ,rf r2
r t
,•: C .a. k .x. � '4:� " ,w, - jn._._ 'cl �: �.3'. *r+i Vii?�...>5�r�f. ,
_ .. .. .... _ ._. .._._� .,, - _.- era_ 5.orrCx°'"¢7_ .. _., _ •- __ ..,. ..
: Project Description One Bedroom 1.%,n Bedroom Three Bedroom Studio Total Units Total Children
Amador Lakes, 8105 N. Lake Drive
' Dublin, CA 160 395 555 51
Cedar Pointe, Dublin! CA 124 124 248 25
:
The Springs, Dublin, CA 88 88 176 45
i. Beach Cove, 703 Catamaran,
Foster City, CA 256 160 416 19
7 r f i r
Birchwood, 1230 Henderson Ave. ,
Sunnyvale, CA 96 96 192 15
Cherry, Hill, 902 W. Remington Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA- 92 114 34 4 224 37
849 W: Orange Ave. ,
Club View, 102 3
S. San Francisco, CA 75 27
J
r ... Colonial Gardens, 41777 Grimner Blvd. ,
" '. . Fremont, CA 48 48 3
Del Prado, 5196 Golden Wal,
Pleasanton, CA 40 54 94 7
a
in `-0? `~V Fair Oals West, 655 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 510 214 2 40 766 48 ^1
French Village, 641 Old Country Road,
Belmont, CA 25 66 17 108 9
Green Point, 1599 War Burton Ave. ,
Santa Clara, CA 194 40 184 36
a
wood, ?323 Stamard Dr. ,
60
Dublin, CA ?2 38 8
Project Description One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Studio Total Units Total Children
Lincoln Glen, 150 E. Reanincgton,
. . Sunnyvale, CA 51 20 38 112 3
' Saricl Cove, 777 Shell Blvd. ,
roster Cite, CA 152 152 40 344 24
t !
Sl-iadcw Cove, 1055 roster City Blvd. ,
roster City, CA 74 74 16 164 9
b r.. ..
Shadow Oaks, 530-A Civic Dr.
.� ,. Walnut Creel:, CA 72 52 40 164 5
Sharon Green, 350 Sharon Park Dr. ,
a< HSenlo Park, CA 66 206 24 296 12
Valle? Green, 20875 Valley Green Dr.
156 226 36 50 468 50
f t .
X
, 9
Totals 2,206 2,194 113• 228 4,721 401 ?'
� to
�' S1 number of children per multifamily unit = .08
t
i7 1
A.
:.: �.::._ :,: . - - ...•a. j,-. ..,, .-,.:..., ,�,1 PL'EASANTON
SACRAMENTO -
FRESNO
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS CONCORD
March 12, 1986
Mr. Kevin Gailey
Planning Department MAR 1 u 1 86•
City of Dublin
P. O. Box 2340 DUBLIN PLAID NIN!:C
Dublin, CA 94568
Reference: Villages at Alamo Creek
Responses to Traffic Comments
Dear Mr. Gailey:
This is to present the response of TJKM to comments on the traffic study for the
Villages at Alamo Creek project received from the City of San Ramon, the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans. The responses to the traffic issues raised in these letters
are indicated below. The eight responses refer to numbered paragraphs in the
attached letters.
City of San Ramon - Letter Dated October 24, 19S5
1. Comment - Potential impacts on Alcosta Boulevard at the Alcosta/I-680
interchange will not be potentially negligible as indicated.
Response - The project is expected to generate 622 a.m. peak hour residential
base trips and 768 p.m. peak hour residential base trips. Approximately five
percent of these trips or 31, and 38 peak hour trips, respectively, are
anticipated to use the Alcosta/I-680 interchange. During the a.m. peak, this
will add 31 trips to the 2,824 vehicles currently using the interchange ramps.
This amounts to a 1.1 percent increase. In the p.m. peak hour, the 38 added
trips also represents a 1.1• percent increase to the existing 3,491 trips: These
increases are deemed to be negligible.
City of San Ramon - Letter Dated February 12, 1986
2_ Similar to earlier comment. "No trip distribution assumptions are
presented ... to substantiate ... negligible impact on ... the Alcosta/I-680
interchange."
Response - See response to Item =rl.
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214/ Pleasanton, California 94566 • (415) 463-0611
- ENT7
r
l A
r +r r�=r•. ?, f.t,�. "rr ti C nk�' ',.,,, ryX ;. ' ?'�lr �,r,•,T t'Jaa�J k t ?,r I-f"Y�r 1
{�i:2 h, ��Yr�•l.t.11.+.t"ir I .r'.4 iSi �^f+'=tC�T"t arJ•--lJ� ro nt x4 .r .t+, t+ r'r� aryryi Y ..
{ .., A'J' r 7, ! 1 ..t,e7; Fh r fr•, �,' � vq-
/.• sy I�>.. !iy',y;�:.�r..•��Srr�� , rr t + T. :1 1 sfll:.r� 'i' 4•f.f.it�•.,,v�C � '
r• - asASarc ;r<•r - -
Mr. Kevin Gailey -2- March 12, 1986
City of Pleasanton Letter Dated February 28, 1986
3.. Comment - Level of Service F conditions will exist on the eastbound ramp of
the Hopyard-Dougherty/I-580 interchange..
Response - Using the triple right-turn mitigation measures and the new
standard traffic assumptions recently approved by the City of Pleasanton, the
peak hour level of service designated at the eastbound off-ramp improved to
Level of Service D. This information was only recently adopted by the City
of Pleasanton so it was not included in the Villages at Alamo Creek traffic
study.
4. Comment - This project should contribute to needed roadway improvements
to improve traffic circulation throughout the Tri-Valley area.
Response - The traffic study developed recommendations to mitigate impacts
from developments not only outside the City of Dublin but also outside of
the County of Alameda. The cumulative projects, located in Contra Costa
County and in the City of San Ramon, apparently were-not required to have
mitigation measures within their own county. However, the developer of the
Villages at Alamo Creek project has agreed to mitigation measures in the
form of street widening along Dougherty Road which exceed those identified
by the traffic study as required. Therefore, it appears that the City of
Dublin and the developer have indeed addressed the issue of needed roadway
improvements on a regional scale.
Caltrans - Letter Dated February 26, 1986
5. Comment - Corroborate negligible impacts at Alcosta interchange. Describe
modeling method regarding proposed San Ramon Valley developments around
Crow Canyon Road.
Response - See response --1. In addition, the County of Contra Costa, the
City of San Ramon, and the Town of Danville have initiated a
comprehensive analysis of the Crow Canyon Road corridor extension which
utilizes Caltrans approved modeling methodology.
6. Comment - Traffic volumes should be shown in diagrammatic form for the
intersections at the Hopyard-Dougherty/I-580 and Alcosta/I-680 interchanges.
Response - Information for the Hopyard-Dougherty/I-580 interchange is
available and will be forwarded to Caltrans. Since traffic increases at the
Alcosta interchange only amount to 1.1 percent during both the a.m. and p.m.
peak periods, no V/C ratio calculations are included.
7. Comment - V/C ratios on Table I of Appendix B and Table III do not agree.
Response - The corrected tables will be furnished to Caltrans.
K'•• �t 1r r y �r S 1
9. - ...
,. v..:a f. rr1,.;..I} -,rRCa4..,�w� ., x `!' U 1Y>frc"a'4 -\S(ffct+t-^,.y NiYa.',Fa .F..i4.vG+.i.�•. •ti,,.' r.ate., .f';jl�! ,,,. ws rJ+dc'.H¢ic air:x>,J ....1:��,L vc'+ s:_.L .._.__—
f ,
arrl't y. �'i
r
�yi 3�.Fr "1 � it „�Iy,c�'y � r� Jug 4 -� z� } n ,. + ° c. Zti i +'. t.•r -,,,
F � � r� I l 2.,.y '?r f �� '1K'�' a "•�) ,ri.. rr. I t.� + v .! r '^ice pf+i •\yi,i�P .y .. —
..t r r ),..c _.\: •ay .'.e:st.;.1 H�,�,+�7., �;"�„�S: x*�'.�t=�::�� I��.<r ;. ������r. :.�.}�.'.�,'L!'sr.���'::;�;�':�;d.�rK1`; ^?'K•�`-'cm;.�
. +,.Y�',..•r. r_�>
r r ! 'c �4 tl• «-r� +r'r.� r ae�r. .y � +. !Ti di�rQr.J•inx\TY +� fib.' .•[ ry '' .r� >�� °e "i�t�+.µ� w3.rr r...:.
, xY-S..>,' f „� .r r+y+„j...,� i F fy�Y�� �-z,3"�'e �'�.!NE'fY tY �a��^�.�. <�.c,,?.. � r>•r r � T-'!F�,+Y�+�t-r s r X
+ .,rc � � .� J r \ c F yrr,r� ati•t.V hJ�f��r,`rraYV;'+.i.;. ..� t r�t.: c ♦ T'it�"'ft � i-j+ :Y.t ^y ..
...: ��, .L S } .z '-9"!TG' .i. ,,,�r•,-.r '21r -ay-+•-^—•.^r-- -'^"�i-•ryT1Y( l ..
- T ... :•: of � r _
::J'Y•?, y 1 �' t 7.z,art '=w ` ..
.;, �,a..nx.�..%•..•y "call'.•? _..4_.n�,+:.� -./.:
Mr. Kevin Gailey -3- March 12, 1986
8. Comment - Is,,there a mistake in the data for Intersection 8. on Table. ILS- on
page 39?
Response - There is no mistake. As described in the text, the scenario with
the build-out.cumulative is a long-term scenario and includes reduced traffic
at the Hopyard Road interchange due to the planned and funded
Stoneridge/I-680 interchange. This interchange will attract existing traffic
from the Hopyard Road interchange.
We believe that these responses adequately address all concerns of a traffic nature
that have been raised.
Very truly yours,
Chris D. Kinzel v —
psw
Attachments
15722
7.
,'t�I.?r..,f.r.};ir+` � u•:�.5+;1:,�+, G -r,.'G.rrltla:f''=;-wlrY.laa,`,aJtYUUt fi„-ti^..,�+..fi c'�'}'1<<7.:1e">T. a. n'�>,.>+•.�r. R<+•e.,aw.a t 1.:::n. L.a�us.:; .»r.. ...t ,�te3 ..�- ..
-
�
��:�Ci mss. ri.� }vry �Z 1f r�, !,N (.� tfr F•..y., �Z nj �.j '� .JI` i ;�
1. ,.. ..t L r-� ��'�' ,}.'.• �' `�o. '�..�. -.k'i5.'ra ,+�y, r�^,' �_ �.r;r 1-�z ' � 7.. � . __
r(i -•:'t)tt µ�, e a r i r :� �F w+Ert'`�� �,��;tr"ria*r� �,�irv_ ��'L�Y� ;..��1+'k ��i'i i. i '*'!py".>'�`�;�.`, T t��Y 4..sr- r ! ,�, 4
z trti � '�• n f f r >'TiT r�� 7�� �+2�•}.d�' Yu. Y�-Z.:...wwar�t"' °� tti!r .r'1•-i �+�e.`-,� js>,.�.�r,.i,y y.
/.� wy.�`�r i.r„ ,y t,,,he 1-h, �NG•p-tr"Pt�tA4�"!",41�"I.';'y.}--���e7C Y4 54.�35{k"'.Y'��' �.u. �' �+�V � Y' -
L 4• � pis ( N 9an�1.a,� lj y rp•'.' �l✓�. 4" ..t `"_♦ 4/ 1 > f � S4.
.' 't• 'l r »!'Y(..ya �f y.' yt..+ •t.! +—.: �y;�'�[.r—y�ic.� p"�`r�f' r e' � ..
9 t:
... � r.......... ... .� -...,._...ate• r.'v.i... T. - � ,w•'. y.i,,. .•y
.} Y .=f '^'�' y T'iV'� -} 2t �"`''' ,� ""+..w•T.:. •.Y.+7s'-1a�\•a. " � '�� � ..r 7�^^'y2'•�+. ^' ..,r. 1..
:t x•,`�<•�.y�tt, l�.�'r. _ �: -'!.�.-h -.Ji �L %;�! .-�.��."et —'.1.TG�o�y�, li.-a '"" '� .cf � - �.i-\., sTaor!�
- :ice: :s:.-i. ,.t,�.,���:;.:�%jy��` , _:��r�•� ..4�'! 't - .
� . . . •. - x - 'ay- o Sara -lgarnon -
2222 Camino Ramon.,-
San Ramon, California .94583 . .
(4I5) 866-1400
October 24, 1985
Mr. Kevin Gaily
City of Dublin Planning Department "
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin; CA 94568
Re: Villages at Alamo Creek PA 85-041.1 &.2
Notice of Prepartion of a DEIR
Dear Kevin:......
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Notice of Preparation of a DEiR for the
above referenced project. The documents submitted appear to be of adequate scope to allow
preparation of either a DEiR or as a basis for consideration of mitigation measures sufficient to
warrant a Negative Declaration. Several areas of the'lnitial.Study which we feel should be given
additional emphasis would appear to warrant preparation of an EIR:-•These are=areas follows.
1). Traffic: given the magnitude of the project, projEvted extremely'low svrvica levels at
Dougherty Roed and 1-580, at Dublin Boulevard and Yille,-e Perkway and the exclusion
from the STIP of additional 1-680 freeway mss within the City of Dublin,we believe
that project related or cumulative traffic impacts on Alcorta Boulevard and at the kJ
Alcosta/1-680 interchange will not be potentially negligible as indicated in the Initial
Study. Convehient axes to 1-680 for future residents will be available via;a) Amador
Yalley Blvd./Stegecoach_Rd./Alcosta Blvd.; b) Dougherty Valley Rd./Old Ranch Rd./Alccsta
Blvd., c) Amador Valley Blvd./Village Parkway/Alcsta Blvd.
Therefore, during periods when other points to on/off ramps of 1-680 are operating
below service level '•D'• for northbound and southbound traffic,we expect the service
level of Alccsta Boulevard to be affected by the project. It would be appropriate to
the magnitude of that impact, especially considering development of properties
immediately to the north in the City of San Ramon and sphere will also use Alxsta
Boulevard for freeway access.
2). Yisual Impacts: We believe the analysis in the initial Study to be correct regarding
impacts rESUltino from development on the east facing slopes of the property. The Initial
Study hints that an appropriate mitigation my be the location of open space surrounding
areas subject to mass grading. We encourage further exploration of alternatives to the
proposed site plan and residential land use mix as one method of mitigating potential
OCT. 2.5 196b
)UBllN PLANNING
'Y^+...ya�;•�'+y..ft� -c. :?.,�'v n..a��s isy.,-�+;.ry t ..x::....r.!..� '-, Hrr"i.s a.---^�`�.,..J.+W.-?.?,-n cy ";Yx.,vr»%.�'yp•�}e'rie.•-wx. '-•� s yrf-7'1`.�tiw`.ri.- tom.:. t ...,, ,r.. ..,.
`t
`.' i - � 7 r '' v Y ,. _ •Jig ,�i s?•.� ?4Y�yr.��,�,!tr c`. s`y .` , •
r 5 .s. .+ t r . t'r j,,•,Fr•x f..ti, . r ,� r•S; �sit •- t t,� f
aJ.k.,�? �r+•.t" -
r- r - V •. "'. �w J,� � \ r,sr h..n., 'S>
-_ 1 ��',�.'`•� , >. .. t - _
1' „ s 2 ...a .•. ��' .. \ T f<.:'_ �. tw v?�F. 5i8{ 'h.2 ""...,,.fi7
{! x!� 5 „ t il:,,,-�y"� rreb.'\}4. .y.,+ '.+-.{s••:'++'xf.'1n.• •�•d`Y'fr'L xRf+4a +• +�j^caryMu St.AY ?5 �5r '�,,.`-• -G...''s^JS•i'ua+3n.7 yy,.w �. t r
•C r•Yi+`'7. CiM F - 1 / Y. •i ]i.s�' `J,F t.X .�_ s. N' 2+ Fa...,•.-,r ..K'y X !v �.^.y....^• ^^� .x'•�P".sysa''+"sk"^",7'aTn•"3'.� '�.t. .�'''tir#••c+s,+s5 5 Y"`.rs.4.c ..•°•4"u.+'. ' t ^'S,t`-"•^'a�`^.-'S'F"•!'� _°-+�•-^.t•J'
{ r t y tr. 4 .1 1tc?•,�3?�'t', .,. l Y t�. AY ._ Y � � ,,mot y�f; tj.FrA rr L,F
�:.�Nhn f!'"."'r•'^'�f.� PS"- •r 1 1 4fV"4 :: C• J V�'{�i`+ yv.C'.rTZ"�LTr,��'�"�;' �"-'Lx',p.r-{�$''''"iF' t"*s'a�lrrb sr^r,r ti.�-L •g;hd<-.>t�j�CT�}-�rr rJ,4t'-.0 e.rtcq�
. .-_ ., . ..:...... :y. 3... -...:.. ...... ..:.. �v.�-A/tw:C2�.,;FS ,,.2"�..s...___.. .- _ .t ..ws�`➢.'„_;:1........- ro'yS'...t.i\x_ ,try.,oN. ...... .. .. _ -._-... .r...r. ,. ..
�k
/'- �.
r ,
Kevin Gaily
October 24, 1985
Page 2
adverse visual impacts resulting from construction on and below the east facing slopes of
-the property. We consider this approach especially critical given that the subject
property serves as the gateway to the undeveloped Dougherty Yalley, the majority of
which is located within the City of San Ramon sphere and designated planning area.
We are extremely concerned regarding the precedential and thus,cumulative, effect the
proposal will have on the type, quality and quantity of development within areas of
interest to San Ramon. In this red, and within the limits established by applicable
Dublin General or Specific Plens,vie encourage an exploration of design alternatives to the
proposed plan. For example, in village 5, we suggest arditional mitigation measures
including redesign of the subdivision within the villeoe to include a greater use of short
blacks and laps,cul-de-sa cs, intermediate landsc--pe islands,split roadways, tree
: . planting easements, requirements of the�ieloper for forestation of areas within the
aastern most portion of yards and intense planting of all exposed cut and fill slopes.
Within villzees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 we encourage visible and obvious intrusions of open spaw
within these higher density areas linking perimeter,creek and hillside epee space are.'s-
3). Water: As you knm`i, this portion of Alamo Creek is at the base of a largo drainage s/stam.
As far as we can predict, proposed modification a,ppezrs adequate given the level of
potential upstream improvement to the creek itlf. As we have discussed previously,the
City of San Ramon will be attempting to pr°serve and enhance the creek as an open channel
integrated with surrounding open spy areas. However, there is potential for long term
impacts on future residents of the project resulting from the location of the project and
the high probability of significant development upstream. Mme attempt should be me to
address these issues through a discussion of the width and depth of the channel and the 'type
and location of channel improvements relative to anticipated chancres in flow velocity and
volumes due to upstream development.
Thew are impacts on future residents of the subdivision. However, as pre';iousiy stated,
the project will likely s-crve as a prece~ ent for cw_ nent of properties jacent to and
north of the propose-i subdivision. Given that pre_z.nt, cumulative impacts on water
qualifi/ and creek habitat,we reammend an E1R be prepared eddrev sing 'these points.
Wildlife: analysis of cumulative effects on wildlife should be prepared in the same fa^�hion
as we sues;.�st for water - considering areawide cumulative impacts.
5). As you are aware, the Citi s of San Ramon
and Dublin shire parks and recreation, fire and
sanitary sewer services through the Dublin San Ramon °wise District. The projertwill
require an expansion of these services in 2&idition to incrz.sas in the carrying capacity of
water services, incr � in police services and expansion of school facilities. The
relationship between increases in service c parity to acammcdate this project and any
resulting growth inducements in the area north of the project should be addressed. The
potential for shared fc�iliiies within the Dougherty Valli/should be a dressed as to the
nature and size of facilities anticipated to be developed to serve the project.
t ; ✓s' ra }`.y , _;` .3 rt 1�:y� !`<� Y�1r' y L .i Y' SAS ! -- i
ro .o:a.l 'E.r;r y. � ra 4 f n f "* a ,^",. 1 U af''1'a.•'S.r'4.�-at'.v:w �S' p a A+s-•r+-•� ^r✓ } >- � . ., ,
.v
11„
r -
Kevin Gaily
October 24, 1985
Page 3
Finally, in order to aid in the evaluation of potential impacts and respective mitigation
measures,we recommend that studies be summarized and packaa-J within a Draft E1R for our
review. Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact me at 866-141 1.
S.inc--rely,
B rian-Foucht
A=iate P lanner
BF/mc .017
.-. .'�. af•" airy.7� r-'"w %—A
City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 866-1400
_ F E g
February i2, 11386
City of Dublin _
P lannino Commission
P.O. Box 23,10
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: PA85-041.i and .2 - Planned DEr/elopment
Rafanelli and Nahes
Derr Gomm issicrers:
This office has no comment on the proposed project, other than our earlier eamments, especially
rec ing traffic. From the c�ata or�nted, we are unable to evaluate claims that there will be
negligible impcct on Z'Sen RaTon street traffic volumes. For example, no trip distribution
a✓sumptions ere presented in the b uments to substantiate the claim of "negligible" impact or,
AlrJsta Bouievard or the Alta/1-680 interchange. We would t a final c�termination of no
environmental sianifiearnee. if this ininrmatic�n .,:z orovick LRed indic?t tr.e le�;el of imo :
ant—Ui��, inIitial study) _ .
Finally.plans show minimal setback along the City's boundary line and, in one , gredin9 is
shown off site within the City of 8°n Ramon: it is our request that all grading be shown within
Dublin City limits, and that an approoriate ler9�ped setback be establishes Slcng the north
property bounLry - 30' or a of landscaped setback would be apprbpriate.
Sincerely,
Brian Foucht
d, fate Planner
BF/me
b.
.OE1
1
_ r
. r s
... ti
i
r
i asl�' � a�4;r�.i�ii hL-'�'R`�� e^e'wrY?a�'�.''>.'l„i�Y,.`�.�sr-'`��t• a�• SL�--.s�.f..1=n�fi �".s7^'3��' °.%,4 � t' J t''. ._
��.r,£cru_ "�n:L=r.;p� r �-.,�_ ?:Xw i•t•!� sr �d.-1��,'S�i •.. wN.� r�:. �: � r 1 -'�'
{,.°_c::iv�',�_". � ._-.t.._a�-? r :x»•a:`t...+..«r is`�� �.v..y f L �• 1 t
i :ti �•>+`.��! ):—L•.i�2-'... i:3'.L 4a•L•"1+.-`�. `,�' k r'-1 '�' a s ��` _ ... _.
y + CITY ®F '-.P1EASANT0N
P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON,-CALIFORNIA 94566-0802.
t� s►�;'
Ar
.. o
NN E13
_y OFFICES February 28 , 1986
0 OLD BERNAL AVE. R C C I= 17 E D
'Y COUNCIL
17-8001 - MAR 3 .1986!
,"Y MANAGER Mr. Larry L. Tong
17-8008 Planning Director
rY ATTORNEY DUBLIN PLANNING
37-8003 City of Dublin
DANCE 6500 Dublin Boulevard
47-8033 P. O. Box 2340
RSONNEL Dublin, CA 94568
47- M 2
A- Dear Larry:
47-4023 3023
IGINEERING
47-8G41 Thank you for sending me a copy of the draft mitigated
JILDING INSPECTION negative declaration for the Villages at Alamo Creek.
47-8015
IMMUNITY SERVICES
47-8160 The City of Pleasanton has several .concerns regarding
the project ' s impact on traffic at the intersection of
ELD SERVICES Dougherty Road and I-580. In order to justify a
,33sSUNOLBLVD. negative declaration, these impacts, both direct and
kRyS
A7-8 osb cumulative, must be mitigated. Mitigation measures
A7-8056 7-a
kNITARY SEWER appear to be feasible to eliminate both cumulative and
s47-8061 direct impacts, but we are concerned that not all
MEETS feasible mitigation measures necessary to eliminate
347-8-066 adverse impacts have been included in the project.
'ATER _
147-8071
-According to the environmental assessment, the project,
ARE in addition to existing traffic and other' approved
�448RAILR°v4Rr) developments, will generate Level of Service D on the �,��
westbound ramp and as high as Level of Service F on the ! °I
7 '.
OLICF eastbound ramp of the Hopyard-Dougherty/I=580
4833 BERNAL AVE.
847-8127 intersection. These Levels of Service represent a
significant increase in existing traffic levels . In
addition, long-range traffic projections conducted by
a traffic consulting firm, TJKM, have shown the need
for an arterial roadway connecting the proposed
' Hacienda Drive/I-580 intersection .to Dougherty Road
near the location of the proposed project. This
mitigation relies on the construction of the Hacienda
Drive/I-580 interchange. The City of Pleasanton would
like to see the developers of the project contribute to
the mitigation of increased traffic at these critical
intersections .
As .you know, the City of Pleasanton has established the
North Pleasanton Improvement District which will result
in significant improvements to the Dougherty/I-580
interchange, . Dougherty Road between I-580 and Dublin
Boulevard, and the Hacienda Drive/I-5080 interchange.
1 1 J } t F•'r. .. 4
ZeNrut.l y.}ry.yrYt +rv7) !}K4-i'a-'4 w/L •�f !•' i•e} u. -..
1.a a 4
f
�1t� �rr.j.� rt i L �r1 n talvY. 1[f�r v.a �-;. r r.'w
L' ( .4 jX,}, , `♦ vD< r ! y-.+ f 4 i )
}ti.. �" i , Yl �i Cr'+^i"~y,,,"'� it v `(� 'r%.ra!7:y rhl KT•+.1 Ya1 ^J7-c's1'ii�tt,r ,_'•y • ' '!i �._r ' ),.1 r ti
� .2,T �� 1 +vJ,.LJ U1 f.�� )`F�.- ti`�.Yr�rµt.�Y;.f,.:tiia:;.1•:n1-.?�:Vlr:f) 'a`!�r/r .1,...�)Pr•"7: � ,�`.�r-..fu:.. r` .l,.sY:f .a .,`y -T �i�r i
'.J•t�:r. -.M L fY�`a-_.,r,.'.h.F,r+,• 'f1yt�'.i ^' .t.,,,�;ry .��^^�� ;.ir.��'C'S 4' t, za.•... ;:, .i t-u r ..�.. is>"iS '•.vr f�i..a'r, • "� x.�i 4�+.
i�'i'�p-%r�`.�r1�i`..:a., ,p.M �?�sr,�:,.{.iYa r :ic�^."'•ft.ci1Li'L�F,.��yi.;?t.;rat au�r. .,�...�..,rr.� _•�'r% ..._-'t'L-✓_�-•-,..-'Y.x�r:.:.. ,�lzt t
�Y':.,�»t: °y:•�i'v, f4� ,;4g�, °,• ,'rl,%`.:r+1:tyRlia,..,'F•�•? Y�..,i;:-c�;.y�;t'v;�..�.yr';G(Y'�,t;tj�3p +K')yr•_y�. _`.�. r �•i3-w-•.L.,..k�+� `�'t.�;�^s:�•,;.;:M;,-:; �.rc�^i`t:: +rG�.�+
.'•St„-i^.^.. ...� 7 'r ,yn 1 1 � +Y � )ti.Y!'v '")A � 'Gfi✓ T .•J r r � Y .s..t t r.- �-`'i .1, 4.
i s 1 r a't)Y :/ }• � r�L. r e a ...• '"7, A 4 f j `r� .t r s .r
)C y,��F� r.,. ..'rr....��.4 r ,.r4,,S i•� ) e: ,.5.n.v..,. �'""�.:f �'-t;+e .f -, `r��r"`i�s#���,+••vr.`•_r+�a.- •a
ti 1- �'•j Y rtr .�,t•r+cie 2"'kx�';r)'}`};`���.'s'v{L y�`...`-�{ .t5_.1.:'�y.)h?'w,Y�w.S '*?jyF'Yy^.,*r'�'f�wr;p.`a�'.,`'^4�T�C'R..., •'�"-' '::�,"a k h�:t-}+� .K���'^'r'q `F is-r a'... ..1 +- .7 !vti,^+-�s�s�:* t i _ ..
'k, .et' s :•'':n .f �? L-..a..:TES .'SI.S +r. Tl. a-. F_ .r.... I_ �,.. h' r`...'Ft�'
.. ., 'L w.r_. ;'!�. .. a =^_ ...Ji.. t.. ..:�'. �: v.�... �-sa• .��Y� _�`.,5, C ;�_..'i:.:'G� �5�� .F !, ...,�.;`.�....:tr,. .-
i
Because of. ..the -,contribution. of the VillagV'Fs' pr`oject�t`o
therneed for these improvements, the city of Pleasanton'
would like to suggest that the project applicants
contribute on a pro rata basis to the finding of these
improvements . I suggest that a mitigation measure be
agreed to by the Developer, and made a condition of
approval which would subject this project to
participate on a pro rata basis for the Hopyard
Road/I-580 interchange improvements, including the
Dougherty Road improvements, and the Hacienda
Drive/.1-580 interchange, including the street extension
between Hacienda Drive and Dougherty Road.
I believe that large projects such as this should
contribute to needed roadway improvements to improve
traffic circulation throughout the Tri-Valley area . To
imply, as your draft mitigated negative declaration
does , that such a large project has no cumulative
traffic impact, or that that impact need not be
mitigated , is surely contrary to good planning sense
and, possibly, to the requirements of CEQA.
I look forward to working, with your staff to come �o an
agreeable solution which will enable the City of Dublin
to accommodate traffic generated by this and other
projects in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity of responding, to the
negative declaration.
Sincerely yours ,
Brian W. Swift
Director of. Planning and
Community Development
cldublin
l
j
z :r• .... ... .- _..- ..r+• ..x31'+.-,.-'t y7 t.�'R ru. (^, 4r- y... .;,- r .^rr r. '
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
O.FF10E -OF � PL'ANNING' AND RESEARCH -
1A00 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 "
(larch 3, 1986
Kevin Gailey
Dublin City
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: The Villaae at Alamo Creel,
SCHn 85091009
De'a;.. Mr. Gailey:
Zee State Clearinghouse submitt-ed the above named proposed Negative
Declaration to selected state agencies for review. T`ie review period is
closed and the cO Anents Of the individual agency(ies) iS(are) enclosed.
Also, on the enclosed Notice or Completion, the Clearirlvricuse has chec'cel
which agencies have commented. Please r-,,"- r the Notice of Cemoieticn to
ensure that your cCI!T::ent paCkaoe is complete. If t.e packa�--e is not in
order, please notify the State Clearinghouse i:-reaiaLely. Your eight ui�it
State Clearira.ouse nunber shouiu be used so that we may respond pr cmptly.
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or
other public agency shall Only hake substantive cormiients on a project w:riich
are '.�thin the area of the agency's eY;ertise or 'rlhich relate t0 aCtl'Titie�
WhiCi t a ae n Cy I,��S� carry out or approve. (A3�583> Ch. 1514
w St rs
>
X984. )
lnese CCi=ents are for';iarded for your use in adopting your Negative
If a e information l z ri i o__ t• �eqs" you
Declaration. Il you need rror., i_-„rm_tien or c_�._f_c��.,�an we sL��•_��� „u
contact the ccru-renting agency at your earliest convenience.
�,-- el �1y1 1 i .a 9-16/445-0613 'L ycu rave any questions
Plea S2 CO!1t?Ct :�.,��ya �' _--a=1 at
regar' _ng the envirc=ental review process.
a_r,
Sincerely,
Jonn B. Ghanian
Chief Deputy Director
0f fi ce of Planning and Fesearc'ri
cc: ReSOUrC°S Agency
Enclosures
”
To Pamela Milligan February 26 , 1986
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street , Room 121 Fle Ala SSO PM 19 . 86
Sacramento , CA 95814 SCH-85091009
AL 580097
From CE.'ARTME?4T OF Ts;ZA.NSPOP-Tw4T)CN — 4
Subie-c-: Negative Declaration for the Villages at Alamo Creek
Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced project and forwards
the following comments :
1 . The statement on pace 30 tnat traffic impacts on the I-680/
Alcosta interchange will be negligible should be corroborated
with projected traffic volumes _ Mention should be made on
L�
what modeling method will be used to distribute and project
trips generated by proposed developments in the San Ramon
valley, around Crow Canyon Road .
2 . The traffic volumes on .which the V/C ratios shown on Table 3
are based should be shown in ciagramatic forms for the ram_os
intersections with surface roads at the I7580,'Dougherty/
Hopyard and I-680/Alcosta interchanges and for all three
scenarios .
3 . Four of the 24 pairs of V/C ratios for "txLstinc + Project"
condition. shown on Table 1 of Appendix D and on Table 3 do
not agree . The discrepancy should be corrected or explained .
Is there a mistake in the data for lntersZCtiO?1 L2 on Table 3
page_ 39? The V C numbers show �',aL "'Exist Project _ l �,°"-• �
roj _c 1 1 Ilk
t
approved CUmulative;' (E+P+AC) has a more severe impact on "�• '
the intersection than "Exist + Project + BU11dOUt Cumulative
(E---, P-, BC) during the AM peak hour . Shouldn ' t E+P+BC be higher
than E+P+AC?
Should you have any Questions regarding these comments , please
contact Peter Estacio of my staff at ( 415 ) 557-2423 _
IV
WALLACE J - RO/HBA-F T- ` ��� �- t— V
District CEQA Coordinator FEB 2 71986
hi n-
c--
-
Response to Comments Wagstaff and Brady
City of Uob||n '� ` � � -� .� '. .`� ` Page. / - _
,
-
RESPONSES TO AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE NOTICE OF
PREPARATION OF AN E|R OR ON THE EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY FOR
THE VILLAGES 'AT /\LAA4(} CREEK -
-
`
Written comments submitted by the following agencies on the Notice of
Preparation of on E!R or on the Expanded Initial Study in letter or
rncrnorondunn form within the review. period ore'reuponded to in this
'memorandum:
i ' Boy Area Air Quality Management District; Milton Feldstein, Air
Pollution Control Officer, October 7, 1985.
2' Contra [oufu County Community Development Department; James
Cutler, Chief, Comprehensive Planning, October 22 1985,
3' Arnodor-Pleasanton Public School District-, Buster R. kAoCurtoin,
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, February 5� 1986'
4' State of California Department of Fish and Game; Brion Hunter'
Regional Manager, Region 3' February 24. 1986. �
A ACHME .1 7:
N .
N i
9�
�
`
Response to Comments Wagstaff and Brady
The Villages at Alamo Creek March 12, 1986
City of Dublin Page. 2
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
A. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Comment I . The District recommends that the DEIR contain a candid
qualitative and quantitative description of the project's air quality
impacts. The agency describes pollutants of concern as carbon monoxide,
reactive organic compounds, and particulates, and recommends a procedu:
for analyzing the air quality impacts of the project, and for identifying
mitigation measures.
Response I . The Expanded Initial Study analyzes air quality impact
according to procedures recommended by the District, including
predictions of carbon monoxide concentrations related to federal and s c ?
standards, and regional impacts resulting from emissions of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and suspended particulates.
Mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts are identified, and
include roadway improvements, trip reduction mechanisms, and particulate
control. The applicant will be responsible for implementing these
measures.
Comment 2. The District recommends that the air quality analysis
address cumulative impacts of other approved or proposed development in
the project area.
Response 2. The Expanded Initial Study has not addressed the cumulc-iiVe
air quality impacts of other development. The city anticipotes obou-1 300
to 320 new housing units citywide within the next three years, and no
other major development projects within the city in the vicinity of ;he
Villages project.
B. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Comment I . The County identified the following issues for discussion in
the environmental assessment:
I) the question of public safety; specifically the location of a residen-
tial project adjacent to a military installation, which may result in
dangers to children;
2) the availability of sewer services to serve the project;
3) the issue of increased noise levels; specifically the ability of the
project to meet interior` noise standards, the effect on use of
J.
Response to Comments Wagstaff and Brady
The Villages at Alamo Creek March 12, 1986
City of Dublin Page 3
outdoor recreational facilities and general liveability, and the
military's responsibility for implementing noise mitigation measures;
and
4) cumulative traffic impacts which are not mitigated by roadway
improvements for this project.
Response I . The ,Expanded Initial Study addresses issue #2 in Chapter X.,
Municipal Services and Facilities, Section B, Sewer Service, pages 52-54,
and has concluded that although sewer service capacity is limited within
the Dublin-San Remon Service District, the District does not anticipate
difficulty in serving the project. Issue #3 is addressed in Chapter IX,
Noise, page 45-49. Impact conclusions are that the annual CNEL will be
below the city of Dublin's outdoor noise criteria (CNEL of 60 dB) for
residential development; however, it is likely that there will be occasions
when complaints may be received by the city and by the Army during
periods of high activity at Camp Parks, when maximum noise levels will
reach 70 dBA. It is recommended that prospective purchasers or resi-
dents of the proposed project should be supplied with a written document
indicating that sound levels of up to 70 dBA may be generated.
Interior noise criteria are expected to be met. Sound-rated windows
(Sound Transmission Class 27) for all multi-family dwelling units will
reduce traffic noise impacts and to meet Title 24 multi-family housing
requirements.
The U. S. Army has indicated a willingness to coordinate with the city in
mitigating identified noise impacts. This issue is addressed in Section C,
Mitigation, page 49 of the Expanded Initial Study.
Issue # 1 was not addressed in the Expanded Initial Study, as it was
considered not to be a significant issue. Camp Parks is inaccessible -to
the public, and enclosed by a security fence around its perimeter. !t ,Vill
also be separated from the proposed project by a bermed and landscaped
buffer along the east side of Dougherty Road.
Issue #4 is addressed in Chapter VII, Traffic and Circulation, pages 29-
28. Measures for mitigation of cumulative impacts are identified on page
37 and 38.
C. AMADOR-PLEASANTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Comment I . The School District expresses concern recording the n_ege'tive
impact of the proposed project on Dublin High School, when combined
with the possible future need for redirection of City of Pleasanton
students to Dublin High School. The District states that it has
experienced larger student yield in moderately-priced housing units than
higher priced housing units.
:.. .. _
Response to Comments Wagstaff and Brady
The Villages at Alamo Creek March 12, 1986
City of Dublin Page .4
Response I . The City has estimated that between 300 and 320• new
housing units, in addition to the proposed project, will be built -out within
the next three year period, and that land is not available for other major
new residential projects within the present city limits of Dublin.
In order to determine more accurately the generation rate of school age
children for multi-family rental housing, an informal survey was con-
ducted of representative projects in the Bay Area. The results indicate
that average generation rate is .08 children per household.
The following table shows the project name and location, number of
bedrooms, and children of each project surveyed. The telephone survey
was conducted on February- 25, 1986. The survey does not provide
breakdowns• by age group, although a substantial percentage (25 percent
to 50 percent) are thought by resident managers to be pre-school age
children. The Amador Lakes project did have breakdowns of children by
age group, as shown on page 52 of the Expanded Initial Study. The
generati.on rate for high school students for the Amador Lakes project is
.02 students per unit.
Based on this survey, it can be concluded that the generation rate of .08
is higher than the generation rate for high school students only. If it is
assumed that half of this generation rate represents high school students,
the multi-family units in the proposed project would generate a maximum
of 41 students (1019 units x generation rate of .04 students per multi-
family housing unit). This number, combined with 146 students from the
single-family housing (146 units x generation rate of I student/single-
family housing unit) would produce a maximum number of high school
students of 187.
If a more moderate generation rate for high school students of .02
students per multi-family housing unit were used, the maximum number of
students generated by the project would be 20 for the multi-family units,
combined with 146 for the single-family units, for a total of 166 units.
The range of 166' to 186 high school students would represent from 18
percent to 20 percent of the remaining capacity of the Dublin High
School.
D. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Comment I . The Department of Fish and Game has determined that., as a
result of the substantial loss of riparian habitat, this project will result
in significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if this
proposal is. implemented as proposed, and that a focussed DEIR should be
prepared.
. ...�,:.:,;.r._:.rt mt m:+i.•-.I x. .:M- irw�?aii'_v:.•<`a �-;t �'' ..x T- .�i :)u':,': - ��, .,., ...
1
'�4I ✓.A4 x 1S:� .,,� 7q1"[ .1. � t1 � �i.. .ie,JR... +1s`:•-•s... �}•l �'+}•fn.d �•'h k.•. ,n . � .,K
`t i tsf
� t
� v
Project One Two Three Total Total
Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Studio Units Children
Description
r� t1�, K ,`• Amador Lakes
8105 N. Lake Drive i r
--- 555 51 �c
Dublin, CA 160 395
x r t •' t a ,
r Cedar Pointe S
--- ---
ti Dublin, CA 124 124 248 25 ot�
t
The Springs*
88 88 176 45 Dublin, C A t'
f
�,a
ay t _ 31
Beach Cove 'ill:($ !
"f
703 Catamaran xj @x
Foster City, CA 256 160 --- --- 416 19 'tti;f�
t
Birchwood
---
96
1230 Henderson Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 96 96 --- 192 IS
Cherry Hill
902 W. Remington Drive 92 114 34 4 224 37 t
�� t` Sunnyvale, CA ! s
`view
Club
,, ,a Syr
'k+i i't�»f 4 t 849 'i'/. Orange Avenue
' n •!�'y �. South Son Francisco, CA 75 27 --- --- 102 3
-S+ > 4� >: ,t,� .. ; •�4` �,6271(1
tip t aY tU}tT:N•+ �; i t�{ f
t�,, r '► 4 , : ,' * The Springs Apartments has approximately 45 children, estimated to be about one-Third , S
v �'+ preschool, on
elementary, and one-third junior high and high school. The number `
€� ).
of children per unit in The Springs is approximately three times the overall rate for
other multifamily projects in the survey. This may be due to the fact that The Springs
allows four occupants per two-bedroom unit versus three occupants per two-bedroom unit r r
which is the standard requirement for most multifamily projects. In addition, The
Springs has been operated under the HUD 221(dM Program which controls the rents f
which can be charged by a project. Currently, the rents at The Springs ore $600 per
i, ,r Ft.. . month for a one-bedroom and $695 per month for a two-bedroom, which is approximately
t V Ys,
$100 per month below the rents at either Cedar Pointe or Amador Lakes.
'i Ts �• R o ' .`,,� t 1�
N
Project One Two Three Total Total 5
Bedroom Bedroom Studio Units Children J
c,--:.•. .: Bedroom _
Description
.i Colonial Gardens '��
41777 Grimmer Boulevard "ttJ'z
Fremont, CA --- 48 --- --- 48 3 I
Del Prado t
5196 Golden Road
Pleasanton, CA 40 54 --- --- °.4 7
Foir Ooks West
s? _ 655 S. Fair Oaks Avenue
r Sunnydale, CA 510 214 2 40 766 48
French Village
641 Old Country Road
Belmont, CA 25 66 17
---
108 9
Cf'lµY'rtC i Y'-CZ •.
Green Point "
"� 641 War Burton Avenue 10 ___ 184 36
Santa Clara, CA 144 ,e
R hi
TJ Greenwood
7323 Starword Drive
--
-
22 38 --- 60 8 t
Dublin, CA ,
"
Lincoln Glen
laj
150 E. Remington Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 54 20 --- 38 1 12 3
Sand Cove
777 Shell Boulevard t
r, +•,,•, :4 Foster City, CA 152 152 --- 40 3 44 24
s
Y.a+:
j
,t )
{
,
it i
df
r
° a yeti o�f4•t .' < Y r:, •'
A 3 t••C i s r,l .� i _
U
'i i
r'•
Project One Two Three Total Total ;.
t
Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Studio Units. Children
k'. Description
> 3 M
fit: c. Shadow Cove a
:1h r 3 1055 Foster City Boulevard 16 164 9 i I
---
Foster City, CA 74 74 t 1
!
Shadow Oaks
Y; e $ . �• 530-A Civic Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 72 52 --- 40 164 5
Sharon Green
350 Sharon Park Drive
4!
2 24 --- 296 12
t ec��t c r Menlo Pork, CA 66 06
� , Volley Green
20875 Volley Green Drive SO 468 50 r
' '
City, CA ISb 226 36
228 11,72 1 401
2 194 113
TOTALS 2,206 ,
Number of children per multifamily unit
�
b
5 �
• If3 l 4. r �
1.'[ S 4. dal r f .f , _ • i
••YY22 1 I,P) 1, � � 1 �
.I
awl: --��`Z✓,�. t r.c y�. ,:_- 3 {
S`�J
� � t
1
Response to Comments Wagstaff and Brady
The Villages at Alamo Creek March 12, 1986
City of Dublin Page 8
Response I. The Revised Draft Report on Botanical and Wildlife
Resources of the Proposed Alamo Creek Villages Project Area, Dublin,
California, prepared by Phillip Leitner and Barbara Malloch Leitner, June
12, 1985 was used as a basis for the description of biological resources
and projected impacts in the Expanded Initial Study. The report des-
cribed the rip-arion habitat as follows: "in a regional perspective...the
riparian strip along this section of Alamo Creek is a somewhat degraded
example of this habitat type...ln a number of areas the trees are scat-
tered and do not form a continuous canopy cover along the creek.
Downcutting by the creek in historic times has undermined the banks and
resulted in the loss of trees. There is little shrub understory and little
tree regeneration, probably because of browsing by livestock over many
years. As a result, wildlife diversity and abundance are not as high as
would be found in better-developed riparian forest. A number of typical
riparion forest wildlife species are apparently not present. The riparian
fauna here is generally made up of the most common and widespread
species, especially those that are most tolerant of human disturbance."
(Expanded Initial Study, pages 23 and 24)
The report identified the loss of riparian habitat through creek
realignment and grading as a significant impact which could be mitigated
by replacement of the habitat through intensive revegetation of
indigenous species along the creek banks. (Mitigation measure 2.c. 1-9,
Expanded Initial Study, pages 27 and 28) recommends a revegetation
effort on all reconstructed channel banks, with specific requirements to
foster habitat replacement.
In order to fully mitigate the loss of riparian habitat, which is most
concentrated at the edges of the creek bottom near the water, it would
be necessary to plant shrubs with high wildlife value on the lower
channel slopes (Mitigation measure 2. c. 2) within the flood control
channel, an area within the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Flood
Control District. Lists of appropriate plant species to be used in this
revegetation program are included in the report referenced above. The
Flood Control District requires that all revegetation programs also meet
District maintenance requirements. Mitigation measure 2.c.8 requires
that the revegetation plan be approved by the Flood Control District.
!;} f iY?.:Y.e{ i14+:,ri-'ff ri ..'!ih rte. '11 yl.i .-.4l..a' ..r ... w _ ..lt... •..-L..: 'F•...'. 4 h....u ,i-
a
,
P
\ 1
- t 1• - _ {l
rt –
{ , . ti Yr 'i> ,p. 1fi,.l�crl. >. .� ++�v—•v.•.:..,.:.r 1 rry{`i,y'v (,.. �`�'r.E-r l! L.� .: , •. + sF• ...+ N i,.-' + V Jf F – .
F
IPA,
-,QUALITY...MANAG.EMENT-DISTRICT-......
....-BAYAREA-AIR
October 7, 1985
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Edward R.Campbell
Shirley J.Campbell City of Dublin
Fred F Cooper Planning Department
Frank H.Ogawa
(Vice Chairperson) P .O. Box 2340
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Dublin, CA 94568
Sunne Wright McPeak
MARIN COUNTY' Attn : Laurence Tong
Al Aramburu Planning Director
(Secretary)
NAPA COUNTY Dear Mr. Tong :
Harold I.Moskowite
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY We have received the Notice of, Preparation of a Draft EIR
Harry G.Britt
Carol Ruth Silver for the Villages at Alamo Creek . The proposed project would
(Chairperson) consist of 1,165 dwelling units and a convenience food store on a
SAN MATEO COUNTY 100-acre site located west of Dougherty Road between Amador
Gus J.Nicolopulos Valley Boulevard and the Alameda County li-ne .
K.Jacqueline Speier
SANTA CLARA COUNTY We recommend that the DEIR contain a candid qualitative and
Rod Diridon
Ralph P.Doetsch.Sr. quantitative description of the project 's air quality impacts .
Roberta H.Hughan All pollutants which may be emitted from the project itself or
Susanne Wilson from project-generated vehicular traffic should be analyzed .
SOLANO COUNTY
Osby Davis
SONOMA I The vehicle-generated pollutants of concern .are carbon
COUNTY
Helen B.Rudee monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and particulates . Calcu-
lations of particulates should include those resuspended from
roads by vehicles and , separately, particulates caused by
construction activities.
We suggest the following process for analyzing the air 2,�
quality impacts of the project :
1 . Describe the existing land uses of the project site 'and
its vicinity in regard to air quality concerns . In
particular, note the location and emissions of direct
sources of air pollutants and airborne hazardous
materials and the location of sensitive receptors,
including residential areas, schools, hospitals, nursing
homes, playgrounds, parks, and recreation facilities.
2 . Calculate worst-case air pollutant emission's from the
project and due to project-generated traffic .
3 . Consider mitigation measures to reduce the air quality
impacts of the project. Useful references are "Local
Go-vernment Guide to Project Mitigation and Other
Improvement Measures for Air Quality, " BAAQMD, 1983
Draft; "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments,
R E C E I Y E D Section V, " California Air Resources Board, 1983; and
OCT 111985'
DUBLIN PLANNING
939 ELLIS STREET 4 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 (415) 771-6000
p
w.
7:o
7.
Z.-
rwaftra
rJ
t^
City of Dublin
October 7, 1985
Page 2
"The Traffic Mitigation Reference Guide, " Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, 1984. Commitments to imple-
menting proposed mitigation measures should be iden-
tified. Mitigation measures to reduce traffic and air
pollutant emissions should be incorporated into the
project to reduce any negative impact it may have on the
environment and to help the Bay Area attain and maintain
the State and federal ambient air quality standards .
Where mitigation measures may significantly reduce local
concentrations of carbon monoxide, we recommend that
reductions be quantified .
4. Estimate maximum ambient carbon monoxide concentrations
at points or areas of maximum air quality impact and at
sensitive receptors . The estimated concentrations should
be calculated for 1-hour and 8-hour averaging times. For
projects attracting over 3000 vehicles per day, we
recommend the model CALINE3 to estimate motor vehicle
carbon monoxide impacts . For smaller projects, some
simplified modeling techniques are contained in the
publication "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Analysis
of Projects , " available from the BAAQMD. Be sure to add
the appropriate background concentration to the estimated
locally generated concentration and to explain the sourc-
or the rationale for the background level selected.
5 . Compare the total projected carbon monoxide concentra-
tions with State and federal air quality standards.
When other development is approved or proposed in the
vicinity of the project, we recommend that the air quality
analysis also evaluate cumulative development impacts on air
quality.
Current data from District air monitoring stations are
enclosed . If we can be of assistance, please contact Jean
Roggenkamp, the Planner in our office .
Sincerely,
R E C E l V ED
Milton Feldstein
.00T 111985 Air Pollution Control Off.icer
DUBLIN PLANNIN'3 MF: ce
Enclosure
r
Community Development Department COntra Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Community Development
Costa
County Administration Building, North Wing County
P.O. Box 951
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phone:372-2035
R E C E I V E D
OCT 28 1985
October 22, 1985 _ bUBLIN PLANNING
Mr. Kevin Gailey
City of Dublin
Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for an EIR on the Villages
of Alamo Creek project. I certainly concur that a project of this size and scale require the
preparation of a full-blown EIR.
As the covering memo from your department indicates, you have attached far more
information than usually is transmitted with such a Notice of Preparation. A difficulty with
an outside agency, such as ours, digging through so much material to try to determine the
validity of the conclusion reached is the total absence of maps (beyond to project
application submittal maps) which place the words into context. There is, however, no way
to tell if the requirements in those reports are agreed to in their entirety by the applicant or-.
if they solve the issue raised. With that as background, I won't try to comment further on
the details of those documents. I presume that they will be appropriately summarized in the
Draft EIR.
There were, however, several issues that need to be identified and discussed in the EIR. One
such issue is the whole question of public safety by allowing new residential uses directly
across the street from the Camp Parks Reserve Training Center. Watching soldiers at play
is exciting. The potential for the project residents children to tresspass on the base would ✓
need to be explored along with other safety issues when such a military base abuts adjacent
urban uses.
A second issue which the EIR should explore is the availability of sewer services to serve
this project. As I understand it, there is a short-term capacity problem. The competing
projects for the available capacity need to be identified rather than presumption that
service is available.
The noise analysis needs to consider the problem from both the point of view of meeting f'
interior noise standards as well as the affect of noise on the use of outside recreational
facilities and general liveability. The noise analysis material seems to suggest the military's �i-
responsibility to mitigate their noise. One cannot presume that the military will expend i
funds for that purpose.
K _
x
.. s -cwr''�t.i'+•cfir_ ���5a :� v,�.wtS� ��.-!'�Ya _ �. — v _ ..
... --t .• .. - fit.f. r _
2
Lastly, the traffic analysis report points out that at buildout situation the road improve-
ments may be insufficient to handle the problem. If this is the case, each developer,
regardless of who's jurisdiction it is in, should be required to help contribute to solutions.
For example, the traffic report identifies severe problems in our County at the intersection ��.•//
of Old Ranch and Dougherty Roads. The EIR should look toward outlining equitable
solutions such as off-site fees to offset their impacts.
As always,always, our staff will be available to work with your consultant on the EIR preparation
effort.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Community Development
�ames W. Cutler
Chief, Comprehensive Planning
AAD:7WC/mc4d
41 i
i'
f) J t
t ., ...• .;:•,:, ..,,.w.r )3•t?�'3^{�rl-�1FT wes { .»..sG a. � ll��fvw• ;a•n� r,.al. rr •-..�r�wr.a;-y�l-n....a:-3 �-•, rr..:i+lwr�sr�'.. •.r.�sa—.e-.,1:�.Y :. ..-,
s '
y '•i
:4
r t r�a.. L i t Y-"f_ c.>- ry '(` •: x�+, 4 r c r
- � . � >..�.1.h;. :+µ t Hat.R1� �.t. � 1(S;,F r A f- � ._-y�• ry-2 Z- r �5 r1 r.i.Y t
1Y 'Y ..^•.�'^�� � �)?�''�� :' t��. gC?•^�^, d �' 1 i `r .�G�� .t�^'- s.1. :�.;, r + t+' �F'y�.�s�l. �'. �
' a✓ i2,.1'.1 rt 1`��><' s +• j„rr Js-r�.ijF'��,. �..� ra,r. � � �i 1" r'y i -v.✓'` rye ? ;-
rf{w(+.ry'-x .yyt. T•tJ:��?J��+,�c�itiGk`.u7'd`rY�:r+"G��''�`.�'F��� !�S�"rv.ik'»'�� .'' �Y> '+`w'xi i�`��..Y>�.r4.ii_rrY.'� -4yy�"r„�rS"f'.t�'s�9 ArrT �f:c�r rw+.-m•s�` '- _
�, �C of z �w i r 'r.r>,N•d Y3r<> F' t 1y � r r. � � z f � �
2 � _
Amador-Pleasanton Public Schools
123- Mcin•Street:• Pleasanton; CA 94566-7388
(415) 462-5500
February 5, 1986 R E C E I V E ,D
FEB 1986.
DUBLIN PLANNING
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
After reviewing the expanded'study for the Villages at Alamo Creek and its impact on
the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, I have been directed to file the
following statement to you. With the growth that is occurring in the City of
Pleasanton over the next five years, it may be necessary for the school district to
direct some of those students to Dublin High School. This project could pose a
negative impact at Dublin High School since it appears to be moderately priced,
multiple and single family units. The school district has experienced larger student
yield in this type of housing rather than higher priced housing units.
Before the school district could give its approval to this project, we would need to see
the overall residential long term growth management projects projected to be built in
Dublin. It appears from the housing developments that are taking place in Dublin, that
we would need to begin to explore its long term affect on Dublin High School in order
that we may properly plan for adequate space to house the new students that would
result from the new growth.
Please mail to us your long term growth management projects in order that we may
make a final impact statement relative to your project.
Sincerely,
Buster R. McCurtain
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
30ARDS OF TRUSTEES
IMADOR
luanita Haugun,President BRM/bl
Jack Kendall,Clerk -
l.Jack Bras
=rank Damerval
David Melander
?LEASANTON
Ronald Olt,Ph.D.,President
dark Gunson,Clerk
Nancy Hawtrey
Dr.Bruce Merrill
Earnestlne Schneider
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr.Bill J.James Amador Valley Joint Union High School District•Pleasanton Joint School Dlalriet
• 5r':a
^ r
.r r
l J
... .. ..
.. ` ± •. � "-: -,^^.-sir ^ry.-r..
t�a�r.a,n�*� ..+ i.:.: . .. , � y V � , .! .k.•'�..�t's���-n�tir.._..L /�-^• `+�Y7- ' 1. 1 n' .X �r„r ; _ .. .
State of California The Resources Agency
._.
RECEIVED
Memorandum
FEB 7 ,1986:
To 1. Project Coordinator DUBLIN PLANNING Date: February 24, 1986
Resources Agency
2. Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner Telephone: ATSS ( )
City of Dublin ( )
Development Services
P.O. Sox 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
From Department of Fish and Game
Subject: SCH 85091009 Draft (EIR) Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Initial Study of Villages at Alamo Creek,
Alameda County
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
and the Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo
Creek and we have the following Comments :
This proposal would place 1165 residential units on 135 acres
of grazing lands bisected by Alamo Creek which drains into.'-
Alameda Creek . The study states that 65 percent of the
existing riparian corridor along Alamo Creek will be
modified. The current 7300 feet of watercourse will be
reduced through straightening and filling to 5200 feet, over
one half of the existing riparian habitat on the site will be
destroyed and at least 35 percent of the mature riparian
trees will be eliminated. Mitigation measures . described in
the Initial Study could off-set some project impacts on
riparian woodland but a substantial net loss . of riparian
habitat would result. Riparian habitat is a severely
depleted and threatened wildlife habitat in the Amador Valley
and further losses of this kind are unacceptable .
As the state agency entrusted with the protection of fish and
wildlife resources we have determined that this project will
result in significant environmental effects which cannot be
avoided if this proposal is implemented as proposed.
Therefore the preparation of a focused DEIR will be
necessary . The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is
inadequate and should not be certified nor should this
project be approved as proposed.
Our personnel are available to assist the City Staff in
defining the scope of a focused DEIR.
j.
•vr v %: !- _!, ...' _ �+d r';4ec..,i• >Yo.1 �.. a'S a � :�'-.c+�i f ..a+iwl7ifrvK w+.�«�r,�7gW S.s' r S �r ry.+..�
_ 1
•
4
..i. ,.i/:'. - i 1. <'44.>•JI- .I. _
r � 7 ' � > a a� f.?J4• t t -. i _ t•F/a. 1 d T,}� ,r f -
+
Y�._y '.., s.5. Ya t ♦,fir+- >'' +f !' S a'.r a ,� #` r4r•' Yr-y ,r .+!-.7. •.Y.}SS G .+.
i �:�w°.. j �...r �.n ,fr fir.. la�af.�}��;.1:� "T�..4Yt{.^+�i a•;;.g. ".n�w Jt,. Y '•` ^.a,..e. al•�.!a'?.�,'P� ���.�p'•.v�7'. is .�,. :1 fi r _
'.4: I i t } r 1, t i(.+ 5 .�, '.S �,.! 3,1.: ra.t•• y.r„'i.,4 V•+J.a*�' r
:{:�}•r.�i;long uri.+t�.:^v+z f�.-r�� ;•Y'K'r'�Y 5 t`J'�'Y`•Yj,,,,,y,'=•'Y�?�'lfri'r%•'p. �r+w,�.°25,1.1`'ci,e r/.+-rrstiyA,'Z.a.'Y,•t•1..,.,aA^w..=�.s r +.+-'�t'L'+. ,��M„%�a`�Ua+��K'1i+�3.TNd'�'l.7twc�v! ' .y+JI -
'',1
-':t•., ..; .�� r'ry 4'?' ' :i. •=�r:�• �i%�r.�;�i. t r i-t; ' � ? e �'.a��.� Lr,. � ..a r r 4
r
T' 1' -•' r'r••^. v g,'t7'tYK','•,--'ry . ^'!^]w+.. r) '-'•".�v-C�+r^�J�,� � .�,-t-++'�... ,q„
a,.....r.r r ! +'' >rz.'*'a"_'^"'�':'5.t 'F""r +r r;.r�. -..�t'Y"'L�','+'3y�a�"+'2.rry.�"' cy�v?m F r 4;E'$” r s'°-r.. ,"w?,,.'L;C+� .r •.r
. '......=. ... .-... .. ... .....,n ..., -. ........ K......_ � iY..�1.�1' ,... ....L .r -__._ ., c... _._.r:e .._ ..4•. ,_..2'fc���`,.ri..__a _... . .
1. Project Coordinator -2-
Resources Agency
2. Kevin Gailey
If you have any questions , please contact Paul Kelly,
Wildlife Biologist , at ( 415 ) 376-8892; or Theodore Wooster,
Environmental Service Supervisor, at (707) 944=2011.
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
7
3Yy=' i ?rtr. >W?lyiatM ih,•.> fe�Jx. s-+.: 4v.. i.qy.= ..,•c..s.:�, x(.:...iw<.,l i •'>
r 4 5
N
' ? *'. y- i 't. �Z.�r ES.i K�� � 7+✓ j.Y. S z di ; �.I s f .+c,� k .
d e � d � K � Rh r �'YS y�h� �"an..17x �J".'hr,4.5 r .. 4 i i1 � r 3 jx Y s 4 - : y � ,:aRi •t 'r k �
a.,.i�•..,;./ �� 1 r � ,.( Y`.,�[.+ u,��� :? �• 'S ht ' � FC� .�..f Z �r� y'.1 a'y'. y 3[�.�n7( ,� f. E.
� � r '1 Sir•. v .> it� -
7
ry^.
C H A R T I
PART A — EXISTING PLAN. PROPOSAL FOR. VILLAGE VI
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) = 25.14 acres*
Approximate Area Devoted to Roadways = 5.53 acres (22%)
Average Lot Size
[(25.14 acres — 5.53 acres) X 43,560 sf/acre] 146 lots = 5,850 sf/lot
(0.134 acres)
Gross Residential Density = 5.8 du/GRA.
Approximate Area Devoted to Slopes with Height in
Excess of 5' 3.93 acres (15.6%)
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(25.14 acres — 5.53 acres — 3.93 acres)
X 43,560 sf/acre] = 146 lots = 4,680 sf/lot
Typcal Level Pad Depth = 95'
Typical Level Pad Width = 50'
Average Level Pad Area = 4,750 sf
*This includes the slopes proposed to be included within the westernmost lots
and the slopes at the eastern and northeast edge of Village VI extending down
to the proposed flood control maintenance roadway.
PART B — EXTRAPOLATION OF VILLAGE VI DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA TO
CALCULATE POTENTIAL THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL YIELD FOR
VILLAGE VII IF DEVELOPED AS A COMPARABLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) = 11.84 acres*
Area Assigned for Roadways = 2.60 acres (22%)
Potential Lot Yield
[(11.84 acres — 2.60 acres) X 43,560 sf/acre]
5,850 sf/lot = 69 lots
Gross Residential Density = 5.8 du/GRA
Approximate Area Devoted to Slopes with a
Height in Excess of 5` = 1.85 acres (15.6%)
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(11.84 acres — 2.60 acres — 1.85 acres) .X 43,560 sf/acre)
X 43,560 sf/acre) = 69 lots = 4,665 sf/lot
*This includes the cut slopes up to the "daylight" light at the western
boundary and the slopes falling off the south and southeastern sides of the
parcel extending down to the flood control maintenance roadway.
16 TY:HIBIT
7 1 _ A
tIT
C H A R T I I
= PART A: .PONDEROSA —SUBDIVISION-4236
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) = 16.91 acres
Approximate Area Devoted to Roadways = 3.62 acres (21.4%)
Average Lot Size
[(16.91 acres — 3.62 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] 95 lots = 6,095 sf/lot
(0.140 acres)
Gross. Residential Density = 5.6 du/GRA
Typical Level Lot Depth = 115'
Typical Level Lot Width = 45'
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(16.91 acres — 3.62 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] 95 lots = 6,095 sf/lot
PART B — EXTRAPOLATION OF PONDEROSA — SUBDIVISION 4236 DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL YIELD FOR COi�MINED GRA
FOR VILLAGES VI AND VII IF DEVELOPED AS A COMPARABLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
1 . Potential yield based on adjusted Gross Residential Density:
36.98 acres (Combined GRA for Villages VI and VII)
X 5.60 du/GRA
207 + lots
2. Potential yield based on adjusted typical pod size:
23.07 acres (Combined level acreage for Villages VI and VII)
0.140 acres (Approximate average level pad size in Ponderosa Project)
165 + lots
r �'.,�`,,'r :�.Y•�, '1'01` _ _
69' ,
.� -1000'# f•t.Mt)-A-
'-.y '' •'I'�f 11441 t.�� 11 � ., ..
1.•
DR
O� - •I/atir r,�- 6 j4 1j ,St. ' ;,,I •/tip �I J�nj ,��/ - o5 Drip
�• � I P 1 z f
If. S iNf�r 1=I � ., - ..�-.- , �� '� •4G'tjl- p3'G! �I it
.., 1 .,'t 'Y... '-'--r•�+'r�;.q ��• :t cr-
f
. �'f ��` 111 I ' .•�
o 43
41 46 I 45• 4 _ .•, '
s Y�
4 �
79 72 71 7C69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 �61 t
75 76 7
XINGSTDA>
!O_ •� is '
U O • 5ZN
P
a
u
O ,r
>O A Q d I+
0
a
yp
d o �
.z.,...,.. - :l"'"-'^: 1't!i+X�t.."L"-'�'�7,�,�:'L"v;Z':-'_°.�.,•Y:�is�•3�.a.,�, ,�,,., 7�+, .C� �-� r+ti,f.;��..,-;t,:.-.. -
C H A R T I I I
PART A''-'PENN DRIVE AREA — SUBDIVISION 2773
Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) = 15.67 acres
Approximate Area Devoted to Roadways = 3.83 acres (24.4%)
Average Lot Size
[(15.67 acres — 3.83 acres) x43,560 sf/acre]• = 82 lots = 6,290 sf/lot
(0.144 acres)
Gross Residential Density = 5.23 du/GRA
Typical- Level Lot Depth = 90'
Typical Level Lot Width = 60'
Approximate Average Level Pad Size
[(15.67 acres — 3.83 acres) x 43,560 sf/acre] 82 lots = 6,290 sf/lot
PART B — EXTRAPOLATION OF PENN DRIVE AREA — SUBDIVISION 2773 DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL YIELD FOR COMBINED GRA
FOR VILLAGES VI AND VII IF DEVELOPED AS A COMPARABLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIMTTIAL
PROJECT
1. Potential yield based on adjusted Gross Residential Density:
36.98 acres (Combined GRA for Villages VI and VII)
X 5.23 du/GRA
193 + lots
2. Potential yield based on adjusted typical pod size:
23.07 acres (Combined level acreage for Villages VI and VII)
0.144 acres (Approximate average level pad size in Ponderosa Project)
160 ± lots
!:Y'7 .. .Y ?. r l t•"�'F A.. 7T r4 •^. '9 'v C "f .i- c'Yi°i°'?^'++^^rT -- ---'
3
r y -
. ey'p �, - ; ..
(/',�'
t 'V t.
�.y;l 1. N.. .,a.;4�• . `r4' sl... e. �,,IW Yia-y'�� @ /-C�
!'r.a °' �•1 .c s' /4 ✓ w ♦r.iav>• ts, R 1 .�•' '�•'1c♦f,' >l
i. • / r t
4 A �:i} aka r t f r '.,; -
,�, �r� �ti . �' TRACT''` ,
`-r*C'L
1. X37.. �1i y'3._�•- �.,pl a , , t - a�''�, r. .r t-� * •x{ F f, ,� Y c _
°4 �� > yti., ZONING HI570.RY
�. r - ," ,
J 'T Unit Rffected 'Parcels-�. _ �y -
. --
;..-.
_- =:, - _1.t '� -'fit - 0/� IT. . .
4 - _.�'_. .. .A' rt. �l. . , -
.. ...-..� -'- I --�...�-. � ., ..: f. .- I.. :-�_� I -T.. . . . .... . ... � ..43. -... . .. .
–. , .. – '�� * . tO I 0 --*--g –. : �
.1 . —.4i... . . - : .. . ...'.. : ".. ---il----. -- � Ap
° _ - A- .r�1._ j
. r - .. - ..ii..;I. . .. ... ...... - . - .... . .. f.� , -.�:-. - ".�:�7- .. . . —� .
�! .•, 3.. _°'°may . :_ 1 --o - �t,ti. 2 �. -.
7},,, y.- 13. r_ . . '. :a '�.' _ <B" .. •1j 27 2a I_pS ,q '.3 .% ✓.h. _
_1 s,� '4t%'�\„ / l'•a a 27`, fa.. .3 °s -.,. / `': F >-
`. 4�f i _ < h � x �1 s� �°
.�• 33 ,e8 . '.r. 2C tee., ?, a --l. �J ,.LA•NE ,.-� ti
'ra�r .s"',✓a _ f.a.• j- +. �e J'?. -F,2 2i ♦ .'.•.
♦ ,�
�► t _ I ,,
S. x �- E 6\� - en oc ° ,fie �" �a'q ti -
,t. .
'i: 1 �.I Ii2 . "s �.....- J` z ♦ ..Eo 20 __
w%r w ,w rr,r.
\ 7. -.-.'q. " .S$3 55110 -,..ww F1' 14 m'.Zi
( •"�. �? (•-� 1 -2 4•�r4 . ._: mss' I!r r! ♦1� �' r 3 ,�d f a is .�C': v
t.' . . �; s e," .�- - f.t - - v `a a 3'.�;,I 64 1-r :,y.
.-. ... I - / ..i�a'4.�_!L.-._- V .�t9 C419 a1a 16� - t _ .r... : .\
y<, - • .
sw f ,i` .1-. D�� -.•.r ^\�eJ.r.M i>3 [1^d.•!l. w ° 'V_TQS°: %te ♦ _
. .. :i,-:.�-.-'v:�:-,.A\-.. ..... . � �l .� " ' -; ., - , .I @ 17 :. - - - - -:
r�'�r_-_ r4. ,. 157 7 y�tt J+ k 1.
-le I � ;Z.
329 k f 11 2C c'.7 5ai/. Y � A 3 - 3r
— , a b• � 21.)3B Sel 1 r -
� � =a y. -
e4aU: - , .. `G v-Y 3 .
a , ,.i `9 seq 1'3'11,.,,.,,. - '1- . ,: G,.i'V?
N .1 � j - `� " . N'µN-W. 's'-I.it9 —''° t:.2i ° 4v 'S9r I 41
11 .,.-.. --- 4`- :� :'3
•`.v'� E reZ; %S 'In ', y ew s ctll }!� 4 a v'S fl t Pr -
jv t5 / Qiae G A Lw r..' ZO
° �gJ 3tl`k! , 3}I.22�t.� 4rt a > )13 t
p . oto - :I' yl . lam.is t7'i7, o,"�'- 1 X '� a � \r
f. - o, ' - _�'' i (� 2 --�23�1 .:.'�` r.�u'yy r7J,11 C },4
.. -.-.C.36z>(. 7.. - W 1 27 26 2S'•' •_'r--'' . rn - x :.c
Le, '3d1., 592 45 :0 44 4 ,, •2 c
4�� 10 � . � I�,� . I .. -, ,.t-
*`+,�'* zaa - ..c -;;l _ - y>y 30 Bbl.• 72."II r i _c Yr l �- n POR'AR {'�. - ._1z '��� :•e - ,a _��� *r
a ww C Si y' �, '
P.• ' r "vt s. __f w r fe - $ ;�•^P, k 731 1 '4t4'-_e ;=i,v olz_ t -
3 H "Y a1 r fS JI n y._' rv'+1 i!r' Y :-.
s ,r r .{ -
I Y';. /y l", >,r -"Frog -+•� 2 BO I (79}�/ �' L. 47}' r ZS $ 5 t� .✓m: �µ ri. yy} i� } t• '�
!1,t'Z + 1 r r'Y-}''',y. t..♦',. 4 .v t �3• a 5 1 .l��T- f
lyt., , }' r y.
Fcr •.� br.. 'S ' C i'Y.titer-S- lw' �;-�.-;�:t'1 -..}'jr 6 n�+r.y,• �c{..1,`s.''? ..n'`i.,"i• ' " y f'Y� r.` '-?+st4 �;.. 'b ^,"}y,'° :! �:
Y
...
-
. --
• .. _ - ' _
�- J
. }r -
4
l .
t .r m"°F"S'•"s'T°r.T�r." r ."'`ate c+-•i+7-a-- _
>: as -. a fi ftz 'P• ,� ?4. ' i Sr �y il-r i .t 4 4
-
R'r°,."„ .'�"' 4„.,fT..,.Ir' •�ut ..4.'1. rc.g.�a. R•-ra-' I.c'}I e'ilt` "nom LtTS ,ra' ..•a.w� t.�*.': t' ,r Y•>sry s+•y�q t t'.� eta-+.F ;'?r,.2c' "f;..11 ,. h.
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 17, 1986
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: - Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 85-041.1 & e illages at Alamo Creek - Rafanelli &
Nahas Real Estate Development Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning and Subdivision Map (Tentative Map 5511)
requests for a planned development with 1,165 proposed
residential dwelling units, a convenience food store,
a five-plus acre neighborhood park site and common
open space parcels involving a 135+ acre property
located along Dougherty Road in the northeast corner
of the City of Dublin.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This item was initially heard at the Planning Commission hearing of
February 18, 1986. Staff presented an indepth introductory statement
regarding the project, including a review of the 12 areas of concern outlined
in the Staff Report of February 18, 1986. The 12 areas included:
1) General Plan/Land Use
2) Park Dedication Requirements
3) Overall Site Layout
4) Dimensional Design Criteria-Square Footage Area
5) Emergency Access
6) Dougherty Road Design Criteria
7) Convenience Store Site Plan Layout
8) Loop Trail System
9) Access - Circulation - Parking for Village I (3-bedroom multiple
family dwelling units)
10) Dimensional Design Criteria - Multiple Family Residential Villages
11) Environmental Review
12) Architecture, Landscaping Architecture, and Grading
Following Staff's presentation, the applicants, Mr. Ron Nahas and Mr.
Mark Rafanelli, made their project presentation to the Commission, beginning
with discussion on issue area #1 - General Plan/Land Use.
Discussion and subsequent direction on the five sub-categories of the
General Plan/Land Use area of concern were supplied by the Commission.
Discussion deviated from consideration of the 12 identified areas of
concern to more generalized discussion of project-related impacts. The
Commission continued the public hearing to its meeting of March 3, 1986.
At the March 3, 1986, hearing Staff supplied a supplemental Staff Report
which provided additional background information regarding the Park Dedication
Requirements area of concern. Also supplied was a detailed summary of proposed
adjustments to specific Conditions of Approval from the draft Resolutions of
the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and the Tentative Map. The adjustments
were prompted by a series of meetings between Staff and the applicant
subsequent to the public hearing on February 18, 1986.
Cm. Raley expressed his concern that the east side of Dublin was being
developed primarily with multi-family units, and stated that he thought the
untis proposed for this project on the west side of the creek.should consist
solely of single family units to assure compliance with the General Plan.
--------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. ::i
Mr. Rafanelli referred to the General .Plan,:and stated that he believed`
the proposal was in compliance with"it.' .Mr: . Nahas stated his ,opinion .that. to
increase the size of the proposed single family lots, or increase-the' cost of _
the homes; would' not 'meet the current -needs "in the City of Dublin, '.and thus
would not be consistent with the General Plan.
A consensus opinion of the Commission was expressed that both Villages
VI and VII should be developed as single family units.
Staff reviewed the revisions to the Conditions outlined in the
Supplemental Staff Report of March 3, 1986, and their relationship to the 12
previously identified areas of concern. Based 'on consensus direction from the
Commission, Staff- stated that the revised Conditions would be incorporated
into the draft Resolutions. -
Mr. Nahas requested additional time to refer to the changes made in
Condition 284, the proposed dimensional criteria for the multiple family
residential units. The Planning Commission continued the item until the
March 17, 1986, meeting.
REMAINING AREAS OF REVIEW/DISCUSSION:
With the Commission's continuance of this item to its March 17, 1986,
hearing, three areas of review/discussion were put over for consideration or
elaboration. These areas include: 1) Responses to Comments received
regarding the project's environmental documents; 2) review of the proposed
multiple family residential standards for minimum separation distances between
buildings and building appurtenances; and 3) provision of additional analysis
regarding the impacts of changing Village VII to a single family residential
area.
In regards to the first area, Staff and the applicant contacted two of
the original private consultants utilized for this project (TJKM and Wagstaff
and Brady) to have them provide responses to the written comments received in
regards to either the Expanded Initial Study -or the September 7, 1985, Notice
of Preparation document, which included the following letters that warranted
comments:
1. City of San Ramon - Letter Dated October. 24, 1985
2. City of San Ramon - Letter Dated February 12, 1986
3. City of Pleasanton - Letter Dated February 28, 1986
4.. Caltrans - Letter Dated February 26, 1986
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District - Letter Dated
October 7, 1985
6. Contra Costa County Community Development Department -
Letter Dated October 22, 1985
7. Amador-Pleasanton Public School District - Letter Dated
February 5, 1986
8. State of California Department of Fish and Game -
Letter Dated February 24, 1986
Responses to traffic related comments (Letters 2 - 24 above) were
addressed by TJKM in their letter of March 12, 1986 (Background Attachment -
24).
Responses to the remaining comments (Letters 25 - 28 above) were
addressed by Wagstaff and Brady in their transmittal dated March 12, 1986
(Background Attachment - 25).
These two documents serve to address all substantive comments raised by
responsible agencies in response to the distribution of the Expanded Initial
Study and the Notice of Preparation. These response documents should be
incorporated by reference into the Expanded Intitial Study.
In regards to the second area, the dimensional criteria for the multiple
family residential portions of this project, the applicant submitted suggested
modified language which is substantially reflective of previous discussions
between Staff and the applciant. (Background Attachment - 26).
The minimum separation distances proposed would provide for a similar
building orientation to that developed in the nearby Amador. Lakes project.
' nth a ystrt
.'T' K'. l .• i f "i,rrxE'"Ti'"3yll-L''„A�'�fp,°�y7 �I^'f�:t7�n�7'-l��"1✓t,�y�,p9'�7 "'i^iii -T 7 �Y�j fT' 1�1J' T TjK>gT Lm., 'x ,,.'*'L' �. ,
-
,.1
fti E
In regards to the fin al 'are a, Staff has prepared a series of.-charts to •.
facilitate for their analysis of the single family portion of..the .subject
-proposal •(Background Attachment•-28 - Charts I-III): ,-•They charts-provide,-- -
detailed, analysis of_the .proposed.layout .of Village V;I and establish the.,
theoretical density yield for Village VII if the area was developed in a :
similar single family residential density as is proposed for- Village VI. Two
additional charts look. at the development _standards .of the other types of
residential product lines present in the City and provide a calculation of
theoretical density yields if those standards were observed on the.combined
areas of Villages VI and VII.
As detailed in Part A of Chart I, the. average lot size for lots in
Village VI is 5,$50+ square feet. Utilizing.-the same criteria for the 11.84+
Gross Residential Areas present in Village VII, including an assignment of
22+% of the land area for use as roads, the theoretical yield for Village VII
would be 69 lots (Part B of Chart I).
Part A of Chart II looks at the. dimensional criteria utilized for the
Ponderosa development located on the west side of the City (Subdivision 4236).
That project is the most comparable existing project in the City to the single
family residence project proposed in Village VI. While the average lot sizes
are roughly comparable (Ponderosa..lots are 6,095+ square feet compared to
5,850 square feet for the lots in Village VI, for a 4%+ differential), the
average level pad size is 30+% larger in area (6,095+ square feet compared to
4,675+ square feet).
If the total Gross Residential Acreage in Villages VI and VII (37+
acres) were developed with lots whose average lot size was increased to match
the average lot size used for the Ponderosa project, the theoretical yield
would be 207 lots (a reduction of only 8 lots from the total combined
theoretical yield of Villages VI and VII if Village VII was developed
utilizing the standards currently proposed for Village VI) . If the same
acreage was developed to match. the average level pad size present in the
Ponderosa project, the theoretical yield would drop down to 166 lots (see Part
B of Chart II).
Part A of Chart III looks at the dimensional criteria utilized for a
Penn Drive area development (Subdivision 2773), an older residential
development located along the valley floor which is representative of the next
step up in terms of lot sizes for existing single family residential
developments in the City. The average lot size for the 82 lot Subdivision is
6,290+ square feet, 7.5+% larger than the size proposed for the lots in
Village VI. Because the development is located on the valley floor, the
average lot size is also the average level pad size, which is 34.6+% larger
than the size proposed in Village VI.
If the total Gross Residential Acreage in Villages VI and VII were
developed with lots whose average lot size was increased to match the average
lot size used in Subdivision 2773, the theoretical yield would be reduced to
193+ lots. If the same acreage was developed to match the average level pad
size present in that Subdivision, the theoretical yield would drop down
further to 160+ lots (see Part B of Chart III).
The Commission expressed a four to one consensus opinion that Village
VII should be changed to a single family residential area. That change would
shift the total Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) in the project devoted to
single family residential uses from 25+ acres (out of 100+ GRA, or 25%+) to 37
acres (37%+) . The information provided above was developed in response to the
consensus direction received from the Commission .to provide the Commission
support information to get a handle on the project impacts related to the
proposed changes and to see how further adjustments to the single family
residential area would affect the project.
3 -
} a
•,!^4 ^5• r7N'i,`r^"'*' r J.,, ..�+rrn r�'Y^�arsl�^•nR?lS*.*„�:�•T 'aS�".�..�Tw' ,�.�_,, �.. -*-.
.t•-�,^'�.i.;;;�i••.:�y�i;i.1 v�r s ti� ."` 5 c r lc ii i r�"- _T:" y � .2 r j CC- r {{T.xr9'Ra'sT_Y �r L ,g„(�i�' S >'w''S .i ..,C s ,•,�;"' ..
t..- �' ....^ti c r .c^s 2..-T7 ,•�."', ,+^4 tix-�••rrs. r •-e",a.+-,. c.. sr• �Lr ,� �•�+tc r•'r-='
RECOMMENDATION: `
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing. and deliberate.
5) Consider and act on three draft Resolutions:
A - A Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance.
B - A Resolution regarding the Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning.
C - A Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511:
Action: Based on both this Staff Report and previous reports and
testimony received, Staff recommends that the following three actions be
taken:
1 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) which recommends that the
City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for this project.
2 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit B) which recommends that the
subject 135+ acres be rezoned to the Planned Development
(PD) District.
3 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit D) which recommends that the
City Council approve Tentative Map 5511.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance.
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning application.
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511.
Supplemental Background Attachments (These items supplement the
February 18, 1986, and March 3, 1986, Attachments. )
21) Applicant's transmittal of February 25, 1986, entitled "School Age
Children Generated by Multi-family Rental Projects in the San
Francisco Bay Area" (this transmittal was hand delivered to the
Commission at the March 3, 1986, hearing).
22) Applicant's letter of March 12, 1986, entitled "Suggested Language
Tentative Map - Condition #46".
23) March 6, 1986, letter from the Department of the Army - Corps of
Engineers advising that the proposed construction may require
Department of the Army authorization.
24) March 12, 1986, letter and accompanying transmittal from TJKiIM.
Transportation Consultants, regarding responses to traffic
comments.
r
-4-
.........._.. ............__...__.,.,_.
r r- v
25) March 12,. 1986;:::letter: and. accompanying.transmittals from Wagstaff
and Brady, Urban and Environmental Plannng, regarding responses to'
agencies commenting--on the--September''7 ""1985;-Ybt3ce of
Preparati6n, .and the January 31, 1986, .Expanded "Initial Study
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance.
26) Applicant's transmittal dated received March 13, 1986, entitled
"Condition #86 - Conditions of Approval of P.D. Map".
27) Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance -
cover document.
28) Charts I - III and Area Maps for -Single Family Residential
Analysis.
. 5 _
,T.R-nrl""�77^l.4•-� •moo.Y z.e�T' �.P ; •s{a 4w�--S y'�-rr.-y� '.'c`�j"�.�°'R wv '}z1 1 Y c'r+h 4 i�r .>',J' R` 4 ' i,r: - `+ .
1, ' ...., 1' q.rrz.l S�, •e, C t F._ Ste` �,t, Y3 rs^�. t a+o y i� s i s
3 Y z
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 3, 1986
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: . - Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 85-041.1 & .2 Villages at Alamo Creek - Rafanelli &
Nahas Real Estate Development Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning and Subdivision Map (Tentative Map 5511)
requests for a. planned development with 1,165 proposed
residential dwelling units, a convenience food store,
a five-plus acre neighborhood park site and common
open space parcels involving a 135+acre property
located along Dougherty Road in the northeast corner
of the City of Dublin.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This item was initially heard at the Planning Commission hearing of
February 18, 1986. Staff presented an indepth introductory statement
regarding the project, including a review of the 12 areas of concern outlined
in the Staff Report of February 18, 1986. The 12 areas included:
1) General Plan/Land Use
2) Park Dedication Requirements
3) Overall Site Layout
4) Dimensional Design Criteria-Square Footage Area
5) Emergency Access
6) Dougherty Road Design Criteria
7) Convenience Store Site Plan Layout
8) Loop Trail System
9) Access - Circulation - Parking for Village I (3-bedroom multiple
family dwelling units)
10) Dimensional Design Criteria - Multiple Family Residential Villages
11) Environmental Review
12) Architecture, Landscaping Architecture, and Grading
Staff indicated that elaboration of the Park Dedication Requirements
issue would be provided at the March 3, 1986, hearing after input from the
City Attorney was secured. That issue area is discussed later in this Report.
Following Staff's presentation, the applicants, Mr. Ron Nahas and Mr.
Mark Rafanelli, made their project presentation to the Commission, beginning
with discussion on issue area #1 - General Plan/Land Use.
Discussion and subsequent direction from the Commission on the five
sub-categories of the General Plan/Land Use issue area were as follows:
A. Commercial Site - The applicants acknowledged that the size of the _
site for the proposed convenience store would have to be enlarged to provide
adequate room for additional parking. In response to the recommendation that
an additional driveway connection along Amador Valley Boulevard be provided,
the applicant indicated a preference to move the single proposed driveway
further west along Amador Valley Boulevard to provide for additional
separation from the driveway and the adjoining intersection. (A revised site
plan for this area was subsequently submitted by the applicant and is the
basis for the revised language proposed for PD Condition #F75 outlined below.)
---------------
Is N914,MGM am
I
HA
TEM NO. r' C.HML
r .r+. r!.. . 3 .r.• F. c.r rtr i a �. rr.r F-.t, �..+e^�r'^.nu�-++m+en �• t�j*R+"�r^ 'fj�kg')n"r'+ .•.,.re�...�-..,,� •-"y.Y "7".(""".' 'y"'+.
'R .,i-x:,. J •. ::r. a ,. '� x'1� -r 3'f!.f'n'F'-i'�, t' �rx 7 !a
B. Residential/Density - Village I - As proposed, Village I will be
below the 14.1 units/acre minimum Gross Residential Density (GRD) called for
,v by the. .General Plan. The Commission indicated its ,consensus. opinion,.to allow
Village I to remain at the 11.66 GRD. The Commission also expressed a desire
not to impose restrictons on Village I that would substantially-alter the type
of dwelling unit proposed (i.e. , 60 3-bedroom dwelling units in four-unit
building groups).
C. Riparian Vegetation- Access to Alamo Creek - Discussion on this
subject was limited, without a consensus agreement/direction given.
D. Residential Density - Village VI - The consensus determination of
the Commission was that the 5.46 GRD of the proposed 146-lot single family
residential area in. Village VI meet the intent of the General Plan.
E. Rental Units in Large, Multi-Family Projects - While not objecting
to the intent of this Condition, the applicant indicated a desire to adjust
the language of the proposed Condition to assure retention of adequate
flexibility to avoid problems that might be created with the pursuit of
financing of the respective Villages. (Modified language for the Condition
dealing with rental units [PD Condition 483] has been drafted for the
Commission's consideration and is outlined later in this -Report.)
Discussion deviated from consideration of the 12 identified issue areas
to more generalized discussion of project-related impacts.
Discussion was directed to Section 7, Traffic and Circulation, of the
Expanded Initial Study.
Cm. Raley stated that he was concerned because the School District was
apparently not adequately anticipating the type of growth which would occur as 1 L1
a result of the subject project and other potential residential projects in
the general vicinity.
Cm. Raley requested that the Commission be provided with a sampling of
school-age children generation factors of other multi-family projects in the
City.
Cm. Raley indicated a desire to see another vehicular access developed
across the creek, linking either Villages VII and II, or Villages II and IV.
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS:
Staff indicated that an expanded discussion concerning the issue of the
project's park dedication requirements would be supplied to the Commission for
the March 3, 1986, hearing. To provide framework for this discussion, Staff is
repeating below selected State and City regulations pertaining to park
dedication requirements.
A. STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT Section 66477 (i) regarding Planned Development
Park Dedication reads in part: Planned developments shall be eligible to
receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body, against the
amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed
for the value of private open space within the development which is
usable for active recreational uses.
B. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
8-7.5 CREDIT FOR PRIVATE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. The Advisory
Agency at its discretion may reduce the land or fees required under
Section 8-7.4 by an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the area of land in
the subdivision which is to be used for private park and recreational
facilities, provided that:
(a) The subdivision, or that portion of it for which the credit would
apply, constitutes a neighborhood.
(b) Land or dedication fee requirements shall not be reduced by an
amount equivalent to more than two acres.
-2-
t- u.
r
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS:
Subsequent to the meeting of February 18, 1986, Staff and the applicant
conducted a series of `mdetings to,consider-specific conditions outlined in -the '
draft Resolutions of the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and the Tentative
�. Map. Outlined on the following pages are the Conditions which have been
modified, eliminated or added as a result of those discussions.
PD Condition #2-C - Second Paragraph - To be deleted.
PD Condition #5 - Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is
specified in Section 8-31.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, or as detailed on an
approved project phasing schedule.
PD Condition #20-B - The project shall incorporate all reasonable water
conservation measures including water conservation appliances and separate
metering of gas for hot water heaters. The project Architect, or Civil
Engineer, shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or Building
Inspector stating the water conservant toilets, shower heads, and automatic
dishwashers with low flow cycles will be installed in the units in this
project.
PD Condition #26-D - Through the Site Development Review process, the
developer shall investigate the feasibility of leaving portions of the creek .
accessible as useable open space in conjunction with a joint use program
between the City and Zone 7.
PD Condition #26-E - The recreational facility requirements for Village VI
shall be detailed in the Site Development Review submittal for that Village
and shall be addressed with the .overall project parkland dedication agreement.
PD Condition #26-E - To be eliminated.
PD Condition #28-B - Parking and vehicular areas shall be screened with patio
fences or appropriate landscaping from view of ground floor dwelling units.
PD Condition #30 - At-grade patios for the multiple family residential units
shall be individually fenced and .shall be supplied with soil preparation to
accommodate future planting. Individual hose-bibs for each ground level unit
patio area shall be provided by the developer. The hose-bibs may be
maintained left in a "roughed-out" stage until such time as the units are put
up for individual sale. The layout of the enclosed patio areas (as regards
size and placement of concrete patio pads and the design of the enclosing
fencing and .retaining walls) shall be subject to review and approval as ,part
of the respective Site Develpment Review submittal.
PD Condition #38 - The use of entrance gates at any portion of this
development are specifically disallowed unless architectural treatment and
traffic impacts are addressed and approved through the Site Development Review
process.
PD Condition #42 - The potential design changes called for in Village I
(concerning the pursuit of a secondary access point, the adjustment to
internal circulation patterns and parking counts, and the impacts to the area
resulting from an enlargement and reconfiguration of the adjoining commercial
area) shall be reviewed through the Site Development Review application for
that Village. The applicant shall pursue a second vehicular connection to
serve the units in Village I to improve internal circulation and to allow a -
diminishment of the distance between the more remote units and their
respective assigned parking. The developer shall diligently pursue the
necessary approvals to develop access from the south of Village I, through the
existing Arroyo Vista Housing Authority project. Failure to secure this
preferred secondary access shall not release the applicant from pursuing
provision of a secondary access to Village I. In lieu of this access from the
south, the applicant shall investigate the feasibility of providing a second
access along the Amador Valley Boulevard frontage. Revisions to the site plan
layout for Village I shall be made to reduce the distances between available
parking and the more remote dwelling units. The amount of parking provided
shall be adjusted to match the standard being observed elsewhere across the
-4-
.. r •r .. .. .a .. »+ri :'�' .fit m ...:a4��-!r'-'r•.t ._. {' _ .. .
i
project (129—space suggested standard for 60—units) or a more restrictive
standard to acknowledge that development of 3—bedroom units may result in a
greater need for parking than the other multiple family residential villages.
PD Condition #48 — The developer shall reconstruct and improve Amador Valley
Boulevard by narrowing the portion of the median fronting the property line to
Dougherty Road, providing lighting and landscaping, overlaying the existing
street section, providing four lanes from the entrance of Villages I and II to
Dougherty Road, and providing a separated six—foot minimum width off street
bicycle system from Dougherty Road to the west side of the entrance to
Villages I and II. From that point, the bicycle and pedestrian systems shall
be separate, as detailed in PD Condition #65—C.
PD Condition #64- - The following design criteria shall be reflected in. the
Site Development Review submittals for Villages I through V for the Dougherty
Road frontage strip adjoining the proposed sound—architectural wall:
a) Total minimum width of the strip, as measured from face—of—curb to
face—of—wall, shall be 19 feet, and shall be widened to 23 feet wherever
feasible. Where grade differentials between the project area and the
Dougherty Road frontage strip dictate, the sound—architectural wall may
be located approximately at grade with the frontage strip (i.e. , not
located atop a berm). The width of the frontage strip may be reduced to
less than 19 feet where bus turnouts will be required.
b) Four—foot minimum landscape strips on both sides of the sidewalk shall
be utilized (as measured from the face—of—curb to the front edge of the
sidewalk and between the rear edge of sidewalk and the face of the
sound—architectural wall).
c) The sidewalk shall be a minimum of six feet in width and shall meander
both horizontally and vertically through the center 11—foot strip
(minimum width) that remains between the two minimum landscape strips
established above.
d) Wall design shall provide detailed architectural design on both sides of
the wall and shall utilize "pop—outs" of a minimum depth of three feet,
being regularly spaced along the wall's entire frontage.
PD Condition 7#65 The following design criteria shall be reflected in the
Site Development Review submittals for Villages I and II for the Amador Valley
Boulevard frontage strips adjoining the proposed perimeter fences or walls:
a) Total minimum width of the strips, as measured from face—of—curb to the
fences or wall, shall be 16 feet, and shall be widened to 19 feet'
wherever feasible.
b) Three—foot minimum landscape strips on both sides of the sidewalk shall
be utilized (as measured from the face—of—curb to the front edge of the
sidewalk and between the rear edge of sidewalk and the face of the
perimeter fence or wall) .
c) The pedestrian/bikeway path shall be a minimum width of eight feet and
shall meander both horizontally and vertically through the fontage
strips that remain between the two minimum landscape strips established
above. The pedestrian/bikeway path shall extend from Dougherty Road to
the west side of the entrance to Villages I and II. From that point,
the sidewalk shall be five feet in width on the north side of Amador _
Valley Boulevard and bicycle lanes shall be striped in the street. On
the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard, the sidewalk shall be
constructed to conform with the planned sidewalk for the undeveloped
phase of the Heritage Commons project.
d) The fence or wall design shall provide detailed architectural design and
shall utilize "pop—outs" of a minimum depth of three feet, being
regularly spaced along the entire frontage. This fence or wall shall
extend along the Village II frontage up to the outside of the flood
control channel.
.-5—
-
..: .+"s4'.�"°' _? k'. •.?N/ 'rti, ?� tTl,. F'RC"t ^.Pj�^Y
New PD Condition #66 - The sound-architectural -wall along the Village .II � .-.i
frontage shall extend westerly along the Amador -Valley -Boulevard .frontage for
the minimum distance necessary to provide the required sound attenuation for
proposed Building,Group _26.. The _sound,-architectural. wall,along the: perimeter -.. ..
of Village I shall extend from the Dougherty Road frontage around the south
and-:west side of the proposed convenience store parcel, terminating at a point
giving adequate separation from the Amador Valley Boulevard right-of-way to
provide visibility along the street and into the parking area for the proposed
convenience store site.
PD Condition #75 - The Dougherty Road frontage width of the proposed
commercial site (proposed Lot #153) shall be increased to provide for an
approximate doubling of the on-site parking to be developed. This change
shall .be generally consistent with the revised site plan received for the
commercial site and. Village I, dated received February 25, 1986 (see
Background Attachment #16). To accommodate the increase in the size of the
commercial parcel, changes shall be made to the layout of building groups in
the adjoining sections of Village I. The driveway to the commercial site
along Amador Valley Boulevard shall be moved westerly to provide a wider
separation between said driveway and the intersection of Dougherty Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard. Additional design considerations involving the
pedestrian walkway system, the gasoline pump island layout, the method of
tying into the adjoining sound-architectural wall, etc. , shall be addressed in
conjunction with the Site Development Review for this site. Part of the
submittal requirements for that subsequent submittal shall include information
documenting the anticipated parking requirements for the proposed convenience
store. The findings of the Study shall be utilized in the determination of
the required minimum size of the commercial site.
PD Condition #79 - Prior to occupancy of any unit, each phase of development
(landscaping, irrigation, fencing and landscape lighting in accordance with
approved landscape and erosion control plans) shall have been installed, or a
bond or letter of credit for the landscaping, lighting, appurtenant
structures, and irrigation system shall be provided to' the City. A statement
from the project Landscape Architect shall certify that the landscaping has
been installed in accordance with the plans and shall be submitted to the
Building Official and- Planning Director.
PD Condition #81-A - A report by a licensed roofing contractor certifying that
the roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely to be in
need of replacement for at least 10 years. A reserve deposit may be
established to cover the estimated prorated costs of roof replacement where
replacement will be required prior to 10 years.
PD Condition #81-C - A report by a licensed painting contractor that paint
throughout the project is .in good condition and that the building exteriors
should not require repainting for at least five years. A reserve deposit may
be established to cover the estimated prorated costs for the repainting of the
units where repainting will be required prior to a 5-year period.
PD Condition #82 - Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units,
all applicances shall either be replaced with new units or the initial buyers
provided with a one-year's parts and warranty guarantee on all applicances.
PD Condition #83 - The developer shall provide guarantees that a minimum of
10% of the multi-family units in the project shall be maintained as rental
units for a period of five year's. The document providing said agreement shall
be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Such 10% shall be
calculated, utilizing the number of units in Villages I, II, III, IV, V and
VII as a base (1,019 proposed units for a commitment of 102 units to the
rental pool). Commencing with the date of issuance of an occupancy permit on
the 102nd multi-family unit within Villages I through V, the developer shall
guarantee that a minimum of 102 units shall be available for rent at all times
within the above Villages (except Village VII) until the Condition has been
satisifed, there shall be no sale for a period of five years. This Condition
may be met individually within any one Village, or collectively over all the
affected Villages. Developer agrees that until the :Condition has been
satisfied, there shall be no conversion of codominium units for sale within
Village V.
'\ .ri' F }• F i^+ �r m 'l:l.rn^ T.,'� '1R'f5 r�+nis,—%,-.�,«x' F"""°f.. z +-.r-zw rtxr++m-i...•y ^ag t•'r`�-
7,77
? : ..s` 91 N ' i
a
l
PD Condition #84 - Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established
on the single family residential lots proposed in Village VI shall include the
following:
1. Front yards - 20-foot minimum; subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director, may.be varied from 18 to 22 feet to
provide variety while generally maintaining the 20-foot
average.
2. Side Yards - A. One story units
- 5-foot minimum flat and useable each side
- 12-foot minimum street side sideyard
B. Two story units
-5-foot minimum flat and useable each side
-15-foot minimum street side sideyard
3. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and useable.
4. Pad Areas - 45' x 95' minimum, with the 45' width measured from front
setback line through to the rear of the lot.
In addition to the above, the design of single family residential units
developed shall provide for the maximum unit privacy through use of building
layouts which provide useable side and rear yard areas with offsets of windows
and similar inter-building design considerations. The majority of the two-
story units shall observe an additional front yard setback requirement whereby
the building face of the second story shall observe a setback of an additional
five feet + from the building face of the garage. Two-story units shall not
utilize a shed-type roof design, but rather shall utilize a roof design which
will serve to mitigate visual impacts resulting from the height and proximity
of two-story units.
New PD Condition #85 - To assure that adequate diversity of building
architecture across the project as a whole will be provided, individual
Villages shall be designed in a manner to allow them to stand alone with
village-specific architectural features (such as alternate types of roofing or
siding materials, alternate use of open or enclosed stairwells, etc.) .
Detailed design review of project architecture shall be made at the time of
submittal of the respective Site Development Review applications for each
proposed Village.
New PD Condition #87 - The two easterly cross streets in Village VI shall be
terminated in cul-de-sacs. The applicant's engineer shall investigate the
feasibility of incorporating two additional cul-de-sacs, with emergency,
breakthrough vehicular access inter-connection between the two cul-de-sacs,
along the most westerly proposed through street in Village VI (and subject to
Staff review of the Site Development Review for Village VI) .
New PD Condition #88 - The minimum width of the creek-side pedestrian walkway
strip shall be 14 feet (measured from face-of-curb to the flood control
maintenance fence) for a minimum of 50% of the strip's frontage along Villages
II through V. This width may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet for -the
remainder of the referenced frontage. The pedestrian walkway strip shall
include a 6-foot minimum width concrete walkway which, wherever feasible,
shall meander within the creek-side walkway strip. The walkway shall also
maintain a four-foot landscaped setback from the curb and the flood control
fence where the width of the strip so allows.
Tentative Map Condition #3 - The developer may request and secure a grading
permit and commence construction of creek improvements in advance of
completion of improvement drawings for site development work outside of the
creek corridor (subject to the provision of security agreements to ensure
completion of grading and erosion control requirements, as deemed appropriate
by the City Engineer).
Tentative Map Condition #4-C - An as-built landscaping plan prepared by a
Landscape Architect, together with a declaration that the landscape
installation is in conformance with the approved plans, that all work was done
under his supervision and in accordanch with the recommendations contained in
the landscape plans.
-7-
__ - r-^-t � .,..+.m•+m.:'az' �79 �a s+sn� .weal v^.,�v r! sv-..er.. e-n*..v.--^ -.
... ., . .. .. ..... _ .. tto t��: _� y_ .., �skx r�_�9".£y r�n4x{•.•rcYr w.,'C�'.n., ',`�°T"?r{ s. r :x _:.s.,.0. _
Tentative Map Condition #5-G - Parking of recreational vehicles or boats shall
be prohibited, except in designated recreational vehicle parking spaces.
Tentative Map Condition #12 - The developer shall be responsible for the
development and recordation of an .appropriate agreement (subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney) which assures provision of the vehiclular/
pedestrian/bicycle cross access, where such access facilities are common to
more than one Village.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the scale and complexity of the subject proposal, it is reasonable
to assume the Commission may have difficulty making recommendations on all the
identified issue areas and the proposed revision to the draft Resolutions for
the Planned Development District and the Tentative Map. If significant
progress is made on these items, then Staff recommends the Commission consider
and act on the three draft Resolutions:
A) A draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
B) A draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development (PD)
Rezoning.
C) A draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511.
If the Planning Commission cannot make recommendations on the project at
the hearing on March 3, 1986, Staff recommends the project be continued to the
March 17, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. If continued to this date, Staff
has indicated to the applicant that the project would be pre-noticed to be
heard by the City Council at its hearing on March 24, 1986.
ATTACHMENTS:
Supplemental Background Attachments (These items supplement February 18, 1986,
Attachments. )
15) Additional Agency Comments received in conjunction with Expanded
Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek.
16) Revised Site Plan for the Commercial Site and Village I, dated
received February 25, 1986.
17) Memorandum from applicant dated February 27, 1986, entitled.,
"Summary - Revisions to Staff Issues and Conditions".
18) Applicant's letter of February 27, 1986, regarding proposed
Phasing - Villages Alamo Creek.
19) Applicant's letter of February 27, 1986, regarding Proposed Water
Features - Villages Alamo Creek.
20) Applicant's letter of February 27, 1986, regarding ,Proposed
Dedication of Public Lands - Villages at Alamo Creek.
-8-
.,...:.
CITY OF DUBLIN '
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 18, - 1986
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: - Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 85-041.1 & .2 l,ages at Alamo Creek -
Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and
Subdivision Map (Tentative Map 5511) requests
for a planned development with 1,165 proposed
residential dwelling units, a convenience
food store, a five-plus acre neighborhood
park site and common open space parcels
involving a 135+ acre property located along
Dougherty Road in the northeast corner of the
City of Dublin.
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: Planned Development (PD) Rezoning proposal
for 1,165 dwelling units and a small
convenience store. Subdivision Map approval
for a 156 lot subdivision is concurrently
requested and proposes the following lotting
pattern: Lots 1 through 146 for the proposed
single family residential lots; Lots 147
through 152 - being one lot for each
respective multiple family residential
village (to accommodate a total of .1,019
multiple family residential units which are
proposed for subsequent subdivision into
condominium air-space units) ; Lot 153 - for
the proposed 17,500+.square foot commercial
lot; and Lots 154 through 156 for flood
control right-of-way, Amador Valley Boulevard
right-of-way and improvements, the entry toad
right-of-way and improvements servicing
Villages VI and VII, and rough grading for
the entire project. An individual Final Map
is proposed to be filed for each Village as
construction phasing begins.
The proposed Villages can be summarized as
follows:
Village I: 60 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 4A+ Gross
Residential Acres (GRA). Three bedroom units at 1,055 gross
sq. ft. , 15 two story buildings.
Village II: 248 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 17.1+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft. ,
19 two story buildings and 8 three story buildings.
Village III: 216 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 15,0+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft. ,
18 two story buildings and 6 three story buildings.
Village IV: 152 multiple family apartment/condominium units: on 10.7+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft. ,
10 two story buildings and 6 three story buildings.
7
ITEM N0.
t
't k7.r�CTirc fryo'�^G�s4u,4��•xZ wc+r'•wJ G. .�!.�'C�m'Yn IC',�'�.�T'�F TAT�i 1.4`r}'�'�1'6�'xW '•��?j��� r +.f. �� � w J .' i.+c,j^{7� <.����'y+➢�'�. _
,.0 -, i1 c. � •� c �4 ''slY Y � � r Jt,�-r� �. 1�a'�"��+w,� {��,.. � ,,c cis ' '.AT "mm OT :
:-:.�'� u a..'i -. .��,. "���i'"t�F°rh''.-}�:'F:`� ."`'^„+wag�;c`'����i2�" ..s z�'r�.��G"�K .`.;`�z4�"'".�'.::.'�::, ,',�''=etx .A-���f°,�xL�.������5��$'`.' re"�v��.��r,•�'xA;"`t '�'�Pf'`�y:5^'g`;;a
Village V: 192 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 13.6+ GRA.
One, two and 3 bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq,. ft. , 15
two story buildings and 6 three story buildings.
Village VI: 146 single family lots on 26.8+ GRA. One,and 2 story; three
and four bedroom units at 1,418 to 2,075 sq. ft.
Village VII: 151 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 11':8+ GRA.
Tentatively planned two and three bedroom units at 957 to
1,055 gross sq. ft. , 29 two story buildings.
APPLICANTS
AND REPRESENTATLVES: Ron Nahas/Mark Rafanelli
Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development
20638 Patio Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94546
PROPERTY OWNERS: Larry C.Y. Lee, Campion Investment, LTD.
and Standard Nominees LTD.
1275 "A" Street
Hayward, CA 94541
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-500-2-1, 941-500-2-4, 941-500-7,
941-500-8 and 946-101-1-2
PARCEL SIZE AND LOCATION: The proposed Villages at Alamo Creek project
covers Parcels 1 through 4 of Parcel Map No. 4575 located in the north-
eastern part of the City of Dublin. The 135+ acre site fronts on the west
side of Dougherty Road, and extends along the road for 4,200+ feet. A 4.5+
acre portion of the site is located at the southwest- corner of the
intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road. The remainder
of the site is located north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The site is
bordered on the west by the South Dougherty Hills, on the north by the City
of San Ramon and Contra Costa County. Across Dougherty Road to the east is
the U.S. Army Parks.Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The site is '
approximately 1.25 miles north of Interstate Highway 580. (Site location
is shown on Background Attachment 4.) The Gross Residential Acreage
proposed for residential development is 99.9 GRA.
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: The elevation range for the site is from 355
feet in the southwest corner to 510 feet in the northwest. The eastern
part of the site is relatively flat. The site west of Alamo Creek slopes
gradually upward to the Dougherty Hills. Alamo Creek enters the site at
the northwest corner, flows in a meandering configuration from north to
south, and exits the site at the southwest corner of the property. The'
creek has steep eroded banks, and mature riparian vegetation within the
creek channel. The rest of the site is covered by annual grassland, used
primarily for grazing. No paved roads or other improvements are on the
site. An unpaved road enters the site midway along Dougherty Road. The
4.5+ acre portion of the site located on the south side of Amador Valley
Boulevard is presently zoned C-N, Neighborhood Business. The remainder of
the site is zoned R-1 7B-E, Single Family Residential Combining District.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, grazing lands in the City
of San Ramon. Zoning is P-1, Planned Unit Development District. General
Plan designation on the site is Low Density Single Family Residential; this
designation may change during the City of San Ramon's General Plan revision
program now underway. _
East: Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The training area
is on 2,268 acres, with 1,633 acres in predominantly open space used for
field maneuvering and weapons ranges. The remainder is used for canton-
ment, administration, and storage buildings. The camp currently lies in
the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. Zoning is A, Agricultural
District. (See Background Attachment 5 - Schematic Land Use Layout of Camp
Parks' Facility.)
Sa'S.l.}1+;,���' T� ,U h. � � s. ;'• .., ..'Ay u„C`y4'r;.. G;:4j��Jw' _ y.� �:;
T MF Y 3 •. .y i '� r L J r L,%� L- '9 :.; .tYe}..r tca' +1h'4ird ,..�, .a_,n 7 tror
S"M1: y _�,
: f+iFNd�m.x.v r.f.
'7
South: Pleasanton Housing Authority Multiple Family Residential Project.
The housing project consists of 150 units and is located south of Amador
Valley Boulevard. Zoning is PD, Planned Development District. This
project will be transferred to the jurisdiction of.. the City of Dublin in
the near future.
West: Open space areas adjoining the planned and approved 150—unit Dublin
Hills Single Family Residential Project and the Alameda County Flood
Control District, Zone 7 reservoir site. Zoning is PD, Planned Development
District.
ZONING HISTORY: The subject property was rezoned from A-2, Agricultural
District, to the_ R-1—B-5, Single Family Residential—Combining District, and
the C—N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning
designation R-1—B 75 was subsequenty relettered to its current form R-1—B—E.
A 1973 County Ordinance applied a 70' special building setback line for
Dougherty Road (as measured from each side of the existing center line).
On April 15, 1985, Ron Nahas, with Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate
Development, received Planning Commission approval for a four—parcel minor
subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel -split was
requested to facilitate an option agreement the applicant had with the
property owner.
A specific condition imposed on the Tentative Parcel Map was that the
proposed East Dougherty Hills park site be reviewed and approved by the
City as regards size, configuration, access and location prior to the
recordation of the Parcel Map. Changes in the park site resulting from the
City's review were to have been reflected on the recorded Parcel Map.
On July 15, 1985, the Planning Commission, acting on an appeal of a Staff
determination, required that a qualified park designer be hired to analyze
the East Dougherty Hills park site as regards the review parameters listed
above.
Mr. Philip Singer, of Singer and Hodges, Inc. , Landscape Architecture,
subsequently prepared a draft report with recommendations regarding the
proposed park site.
At the August 5, 1985, joint meeting of the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Planning Commission, the Commissions concurred with the
park designer's recommendations which called for the following two general
changes:
1) Exclusion of the Alamo Creek right—of—way, and that portion of the
proposed park east of the creek from the proposed park site.
2) Enlargement to the minimum five acre size of the section of proposed
park site on the west of the creek.
At the City Council meeting of August 12, 1985, the Council decided to
accept the park layout proposed by the applicant (i.e. , a split—park layout
consisting of a section 1.33+ acres in size on the east side of Alamo
Creek, a section of 4.24+ acres in size on the west side of Alamo Creek,
and a 2.68+ acre section of the creek lying between the two sections of the
proposed park) . The Council's actions facilitated the recordation of the _
Parcel Map for the four—parcel subdivision.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
A. STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, Section 66477 (i) regarding Planned
Development Park Dedication reads in part:
Planned developments shall be eligible to receive a credit, as
determined by the legislative body, against the amount of land
required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed for the
value of private open space within the development which is usable
for active recreational uses.
—3—
-:..' ,-- :. ..,'•r r:• -.:,•. _..,t.... ;xriri�'k'r'rcx�"�y'Y �^.M i4 > ,..d r`t.naGk''f� ti y j`"L 4 '7 7" "�'5 .a.. aS: rs�:'
e -
B. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Title 8, Chapter I, Alameda County Subdivision Ordinance as adopted and
amended by the City of Dublin, reads in part:
8-1-2 INTENT. It is the intent of this chapter to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare; to assure in the division of the
land consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan and with
the intent and provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance;• to coordinate
lot design, street patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public
facilities with community and neighborhood plans; to insure the area
dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so
as not to be a future burden upon the community; to reserve natural
resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain suitable
standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and to prevent
hazard to life and property.
8-7.5 CREDIT FOR PRIVATE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. The
Advisory Agency at its discretion may reduce the land or fees
required under Section 8-7.4 by an amount equivalent to 25 percent of
the area of land in the subdivision which is to be used for private
park and recreational facilities, provided that:
(a) The subdivision, or that portion of it for which the credit
would apply, constitutes a neighborhood.
(b) Land or dedication fee requirements shall not be reduced by an
amount equivalent to more than two acres.
(c) The private park and recreation facilities:
(1) Have sites of at least one-half acre in area.
(2) Are owned by a homes association composed of all property
owners in the neighborhood and being an incorporated
nonprofit organization capable of dissolution only by. a
100 percent affirmative vote of the membership, operated
under recorded land agreements through which each lo.t
owner in the neighborhood is automatically a member, and
each lot is subject to a charge for maintaining the
facilities.
(3) Are restricted for park and recreational or open space
purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land
and cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent
of the City Council.
(4) Are in accord with the principles and standards for local
parks contained in the Park and Recreation Element of the
City of Dublin General Plan.
8-7.6 AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. Where fees are
required by the City to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fees
shall be based on the current market value of all of the land in that
subdivision as determined by 'the most recent appraisal made at the
direction of the City at the time of approval of the final
subdivision map.
If the subdivider and/or, the Local Agency objects to the
determination of current market value by the City, either may, at its
own expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real
estate appraiser which appraisal may be accepted by the City if found
reasonable.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 74-83. A 1983 amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance to establish the following formula for
calculating park and dedication requirements and reads in part as
follows:
The park and recreation area required for each dwelling unit
shall be as follows:
b) For zoning districts which require less than 5,000 square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit, .009 acres per unit.
_4
,
fi
`.Z
,._..7
i
c) For Planned Development, condominium, or townhouse-type
development, lot area per dwelling unit shall be computed
by dividing the total project area by the number of
proposed units.
C. GENERAL PLAN
The Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek (see
Background Attachment 2 - Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance, dated -January 30, 1986, and previously
sent under separate cover to the Commission), provides an indepth
analysis of the General Plan Land Use designations and development
policies that apply to the subject property. The Analysis section of
the Staff Report discusses General Plan/Land Use issues that remain
unresolved.
D. ZONING ORDINANCE
8-30.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS: INTENT: Planned Development
Districts, hereinafter designed ast PD Districts, are established to
encourage the arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable
lands in such a manner that the resulting development will:
1) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan of the City of
Dublin.
2) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation of
significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape
features with minimum alteration of natural land forms.
3) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
4) Be compatible with and enhance the development 'of the general area,
5) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
8-32.12 CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED. The provisions of this
Article shall become applicable to any given development only upon
change in Zoning District to a Planned Development District, in
accordance with the provision of Article 8 (Procedures) of this
Chapter, with the following exceptions to the provisions of said
Article 8:
a) The determination that the proposal will benefit the public
necessity, convenience and general welfare be based, in part, on the
conformance of the proposal with provisions of this Article.
b) Any change in zoning district accomplished in accordance with this
Article is subject to review by the Planning Commission at the
expiration of two (2) years from the effective date of said change,
if during the two (2) year period construction, in accordance with
the approved plan is not commenced, or if the approved staging plan
has not been followed. At the conclusion of the review by the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may recommend to the
City Council that: the lands affected by the Planned Development
District be rezoned from the Planned Development District. Said
hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
c) A Planned Development District shall be established by the adoption
of an Ordinance by the City Council reclassifying the described
property to a Planned Development District and adopting by
reference, a Land Use and Development Plan, the provisions of which
shall constitute the regulations for the use, improvement and
maintenance of the property within the boundaries of the plan.
8-31.1.5 COMMON AREAS - PROVISIONS, OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE.
Maintenance of all lands included within the plan not utilized for
building sites, State and County Roads, and public uses, shall be
assured by recorded land agreements, covenants, proprietary control, or
_5-
�.r, - 7
other stated devices which attain this objective. The proposed method
of assuring the maintenance of such lands shall be included as part of Y
the Land Use and Development Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds the proposed project
will not have a significant impact on the environment (see Exhibit A -
Draft Resolution- regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance and Background Attachment 2 - Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance).
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the, February 18, 1986, hearing was
published in The- Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in
public buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Villages at Alamo Creek, by Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate
Development, proposes 1,165 units and .a convenience store on 135+ acres of
property on the east side of the Dougherty Hills. It is the largest
remaining undeveloped area in the City. As proposed, it could account for
an approximate 20 % increase in the total number of dwelling units- in the
City of Dublin. Because of its overall size and number of dwelling units,
the Staff has identified primary considerations in the review of the
proposal. The primary considerations are outlined in 12 sub-groupings
which include citations of the proposed Conditions of Approval in the Draft
Resolutions for the Planned Development Rezoning or Tentative Map that
apply to the respective issues.
1) General Plan/Land Use
2) Park Dedication Requirements
3) Overall Site Layout
4) Dimensional Design Criteria-Square Footage Area
5) Emergency Access
6) Dougherty Road Design Criteria
7) Convenience Store Site Plan Layout
8) Loop Trail System
9) Access - Circulation - Parking for Village I (3-bedroom
multiple family dwelling units)
10) Dimensional Design Criteria - Multiple Family Residential
Villages
11) Environmental Review
12) Architecture, Landscaping Architecture, and Grading
The key issues that need resolution through the hearing process are:
1) General Plan/Land Use - Does the density in Village I need to
be increased to medium-high density (70 dwelling units; under-
structure parking; 3 or more living levels), or does the
overall proposal with a density of 11.66 dwelling units per
Gross Residential Acre for the combined areas north and south
of Amador -Valley Boulevard meet the intent of the General Plan?
Do the proposed square feet dwelling units meet the intent of
the General Plan or are some larger lots needed?
2) Park Dedication Reauirements
The Planning Commission should comment on the key issues and primary
considerations, and indicate to Staff any needed additions, clarifications
or revisions. At the next Planning Commission meeting, the Staff will
respond to the Planning Commissioners' concerns and will provide a
Supplement Staff Report.
-6-
A. GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE As indicated in the Expanded. Initial Study, a'
wide range. of General Plan policies apply -to the proposed develop--
ment. The unresolved policy questions concerning the proposed land _
use are as follows:
1. Commercial Site: The proposed commercial use (7-11 Convenience
Food Store) proposed for the southwest corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Dougherty Road is not integrated into the
residential area proposed for adjoining Village I as called for
by the General Plan. The nature of the proposed commercial
use, the small size of the area proposed for commercial
development, and grade differentials between the proposed
commercial and residential areas work against the integration
of the two uses.
2. Residential Density - Village I: ' The General Plan requires the
residential density of Village I to be medium-high density
(14.1 to 25.0 units/acre). The density proposed for this area
was initially calculated at 13.30 dwelling units per acre which
would have placed it into the medium density category (6.1 to
14.0 units/acre). Recalculation of this area's density
indicates that the Gross Residential Density (which counts 1/2
of the adjoining public right-of-ways up to a maximum width of
50 feet) is actually 12.2 units/acre. Given the Gross
Residential Acreage for Village I, 4.92+ acres, a total of 70
dwelling units would have to be developed to meet the 14.1
minimum residential density of the medium to high General Plan
land use designation. It should be noted that the net density
of the site excluding any adjoining roadway is 14.6 units/acre
(60 units over 4.10+ acres). The overall project density is
14.98 dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre.
3. Riparian Vegetation - Access to Alamo Creek: The proposed site
plan layout does not provide access to the Alamo Creek stream
corridor, which would provide strict compliance with the
implementing policy outlined in Section 7.1 of the General
Plan.
4. Residential Density - Village VI: A guiding policy found in
Section 2.1.2 - Neighborhood Diversity calls for avoiding
economic segregation by City sector, and specifically calls for
some of the units approved an the subject property to be single
family detached. The proposed lotting pattern of the single
family residential area, 45' x 95' pad dimensions for 146
units/26.76 establishes a Gross Residential Density of 5.46
units/acre. This comparatively high density for a single
family residential project (the General Plan density range for
single family residential is 0.9 to 6.0 units/acre) raises the
policy question of whether the proposed type of development
will provide clear conformance to the referenced General Plan
Guiding Policies, or whether a lotting pattern with larger
residential lots for some or all of the single family area
would be apropriate to provide the desired housing mix and to
avoid economic segregation by City sector. An example approach
would be to require the uppermost tier of lots (i.e. Lots #51 -
#122, a total of 71 of 145 proposed lots) to be modified from
45-foot minimum width lots. This approach would require a unit
reduction in Village VI of approximately 17 lots, and would _
allow the development of two types of single family residential
housing project types.
5. Rental Units in Large Multi-Family Projects: An implementing
policy found in Section 6.4 - Summary of Housing Program
Strategies indicates that a percentage of units in large
multi-family projects should be required to be rented for a
specified period of time to insure the availability of rental
housing. Condition #83 within the Draft Resolution for the
. Planned Development Rezoning attempts to .provide for this
requirement. '
a;'MT'�7'h,ir..�-*tv!1'2�.'i^:;. :�r;r+'R,�r,M1:^�;7;.(f,•..'�'�hs. a^'*,r rr'°,�",���SY'"�':j�.'„^ �r1°��"`.'�� .r } rr as,'a�`'�'rt;^�'TsrF'^s.rt^T.rt. �• -
J
1. �
B. OVERALL SITE LAYOUT
1. Open Space: Staff has recommended that the common open space
area developed in the project observe a 35% minimum .for the
respective multiple family residential villages, excluding the
inaccessible creek channel and the area proposed for park
dedication to the City. Detailed analysis of the site plan has
revealed that the standard of 35% minimum open space for the
multiple family residential areas can be observed both as a
whole and as taken on an individual-by-individual Village
basis. (Initial calculations for Village I showing less than
35% open space where incorrect, as the area actually approaches
a 50% open space standard.) The City's guiding design
standards regarding open space are contained in the City of
Dublin-Preliminary Residential Condominium Development
Guidelines. That documents calls for 50% of multiple family
residential sites to be useable common open space (with open
space areas being defined at least 15 feet in width, except for
decks, patios and balconies, which must be at least 7 feet in
width to be counted as open space).
Related to the issue of how much open space area is available
is the question of the quality, size and layout of the open
space provided. The size of the six proposed recreation/open
space areas proposed for the multiple family residential
portions of the project are described below.
Village Size
Village I 5,825+ sf (0.13 acres)
Village II 24,475+ sf (0.56 acres)
Village III 27,075+ sf (0.64 acres)
Village IV 34,100+ sf (0.78 acres)
Village V 44,000+ sf (1.01 acres)
Village VII 4,425+ sf (0.10 acres)
It is Staff's recommendation that minor adjustments to the site plan
layout be pursued through the Site Development Review process to
enlarge each respective recreation/open space area as reasonably "
feasible without creating crowding among building groups surrounding
those areas.
In regards to the potential recreational needs of future residents in
Village VI, (the single family residential area) the applicant's
letter of January 20, 1986, outlines an approach that would
facilitate the formation of an optional membership swim club. The
advantages of the proposed format include the fact that the site
selection at the entrance of the project would serve to frame the
entry access to Villages VI and VII and would serve to provide a
better transition between the lots in Village VI and the proposed
neighborhood park site. '� Establishment of a pool at the area proposed
(Lots 145 and 146 of Village VI) would provide the future residents
of this Village with a recreational amenity which would not be
provided by the community park and could not reasonably be
established on the bulk of the proposed single family residential
lots because of their small size. The need for a swim club would be
lessened if the single family lots were larger and more of them could
accommodate typical residential sized pools.
The arrangement proposed by the applicant appears to have merit and
can be supported by Staff if the following adjustments are
incorporated into the proposal: 1) The schematic layout of the pool
facility should be detailed at the Site .Development Review stage; 2)
rough estimates,of improvement and maintenance costs should also be
provided at the Site Development Review stage, 3) the potential "swim
—8-
.. .7;.
club" members should -be reserved the flexibility to consider and
pursue an alternate recreational facility for the site in conjunction
with, or in place of, a swimming pool facility with the added right _
to expend the monies fronted by the developer to build such an- -
alternate facility.
C. DIMENSIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA — SINGLE FAMILY AREA (VILLAGE VI) SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Several specific design changes are recommended by Staff that should
be considered through the Site Development Review process for Village
VI. One proposed adjustment involves the introduction of up to four
cul—de—sacs into the street network for this portion of the project.
While shown schematically in the applicant's revised lotting plan
dated received February 6, 1986, the possible drawbacks of the
revisions should be reviewed in detail through the Site Development
Review process (possible loss of lots, increase in the angle of slope
of the rear yard areas of lots. surrounding cul—de—sacs,
fire/emergency access concerns, impacts to pedestrian/bicycle
circulation, etc).
Slope areas below Lots 133-141 and Lots '51-74 and above Lots 77-113
require special treatment to minimize potential undesirable visual
impacts that may result from the creation of these slope areas.
Proposed Conditions #73 in the Draft Resolution for the Planned
Development Rezoning establish general guidelines for the
planting/revegation programs for these slope areas that should be
addressed through the Site Development Review process for Village VI.
Upslope areas behinds Lots 77-113 should, to the extent feasible, be
incorporated into the adjoining open space area to minimize the
visual impacts that might potentially be associated with individual
property owner's subsequent development of the respective rear yard
slope areas. The C.C. & R. 's established for these lots should
firmly control the use and development of slope areas retained in the
all lots detailed.
Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the
single family residential lots are proposed by Staff to include the
following:
1. Front Yards — 20—foot minimum; subject to review and approval
by the Planning Director, may be varied from 18
to 22 feet to provide variety while maintaining
the 20—foot average.
2. Side Yards — A. One—story Units =
— 5—foot minimum each side
— 12 foot minimum street side sideyard
B. Two—story Units =
— 6—foot minimum each side
— 15—foot minimum street side sideyard
3. Rear Yards — 20—foot minimum, to be generally flat and
useable
In addition to the above, the design of single family residential
units developed should provide for the maximum unit privacy through
use of building layouts which provide useable side and rear yard
areas with offsets of windows and similar inter—building design
considerations. A final consideration is to control the setback of
the street elevations of the second story of all proposed two story
units. Conceptual plans submitted by the applicant for Village VI
show 5'+ second story setbacks from the face of first floor garages.
This approach would soften the visual impacts of the proposed
development as viewed both from within the subdivision and as regards
views of the development from afar.
The above—detailed design considerations appear on the Draft
Resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning as Condition #84.
-9-
-4
D. EMERGENCY ACCESS - The site plan•.layout..indicates. the proposed use of
the flood control access-road extending from Amador: Valley Boulevard
along the west side of the .realigned creek channel as a
secondary/emergency access .route to .serve Villages."VI and .VII.._:To µ
serve in this function the roadway's design must provide adequate -and
reliable access for Fire, Police and other types of emergency
vehicles. Condition #49 'within the Draft Resolution for the Planned
Development Rezoning addresses this .issue. .. Similarly, the flood
control access road adjacent to Village VI should be considered as a
secondary emergency access route. Use of this second leg of the
flood control access road would appear to provide more flexibility in
considering whether an alternate layout for Village VI using up to
four cul-de-sacs has merit (as discussed in Item C. above).
The alignment of the cul-de-sac at the northwestern corner of Village
VI lends itself for future use as a possible back-up emergency access
route. The right-of-way dedicated for the cul-de-sac should include
all lands up to the County line to give the City of Dublin the
flexibility of pursuing a future emergency access linkage with the
land to the north upon the submittal of a development plan for that
property with the City of San Ramon. (See proposed Condition #50 of
the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning.)
Related to these items, but not necessarily tied to providing
emergency access, Staff recommends the right-of-way along the north
side of the northernmost loop road along Village V also be required
to be expanded to be taken up to the County line. With the expanded
right-of-way, the City would secure the flexibility of considering
possible road connections to serve development to the north which may
be determined desirable to minimize the number of intersections along
Dougherty Road and/or alignment conflicts of intersections proposed
to be located along Dougherty Road. (See proposed Condition #51 of
Draft Resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning.)
E. DOUGHERTY ROAD DESIGN CRITERIA - The applicant's schematic design
cross section for the Dougherty Road frontage proposes a planting
strip adjoining the proposed sound-architectural wall that would be
as narrow in places as nine feet (assuming an eight-foot right-of-way.
strip). The applicant's letter of February 4, 1986 (see Background
Attachment #10 - Regarding the Expanded Initial Study), indicates
that if the 12-foot dimension were applied as a minimum standard it
may cause site design layout problems in certain areas of the
project.
The framework of Staff's analysis on this issue starts with an
acknowledgement that the ultimate design width of Dougherty Road will
accommodate high vehicular speeds and volumes. It is therefore
considered undesirable to have an attached-standard sidewalk. The
length of the Dougherty Road frontage requires that the design of the
frontage strip provide variety and have built into its design width "
adequate area to provide effective, functional landscaping areas.
With the above considerations in mind, Staff recommends that the
following design critera for this area be observed:
1) Total minimum width measured from face-of-curb to face-of-wall
should be a 19-foot minimum, and should be widened to 23 feet
wherever feasible.
2) Four-foot minimum landscape strips should be utilized measured
from face-of-curb to the front edge of the sidewalk and between
the rear edge of sidewalk and the face of the sound-
architecutural wall.
3) The sidewalk should be a minimum of six feet in width and
should meander both horizontally and vertically through the
center 11-foot strip (minimum width) that remains.between the
two minimum landscape strips established above.
-10
at;�,,;..�.mm �.,^-rrkYaj�P �'T"n'�rr-,�i<f�: �P't�"t"F"1:��r ;�� :"S�'' m^+t^� a ra: ?aG+r-+-s--'-cam..-3-t--f+.«�,-x:- r�u-x�r-ir•�-G�-c c� K '�'�'y"'Y�r. -
f G>,is� a+• =N e� {,w- .h-r'�? r.a p .v ._.�, y -: ! k, L"�,y (��i. ! ,.y: t �, .
14r tr'-sLnale*' 'ti. !,.,1 r �k+u?'r'�y,.ar r;•9-. `ci�sg�� tifi+.q��:^ava" +��Cz,�Si� k�pF � � '.�"y!i#4�,q�a*''�''!rrrY�.,^c,�d'�'F. �zSrY,n. 4 .k5!^?'."� '
.�fv.e4..it`v,. .�.._�+-'�,u_ .: .`'t,'M:...u ..... ,-.te..2 ti. .=::�,t.:..,rtt.._h;.-f^w._.:s,�������t.,gt.sr.:?+�.-:t:�..,.-v1'�, ..t`.......x•�.."t�........... .. .__r_...G,.. -,:'..,.,....,a-..,_<ri,:in°t-..JtS`.+.�?y,.�„,:+a f'`'µ..n,.,. ..
» i I �G
4) Wall design should- provide detailed architectural design-on
both sides of the wall and should utilize "pop-outs". of a -
minimum depth of three feet, being regularly spaced albng .the
wall's entire frontage.
The above-cited design criteria should be observed along the entire
Dougherty Road frontage to provide for project continuity (i.e. , the
use of the wall should also be made along Village I's frontage).
The project's Amador Valley Boulevard frontage should receive
comparable treatment, adjusted slightly to acknowledge both the
preserve of the wide landscaped median within Amador Valley Boulevard
and the need for a ten-foot detached bicycle/pedestrian pathway along
the northern Amador Valley Boulevard frontage. The Amador Valley
Boulevard frontage should receive the same sound-architectural wall
as is to be located along Dougherty Road. Pedestrian access through
the walls for access to the convenience store site should be provided
in proximity to Units #4 and #8 in Village I and Units #27/#28 and
#21/#22 in Village II.
The design criteria established regarding the recommended treatment
of the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard frontages are
addressed within the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development
Rezoning, appearing as Conditions #64 to #67.
F. CONVENIENCE STORE SITE PLAN LAYOUT - The proposed size and layout of
the convenience store appears inadequate to handle anticipated peak
hour useage. Staff's preliminary review indicates that the
commercial parcel's Dougherty Road frontage width would have to be
enlarged by at least 17 feet to provide room to roughly double the
on-site parking provided. This change would increase the site by
approximately 3,000 square feet (from 17,500+ sq. ft. to 20,500+ sq.
ft.). To accommodate the proposed adjustment to this site, change
would be required to the layout of building groups in the adjoining
. sections of Village I.
A third driveway to the site appears appropriate for establishment at
the northwest corner of the site along Amador Valley Boulevard.
Additional design considerations involving the pedestrian walkway
system, the gasoline pump island layout, the method of tying into the
adjoining sound-architectural wall, etc. , should be addressed in
conjunction with the Site Development Review for the site. Part of
the submittal requirements for that subsequent submittal should
include information documenting the needed parking requirements for
the proposed convenience food store. It should be noted that the'
findings of that Study may reveal that an even larger commercial
parcel is necessary to accommodate the parking amounts determined
necessary.
The recommended design changes for the convenience store site are
outlined in the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development
Rezoning, appearing as Condition #75.
G. LOOP TRAIL SYSTEM - The size, location and layout of the subject -
property (i.e. , presence of Alamo Creek and its proximity to the
recently acquired 90-acre open space area along the ridge line of the
South Dougherty Hills) lend themselves to the establishment of a
formal trail network. The applicant is proposing the development of _
approximately one mile of a pedestrian pathway system .along the top
of Alamo Creek. ("Development" means a detatched walkway of six feet
in width, as opposed to a standard, attached four to five foot
sidewalk.). This system should be formally interconnected to the
Dougherty Hills open space area at the proposed cul-de-sac at the
western terminus of the access road running between Villages VI and
VII. The right-of-way secured in Village VI at the northwesternmost
corner (adjacent to Lots #113 and #114) should be modified to assure
the City retains the flexibility of subsequently developing a
secondary interconnection between this project's roadway/pathways .
and the Dougherty Hills open space area. The grading and lotting
layout in the northwesternmost corner of Village VI should be
. -11
r--•,sr i',Z.•;u.-i^.3"3""?`i.,^` rt^nis- r �. T :r.•� r mss- `. .nom*. rs.-" sr. f^°,� r r �-'�*:,•y"'TZ'ry e+.•+;�rFY
r ;.fl K, '1"t, .� cS j•.1 xt.%..t� y .��r ,r Cry�.. � � z �»X .'"�� Y f: 1 -.''�� 5l ..
arixa, 'h•. ,,r {•�Ar.:x -. z ac:- 'f,?a6�..A W'C..rm ts,p �� !+ , ��.-..{X.x l�!+' �,.A�`� ' #7"' nF^-xs.. r � x r '�4 3^sxf r L�xt. +. - ,-_"
,.. .•ti. .� ,.:. ;- ,. ... _. . s — R�� .:S:J,`.?�.�.,.�` ..c. �i�.-,;<`_ s�.ar. s.ntiK��t�..c'�?,s::.a..r ..6'�:.._-��:::re:. .zic.;.:r. f ... �
' )
modified to assure that subsequent development of pedestrian. access ,:
from the cul-de-sac along the north side of Lots #113 and up the ,., , .
adjoining slopes is not precluded by this project's development.
Development of this secondary access point should be pursued only as
a fallback position if site planning for the adjoining property .to
the north across the City/County line does not take advantage of the
opportunity to mirror the trail network proposed on the subject
property and create a sub-regional trail system with interconnections
between a creekway and ridge line trail routes that potentially could
run uninterrupted from Old Ranch Road in San Ramon to Amador Valley
Boulevard in Dublin, creating paralelling trail systems of
approximat-ely 1.5 miles.
To facilitate the interim trail development, the cul-de-sac bulb at
the terminus of the roadway separating Villages VI and VII should be
moved further down the slope to function as a "knuckle" and to allow
an easier slope transition for pedestrian trail access up the slope
to the adjoining 90+ acre open space area. Access in this area would
necessarily traverse an oddly-configured open space remnant of
approximately seven acres in size that would lie above the day-light
zone of the proposed grading for the single family residential
development. It is recommended that the City pursue the acquisition
of this area through an offer of dedication allowing it to be tied
o
into the immediately adjoining 90+ acre area presently controlled by
the City.
Staff recommends that the dimensional criteria for the creek-side
pedestrian walkway is recommended be a six- to eight-foot detached
concrete meandering walkway that maintains a minimum four-foot
landscaped setback from the face of curb at the adjoining loop
roadways and a four-foot landscaped setback from the flood control
maintenance fence.
H. ACCESS - CIRCULATION - PARKING FOR VILLAGE I - During the course of
the site plan review for the subject proposal, Staff indicated a
variety of concerns relating to the layout of units, driveways and
parking for the 15-building, 60-unit Village I area. Staff indicated
a desire to utilize a second vehicular connection to the site (either
from the south through the Arroyo Vista housing project or along
Amador Valley Boulevard) to improve internal circulation and to allow
diminishment of the distances between the more remote units from
proposed available parking. (See Background Attachment #8 -
Applicant's letter dated December 10, 1985, regarding these
concerns.) Further complicating the layout for Village I is the '
apparent need to expand the commercial site, as previously discussed
in Item F. above. Additionally, a redesign might actually allow for
a more efficient, slightly denser use of the property to allow closer
conformance to the medium-high density range presently covering the
parcel.
Staff recommends that a combined Conditional Use Permit/Site
Development Review be required to address the design concerns
identified for Village I. This application should address the
following issues:
1. Provision of Secondary Access - The preferred means of access
would be from the south through the Arroyo Vista Housing
Authority project. The developer should be required to
diligently pursue the necessary approvals to develop such an
access. Failure to secure this access shouldn't release the
applicant from providing a secondary access, as a second access
along the Amador Valley Boulevard is considered feasible and
appropriate:
2. Internal Circulation/Parking Count - Revisions to the site plan..
layout should attempt to reduce the. distances between available ,
parking and the more remote dwelling units marked for develop-
ment. The parking count should also be adjusted to match the
standard being observed elsewhere across the project (the site
is nine spaces short of the 129-space suggested standard) or a .
_12
'+r4'�1;:,.v`7�r. �a* '..p< ti �z}r,,�n -.x rFxy�')"' 'jc E'. ••� _.'77"$''°"" �'srt ^rr Sn t°'4,'F� 'n+ � :.
`n•-4�*,iCLx.-A�s'iL"�i 1,..�C 1��},y � i rwtr ,�^4�5.1�+•�.. * '-
�, .�! .i � 'k yr':S�,,,,r,r ! = FtiJ•yel.'ep�.�u ytx��,d'y,�r3i,`.5�'��rti'r�,��"j��j�, �^Sz��1 r r'�f if�t'��.,C_ r:f�, r � ✓' ;�'�'e7'A'.: �rl?...-tr* t -
..,.. !.r.. ...,...,.)o-...�I .L , _.....r .:� .:,... ,. t':.T..•_.. .:... r31. .. .n.-.5� ...�..ti.,.,...J)^it`.,,w�c� ,... s,.✓3.,,...• ,... ..
T
r
more restrictive 'standard-to'acknowledge-that development :of ;.
three bedroom units-may result- in a geater_need. .for. parking
then the other multiple family residential Villages.
3. Project Density - More efficient site planning, possibly .in
conjunction with introduction of some eight-unit building
groups, should be pursued to provide closer compliance with the
site's General Plan density range (i.e. , increase:.the
residential density to, or above, the 14.1 du/acre standard).
4. Commercial Area - A revised site plan layout should accommodate
the larger commercial site (the size and configuation of that
site should be determined in advance of the submittal of the
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review application for
Village I) while not scrimping on the building setbacks shown
by the current site plan submittal.
A final, optional consideration is the adjustment of the size and location
of the recreation area to provide a larger, more centralized site and
facility.
I. DIMENSIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES -
Several generalized design changes are recommended- by Staff for
application to the six proposed multiple family residential Villages.
The first generalized area regards building inter-relationships and
setbacks. The minimal dimensional design criteria for the multiple
family units recommended by Staff areas follow:
1. Building to Building Separations - 20-foot minimum separation
between buildings, with deviation of the minimum separation
subject to review and approval by the Planning Director through
the Site Development Review process to consider case-by-case
reductions to 15-feet when:
a) one of the facing building walls has no windows;
b) living room to living room windows are separated by a
minimum distance of 40 feet;
± c) living room to bedroom windows are separated by 30 feet.
2. Building to Roadway Separations - 15-foot minimum, except for
building setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard,
and along the first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads off
from their intersection with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley
Boulevard, where a 20-foot minimum setback (measured from the
rear face of the sound-architectural wall, as applicable) shall
be observed.
3. Patios/Decks and Patio/Decks/Building Walls Separations - 15-
foot minimum.
4. Building Walls and Parking Areas Separations - 10-foot minimum
with a minimum of 5-feet of the width landscaped for screening
of parking.
5. Building Walls to Building Appurtenances (including stairways)
Separations - 20-foot minimum separation of heated exterior
building walls and 20-foot minimum separation between living
room deck and adjacent building appurtenances (except patio).
6. Building Appurtenances to Building Appurtenances Separations -
10-foot minimum separation.
J. PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS (Note: Staff met with the applicants
on Wednesday, February '12, 1986, to discuss park dedication
requirements. This is a key issue area where the Staff and
applicants are in disagreement. The City Attorney's Office is
reviewing this matter. The analysis will be provided for the next
Planning Commission meeting.)
-13-
�—w..�r�!.c,P-rry=r�.—'.•f;s+�cF.vr�.fi''p3�'�"1^�'Y.�,.T �,�,�'*43'3;"'�'�A•,."""�'.Y-^..t't,,T,�"TjC�'t'r✓vt t;:r.'cn"��ifi"ey,-- t,S y,..,,+ e. vti, � �. Y{�j t i,
74 v.S ' ., r.. n ,R.�}J'r.$4� 1, S d�{T. ..��r• 1�k"�.�"���'tLyr°/ )-�x''s:%' r v r, �� t..s -��+ ,:S'n ti 1ry17rI'y.. ." _ a :...
ui .,_.•.f�1`x r?t ,w' A .. ,,,. .,. .: ,. �.fe ."' y'±'R,', r te',d'c .?✓xia'•4..aya,.. k ..5.db•.4r 2,1�;5'�� ,7'cs .J.n'wcg+�:a:� i, ,A„ 5'r;",nn..r..;'i»'!�`iS7,�".:.?�•!`�i'.�fl.,M'?""}::,f.. `^'_v
K. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE - As noted previously, the City recommends
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance _
be adopted for this project. The draft environmental document
prepared for this project reflects the culmination of over one year's
review of potential environmental impacts. The review dates back to
December, 1984, when Staff formulated draft environmental review of
the preliminary development plan submittals and indicated that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) appeared necessary. At that same
time Staff recommended that a variety of project studies be initiated
to provide more detailed assessment of environmental impacts that
would potentially be related to this development proposal. The
studies recommended by Staff to be performed were acoustical, biotic,
archaeological, hydrologic, soil and geotechnical, erosion and
sedimentation, traffic and visual.
From the period of January through July, 1985, a variety of the
referenced studies were prepared. These studies were subsequently
incorporated into Staff's Initial Study of Environmental Analysis,
which was distributed on September 7, 1985, as a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The NOP
served as notice from the City that preliminary review of the project
indicated unmitigated and potentially significant impacts that would
necessitate the preparation of an EIR to meet the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. The NOP was distributed to
approximately 45 agencies with a cover letter indicating that by
benefit of the detailed project information generated (i.e. , detailed
initial study, various project studies and draft mitigation measures
prepared by Staff), the City was hopeful that a majority of the
identified potential environmental project impacts could be directly
mitigated through project redesign and/or by securing binding
agreements from the project developer to build in required mitigation
measures.
On October 28, 1985, the applicant entered into an agreement to
utilize consultant services, Wagstaff and Brady - Urban and
Environmental Planners, to fine-tune.the project's environmental
review documents to determine whether a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance could be recommended to be
issued for the project, or whether unmitigatable impacts continued to
be present and would precipitate the need for the preparation of an
EIR.
The end product produced is the document labeled "Expanded Initial
Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek, January 30, 1986" (Background
Attachment - 2, forwarded to the Commission on February 3, 1986) .
The document incorporated the previous Staff environmental documents
with supplementary materials to provide an environmental assessment
with detailed project setting analysis and summation of potential
impacts and corresponding mitigations for each of the following
0
areas:
1. Land Use
2. General Plan Policies and Zoning
3. Hydrology' and Water Quality
4. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
5. Biological Resources
6. Traffic and Circulation _
7. Air Quality
8. Noise
9. Municipal Services and Facilities
a) Schools
b) Sewer Service
C) Water Supply
d) Fire Protection
e) Police Protection
f) Recreation
10. Visual Resources
11. Cultural Resources
12. Energy
-14-
{"c. 7+ ♦(f � r k`'b ;v yro f� 1 7 .r zP!^ ?S' .q "` K irvr+s-v..�,-,�-"'.,r�,T^'�.�""�'. z� t '.' x .. v.
The document is currently in circulation form, with the comment
period extending 30 days and ending on March 2, 1986.
This document is the basis for Staff's recommendation that the
Planning Commission adopt Exhibit. A, a Draft Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for the project. The document further
serves as the framework of projected related conditions of approval
recommended in Exhibits B and C.
L. ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND GRADING - The proposed
architecture of the multiple family residential units is indicated to
be very similar to that of the units developed at the Amador Lakes
project. Major differences involve the propsal to introduce up to 13
three-story building groups (with 24-one bedroom units in each
building group) and the introduction of a new unit type, a three-
bedroom unit in an eight unit building group (proposed for exlusive
use in Village I).
A primary concern of Staff regarding the proposed unit architecture
is that adequate diversity across the project as a whole be provided
to avoid monotony, and that roofing material be upgraded to tile or
the equivalent to provide additional texture and shadow pattern.
Individual Villages should be designed in a manner to stand alone
with village-specific architectural features (such as alternate types
of roofing or siding materials, alternate use of open or enclosed
stairwells, etc.) . The detailed design review of project
architecture shall be made at the time of submittal of the respective
Site Development Review applications.
The size of the project, in conjunction with the limited detail on
the plan submitted by the applicant regarding project landscaping,
dictates that detailed review of landscape architecture also be made
at the Site Development Review stage.
Site grading considerations were detailed extensively through the
Expanded Initial Study prepared for this project- and in turn are
reflected through the recommended Conditions of Approval contained in
the Draft Resolutions for the Planned Development Rezoning and
Tentative Map requests. Review of final grading plans will
necessarily have to occur with the submittal of the respective Site
Development Review requests.
CONCLUSION
As indicated previously in this Report, Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission utilize this initial public hearing to gain an overview
of the project proposal and associated developmental impacts and concerns,
keying in on the 12 sub-groupings of primary considerations identified by
Staff. Upon receiving input from the Staff, applicant and the general
public, Staff recommends the Commission provide comments and/or specific
direction for additional Staff review or revisions to the attached Draft
Resolutions.
RECO`MENDATION
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, applicant and the public.
4) Provide Staff and the applicant with the Commissioners'
comments, keying in on the identified issue areas, and
provide direction for additional Staff review and/or
revision to the Draft Resolutions.
5) Continue the public hearing to the Commission meeting of
'March 3, 1986.
-15-
.. . •nr, +v;.'/ r. ,. a u.r., .495 ' 7-"" x.��r—.{-.. S. t - ,a.-+• L^/.t.z am r `t.�c:?w f _
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated 7 _
Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance and Expanded Initial Study for the
Villages at Alamo Creek
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the PD; Planned
Development Prezoning and Rezoning
applications
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5511
Exhibit D - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map
Submittals
Background Attachments:
1) Applicant's Written Statement
2) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance
3) Draft Ordinance for Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
4) Site Location and Area Maps
5) Schematic Land Use Layout of Camp Parks .Facility
6) Applicant's Letter of November 22, 1985, regarding Master Tract
Map Formal Proposal
7) Applicant's Letter of December 6, 1985, and Accompanying
Transmittal, regarding Parkland Dedication Requirements
8) Applicant's Letter of December 10, 1985, regarding Assigned
Covered Parking Scheme for Village I.
9) Applicant's Letter of January 20, 1986, regarding Proposed
Building Separations
10) Applicant's Letter of February 4, 1986, regarding Revised Lotting
Pattern for Village VI
11) Applicant's Letter of February 4, 1986, regarding Expanded Initial
Study
12) Charts Summarizing Staff's Recommendations for Parkland Dedication
Requirements
13) Agency Comments Received in Conjunction with Project Submittal
14) Agency Comments Received in Conjunction with Environmental
Assessment Documents
=16-
8
Rafanelli and Nahas
Real Estate Development
March 19, 1986
Mr. Rich Ambrose
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: East Dougherty Hills Park
Dear Rich:
Mark and I have been giving consideration to the park proposal which
you provided on Tuesday, as well as all of the other cost impacts
connected with the conditions of approval and potential cost impacts
during the site development review stage of the project. -This
proposal, which you have offered, represents an enormous increase in
our anticipated contribution for parks and recreation. One of the
great difficulties in going through this approval process has been the -
continual increase in cost at each stage of the process. We prepared a
series of reports which recommended mitigation measures. These
mitigation measures were budgeted into our program.. Subsequently, -at
each stage of review, planning, public works and in certain instances,
your office, has increased these requirements. At no time has anyone
taken the position that previous requirements were overly strict and
should be reduced. Consequently, at this stage it is critical to us
that we put an end to the continuing levee of additional requirements.
We would appreciate your concurrence on this approach prior to the City
Council hearing, as we are willing to make our commitment on the parks
proposal in advance of that hearing.
The potential future changes which give us concern are the following:
1. The restriction of Village VII to single family detached houses
as recommended by the Planning Commission. This would cause us a
loss of up to 80 units on the site and have a large financial
impact on the project.
2. The potential loss of lots during site development review on
Village VI due to a requirement of increased useable area in the
rear yards. Although there has not been specific direction from
the Planning Commission, we are quite concerned that Larry Tong
has a personal preference for increasing the size and reducing
the number of lots.
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
Rich Ambrose -2- March 19, 1986
3. A representation by the City that they will not pursue or attempt
to enact additional user or impact fees above and beyond those
currently required on this project in the future. We recognize
that we will not be receiving a guarantee that building plan
check and inspection fees, will be fixed. our concern relates to
school impact and other fees which may be leveed for offsite
purposes.
4. Extraction of new requirements during the site development review
process which would result in a specification significantly above
requirements at Amador Lakes, except as provided in the PD and
tentative map conditions.
It is our intention, Rich, to request assurances on each of the above
items from the City Council. If we can receive such assurances, we
will agree to provide parks improvements as specified in the attached
list. Our agreement to do so is subject to the following
understandings:
1. Additional proposals for working drawings and inspection will be
solicited. David Gates & Associates will be included on this
list.
2. The consultants will supply grading plans for the park prior to
June 1, 1986, so that grading can take place at the same time as
mass grading onsite.
3. Drinking fountains shall be located adjacent to pressurized mains
within the irrigation system. Pressurized nines will not be
specifically extended for the purpose of installing a drinking
fountain. There will be no sewer hookups for the drinking
fountains.
4. We will provide the design for the masonry and tubular steel
fence along Dougherty Road, which design will be consistent with
the sound wall and entry design.
5. We will have reasonable input into the park design in order to
effect cost savings. our input will not be at the expense of
proper specifications, but will be intended to avoid the
inefficient expenditure of funds.
Rich Ambrose -3- March 19, 1986
Rich, if the City Council finds this approach acceptable, we will
prepare the necessary development agreement, which may be finally
adopted by the City at a later date'. -
Cordially,
z'L
Ronald C. Nahas
Enc.
ALAMO CREEK COMMUNITY PARK
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER
1. Site Work and Landscaping:
A. Site preparation and clearing - 6 acres.
B. Grading - 6 acres, not to exceed 5,000 cubic yards of mounding.
C. Drainage pipes and inlets. Drainage shall be designed to flow
into the existing storm drainage system and not require
additional outfalls within the channel.
D. Lawn - 4.8 acres.
E. Trees - Not to exceed 250 @ 15 gallon.
2. Walks, Parking, Lighting and Furniture:
A. Walks average 6 foot width, washed aggregate not to exceed
24,000 square feet.
B. Parking lot to be located adjacent to existing streets and
accomodate 24 cars with a standard 12-inch curb or curb and
gutter as appropriate.
C. Lighting - 20 fixtures and poles 16 feet high with a shoe box
too and a Lexan vandal-resistant lens. Poles shall be of steel
similar to those manufactured by Elsco or Guardco.
D. Park Furniture:
1. Drinking Fountains - 2 each to be located on irrigation
main lire without sewer connection.
2. Benches - Not to exceed 8.
3. Trash Receptacles - Not to exceed 5.
4. Sign (1) .
3. Water connection fees and drainage fees.
4. Fencing - Tubular steel fence with masonry pilasters along
Dougherty Road. The design of this fence shall be compatible with
the design of the sound wall and entry monuments for the Alamo
Creek project. Spacing of pilasters shall be similar to spacing at
Amador Lakes.
r
-2-
5. Six foot black vinyl clad chain link fence as required to fence
off the creek right of way.
6. Design and inspection cost to include cost and preparation
of working drawings and onsite, inspection by the City's consultant.
City to solicit competitive bids from qualified designers,
including David Gates.
7. Surveying as required for grading and layout. .