Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 Barratt San Jose PD Rezone AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 23, 1983 SUBJECT: PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, 112 residential condominium units, southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road EXHIBITS ATTACHED: City Attorney Memo re : Tentative Map considerations Staff Analysis RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Hear staff presentation 2 . Conduct public hearing 3 . Consider alternative City Council actions (see below) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Barratt San Jose has applied for a Planned Development rezoning and for Tentative Map approval to permit construction of a 112-unit residential condominium project. The project would be located at the southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. The current zoning is C-N (Neighborhood Business ) . The project consists of 56 1-bedroom, and 56 2-bedroom units, ranging in size from 530 to 685 square feet, each. As a Planned Development, the applicant may be allowed design flexibility, increased density, and more intensive uses, based upon superior design and amenities . At its April 18, 1983, meeting, the Planning Commission discussed four primary concerns identified in the Pre- Hearing Staff Analysis : 1 . Land Use - Is the proposed use and density appropriate for the location? Is the proposed use compatible with and , will it enhance the surrounding areas? 2 . Environmental Impact - Has there been adequate consideration of potential environmental impacts related to the project? 3 . Design - Will the project provide an attractive, efficient, and safe environment? Does the project provide adequate common open areas and other amenities? 4 . Economic - Will the project provide sufficient economic benefits to the community? The Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( 4-1) , recommended approval of the Planned Development rezoning ( 3-2 ) , and adopted the Tentative Map (3-2 ) . After the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission ' s action approving the Tentative Map was appealed. The Staff has prepared a Supplemental Staff Analysis which contains information regarding the issues raised during or after the Planning Commission meeting: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. 5- � COPIES TO: Applicant Appellant 1 . Land Use - How does the proposed project compare with a presently permitted C-N (Neighborhood Business) use, the adjacent residential condominium development, and other residential projects? 2 . Traffic - Will the project have a significant impact on the Dublin Green Drive/Silvergate Drive intersection? 3 . Flood Control - Will the project generate or be subject to significant flood impacts? 4 . Economics - Will the project be a low and moderate income development that will adversely affect adjacent properties? The attached Supplemental Staff Analysis and Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis discuss these issues and contain additional information regarding recommended conditions . Each condition has been recommended for a specific purpose . At the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant concurred with all proposed conditions . Any change in the plans, general provisions, or 'conditions of approval may require modification to the draft resolutions, draft ordinance, or environmental document . At the City Council meeting, Staff will discuss any condition which the Council wishes clarified. ALTERNATIVE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS A. Approve the Planned Development rezoning and the Tentative Map. The Council could approve the Planned Development rezoning and the Tentative Map based on the information contained in the Supplemental Staff Analysis and Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis . The Council must first adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, then act on the rezoning and tentative map. B. Continue the Planned Development rezoning and the Tentative Map. The Council could continue the Planned Development rezoning and the Tentative Map until the San Ramon Road Specific Plan is completed to allow the Specific Plan to determine the appropriate land use for the Barratt site . If the Council desires to continue the hearing on the Tentative Map, it must do so prior to closing the hearing and must have the applicant ' s consent unless the continuance is due to additional environmental review. C. Deny the Planned Development rezoning and the Tentative Map. The Council could deny the Planned Development rezoning and the Tentative Map if it makes any of the findings identified in the City Attorney' s memo. Based on information contained in the Supplemental Staff Analysis and Pre-Hearing Staf Analysis, the Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council : 1 . Adopt Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 . Introduce and waive reading of Ordinance approving the Planned Development rezoning 3 . Adopt Resolution approving the Tentative Map . M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council - FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Ramifications of Tentative Map Consideration DATE: May° 17 , 1983 Consideration of the Barratt Tentative Map may raise some -legal questions . The following are typical : 1 . A decision must be made by the Council within 7 days of the conclusion of the public hearing. Government Code Section 66452 . 5(d) . 2 . The decision must be based upon written findings of fact . The Council may sustain, modify 'or reject the action of the Planning Commission. 3. If the Council approves the Tentative Map, it must make a finding that the map is consistent with the General Plan. Government Code Section 66473. 5 . 4. The time limits for action may be waived by mutual consent of the applicant and the City. Government Code Section 66451 . 1 . The Council may require the applicant to waive time in order to permit concurrent processing of an environmental review. 5 . Government Code Section 66474 provides that the Council may deny approval ot a Tentative Map if it makes any of the following findings : a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans . b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans . C . That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development . e . That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat . f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems . g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements , acquired by the public at large , for access through or use of , property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements , for access or for use , will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public . S T A F F A N A L Y S I S BARRATT SAN JOSE 112 Residential Condominium Units, Rezoning and Tentative Map Application CITY OF DUBLIN May 23 , 1983 I N D E X SECTION DESCRIPTION I SUPPLEMENTAL AND PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS II DEVELOPMENT PLANS . III MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARTION IV TENTATIVE MAP V EXHIBIT D - RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EXHIBIT E - ORDINANCE APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING EXHIBIT F - RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5131 VI APPEAL LETTER VII BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Minutes - Planning Commission Meeting, 4/18/83 B. Location Map C. Project Description D. MacKay & Somps Drainage Study E. Forristal Traffic Study F. Buyer Profile G. Residents ' Survey H. Agency Letters i SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF ANALYSIS Meeting Date: May 23, 1983 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, 112 residential condominium units , southwest corner of Silvergate Way and San Ramon Road PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On April 18, 1983, the Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, to rezone a 6 . 2 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Planned Development (PD) . The rezoning, and its related Tentative Map, is to allow the construction of a 112-unit condominium project. The Planning Commission, after consideration of the Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis, and testimony by the applicant, his design team, and .from interested community residents, approved (4-1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration, recommended approval ( 3-2 ) of the Planned Development rezoning, and approved ( 3-2 ) the Tentative Map subject to numerous conditions . An extensive staff report and presentation materials were provided to the Planning Commission. Rather than revising that packet of information, Staff has prepared this Supplemental Staff Analysis which is intended to be used in conjunction with the attached Planning Commission materials. This report responds to the major issues and concerns that were raised during the Planning Commission meeting of April 18. After the Planning Commission meeting, the Silvertree Homeowners filed an appeal of the Commission' s approval of the Tentative Map . The City Council will need to decide: 1) whether or not the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as prepared, is consistent with State law; 2 ) the merits of the rezoning, and; 3 ) because of the appeal, the merits of the Tentative Map. It should be noted that the applicant has agreed to all of the Conditions of Approval, as approved by the Planning Commission, and as contained in the attached Resolutions and Ordinance (Exhibits D, E, & F. ) ISSUES/CONCERNS 1 . Land Use : The land under review by this application is currently zoned for Neighborhood Business uses, which allows retail stores , hardware stores, auto parts sales, offices, banks, and the like, as permitted uses . Any of these uses can be located on the subject site without a Conditional Use Permit being required by the City. The design aspects, however, would be reviewed via the Site Development Review process . Since the proposed residential use is not permitted by the current zoning, the property must be rezoned to enable the proposed project to be built . Rather than ask that the property be rezoned to, say, R-S-D- 25, which would permit townhouses and apartments without a specific design for the project being required, the applicant has chosen to request a Planned Development rezoning, which requires that the project ' s design and land use be reviewed simultaneously, and that the project be built as designed. This is a more time- consuming and costly process, but it gives the City a specific proposal to review and, if approved, assures the developer that a specific project can be developed with limited uncertainty. -1- Previously, the subject property received a Site Development Review approval from Alameda County in 1980 , for the construction of 110, 000 square feet of two-story offices and 418 parking spaces . Such a use is still permitted on the site, under the existing zoning. In order to compare the Barratt proposal with what current zoning allows, adjacent development, and other similar projects, Staff has prepared a Land Use Comparison (see Chart I ) . Compared to the previously approved offices, which current zoning permits , Chart I shows that the Barratt proposal would: 1 ) provide considerably more open space and landscaping, 2 ) have much .less building coverage (with buildings of a size that is compatible to adjacent residential development) , 3 ) generate a great deal less traffic . In relationship to the adjacent Silvertree development, the Barratt proposal would: 1) provide more open space and landscaping; 2 ) have considerably less building lot coverage; 3 ) generate fewer people per acre due to fewer bedrooms per unit . From strictly a "physical development" standpoint, the Barratt proposal would provide more on-site amenities and off-site public recreational improvements (including the installation and maintenance of extensive landscaping, and a par course along San Ramon Road) than adjacent or comparable developments . It will also be much more consistent with the adjoining residential uses than the commercial uses, which are permitted by the existing zoning. 2 . Traffic : Several traffic concerns were raised and discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. A traffic study was prepared by John Forristal, a traffic engineer, in January, 1983 . This study assessed the traffic impacts of this project in relation to existing and expected traffic from this, and future developments . The January study showed that a signal is needed at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. The Barratt project would increase traffic on Silvergate Drive by 20% . Barratt has agreed to pay 25% of the cost of installing the signal . No other significant traffic impact were found by the study. At the Planning Commission meeting, concern was expressed that the Barratt project would also have a significant impact on the intersection of Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Way. No specific data was available at that time, so an additional analysis was made by Mr. Forristal . This new study shows that the Barratt project would not have any significant impact on the traffic circulation at Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive . The City' s traffic consultant, TJKM, has reviewed both studies and agrees with the data and conclusions . The Barratt project, as conditioned would not create any significant traffic problems . 3 . Flood Control : Another concern that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting was the impact of the Barratt proposal on flooding in the area, and also whether or not it was adequately designed to be protected from flooding, should it occur. Alameda County Food Control and the City Engineer have reviewed and studied Martin Canyon Creek, as it relates to the Barratt proposal . Additional survey and hydrologic data has also been submitted to the City Engineer by MacKay & Somps, Civil Engineers (see attached letter 5/17/83 . ) In reviewing this data, and based on an analysis of the engineering design for the site grading and improvements , the City Engineer has found that : -2- CHART I LAND USE COMPARISON May 11, 1983 PROPOSAL PREVIOUS NEIGHBORING COMPARISON COMPARISON APPROVAL 1 . Name of BARRATT Silvergate Silvertree Springs Apts . Greenwood Project Offices Townhouses Condominiums ( Silvergate & (Silvergate & (Silvertree Ln. (Dublin Blvd. (Starward Dr) ( San Ramon Rd. ) San Ramon Rd. ) & Silvergate) San Ramon Rd. ) I I I I I 2 . Zoning : P .D. : N.C. : RSD-20 & RSD-20 i RSD-20 RSD-25 I I I I I 3 . No. of Units : 112 units : -0- 42 units : 176 units : 60 units I I I I I I I I I I 4 . No. Square I I I I I Feet of Commercial I I I I I I I I I I Building I -0- 1 110, 000 sq. ft.l -0- I -0- 1 -0- I I I I I I I I I I 5 . Units/acre I I I I (u/a) i 18 u/a i -0- 1 13 u/a i 22 u/a i 22 u/a I I I I I 6 . No. bedrooms/ I I I I I I I I I I unit (bd/u) 11 . 5 bd/u I -0- I 2 . 3 bd/u I 1. 5 bd/u I 1 . 6 bd/u I I I I I I I I I I 7 . People/acre using 1 . 25 I I I I 1 I I I I I people/ I I I I I bedroom (p/a) : 33 . 8 p/a i 37 . 4 p/a 41 . 3 p/a i 44 . 0 p/a I I I I I I I I I I 8 . Size of units I I 1 1 I in square I I I I I q I I I I I feet (s . f . ) 1 530-685 s .f. I -0- I 1120-1240 s . f . I 663-908 s .f . I 641-927 s .f I I I I I I I I I I 9 . Building Lot : Coverage ( % ) 1 13% 121% I 36% I 24% I 26% I I I I I 10 . Parking/driveway : : coverage ( 5 ) 132% 160% 1 28%, I 30% I 35% I I I I I I (approx. ) I I I I I I 1 I I I I I - 11 . Landscaping ) I I I I I open space M i 55% i 19% i 38% i 46% : 39% I I a rox. ) 1 1 I 1 I ( Pp I I 12 . Traffic I I I I I a. Daily trips i 896 i 1, 650 b . Peak Hr trips : 106 : 330 : C . Peak p.m. I I I I I trips in/out 1 71/35 i 66/264 1) the Barratt proposal, as conditioned, would result in Martin Canyon Creek adjacent to the project, being able to handle a 100-year flood; 2 ) should flood waters enter the site from adjacent property, this water would not flood the proposed development, and; 3 ) the Barratt proposal would not increase flood impacts on the adjacent subdivision. The final and detailed engineering that must take place for the subject property, will result in a properly designed creek channel (which is to be left as natural as possible) and adequate on-site drainage and flood control . - 4 . Economics : An underlying concern has been the impact of the Barratt proposal on adjacent properties from an economic perspective, since the Barratt condominiums would sell for less than other condominiums in the area. Based upon the applicant ' s estimated minimum cost of $60, 000 per unit, the typical household income required to purchase a unit will be between $21, 000 and $24 , 000 (see Chart II, Typical Cost of Proposed Unit. ) The applicant ' s project in Fremont is occupied primarily by single people, with an average annual income of $25 , 200 (see Buyer Profile in Background Attachments . ) The Federal Household income guideline for a two (2 ) person household shows the following: low income (below 50% of median) _ $12, 200 per year; moderate income ( 50% to 80% of median) = $19 , 500 per year. Given that the typical household income required to purchase . the proposed units is estimated to be above $21, 000, this projet will not be a "low and moderate income" development . Because of the relative low cost of the units, there has been some concern that the project would be bought out by investors and turned into a rental project. The Fremont project has not had such a record. It seems reasonable that this project will be attractive to the first-time buyer, retired people, and others who want ownership rather than rental property; those who will maintain their investment in order to keep the value up, and to help assure that as they become financially better off (or expand the size of their family) , they can afford to "move up" the ownership ladder. This project provides a basic, yet attractive, environment geared toward a purchaser who has few options currently available in the Dublin area. Regarding the impact on adjacent land values, it is difficult to make a definitive statement . In general, most residential property owners prefer residential neighbors rather than commercial neighbors . Residences typically generate less traffic, make less noise, and have less visual impact because the buildings are typically smaller, lower, and have more variation than commercial developments . CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED The City Council needs to take three actions related to the Barratt Planned Development rezoning and Tentative Map applications : 1 . Take an action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; -3- i CHART II TYPICAL COST OF PROPOSED UNIT Estimated Dwelling Value $60 , 000 Initial Costs ( 20% Down payment and Closing Costs ) $14 , 205 Mortgage $48 , 000 Interest Rate 11% 12% 13% Monthly Costs : Payment on 30-year mortgage $457 494 531 Taxes 50 50 50 Insurance 17 17 17 $524 $561 $598 Required Monthly Household Income $1, 747 $1, 870 $1, 993 Required Annual Household Income $20 , 964 $22 , 440 $23 , 916 This chart assumes a 20% down payment, 2-1/2 Discount points, and that 30% of the household income is available for Mortgage, tax, and. insurance payments . Utilities and maintenance add to the monthly cost of owning a dwelling, but are not included in this table. 2 . Take an action on the Planned Development rezoning; 3 . Take an action on the Tentative Map. PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, after consideration of the Staff report and testimony by the applicant and public : 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2 ) Approve the Planned Development rezoning; 3 ) Approve the Tentative Map, as described in Exhibits A, B, & C, upon making the findings and subject to the conditions, as contained in Exhibits D, E, & F. The conditions contained in Exhibits D, E, & F have been developed to assure the City that the project will be built as proposed, that the adjacent and future residents ' interests will be protected, that the City ' s financial position will be protected, that the environmental. impacts will be insignificant, and that the project will be beneficial to the City as a whole . Each condition has been recommended for a specific reason. At the Council meeting, Staff will discuss any condition which the Council wishes clarified. Attachments : Planning Commission Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis Exhibit A —Development Plans B - Mitigated Negative Declaration C — Tentative Map D - Resolution Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration E - Ordinance Approving Rezoning F - Resolution approving Tentative Map G - Appeal Letter H - Background Attachments -4- CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS Meeting Date: April 18, 198 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Director ---------------------- SUBJECT: PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, 112 residential condominium units, southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road (APN 941-101-4-7 , 4-12 ) GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: Barratt San Jose has applied for a Planned Development (PD) rezoning and for Tentative Map approval to permit the construction of a 112-unit residential condominium project. The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) APPLICANT: Barratt San Jose 3150 Almaden Expressway Ste 245 San Jose CA 95118 REPRESENTATIVE : Nathan Meeks LOCATION: Southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-101-4-7 and. 941-101-4-12 PARCEL SIZE: 6 . 2 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Union City Investment Company #7 c/o Investors Realty Service 1780 Whipple Road Ste #203 Union City CA 94587 EXISTING ZONING: (C-N) Neighborhood Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: North - C-0 (Administrative Office) , and C-N (Neighborhood Business) with offices and convenient market . South - C-1 (Retail Business ) with creek and single family dwelling units East - San Ramon Road and Flood Control Canal West - R-S-D-25 and R-S-D-20 (Suburban Residence) 4-plex Residential Condominiums SITE/ZONING HISTORY: On July 21, 1980, the Alameda County Planning Director approved a site plan for the subject property to permit the construction of 110, 000 sq.ft. of commercial office condominiums with 413 parking spaces . Special fencing and landscape treatment was required along San Ramon Road and along Silvergate Drive, including installation and maintenance agreements related to landscaping within City right-of-way (S-781) . -1- A variance to permit 18 parking stalls to be partially located in the required front yard was simultaneously approved (V-8146 ) . Several off-premises subdivision signs have received approval for temporary installation on the subject property. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The following sections of the Zoning Ordinance relate specifically to this application: 8-31 . 0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS: INTENT. Planned Development Districts, hereinafter designated as 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 : a) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan; b) -: 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; . c) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities; d) Be compatible .with and enhance the development of the general area; e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment. 8-31 . 2 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 -2- regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the property within the boundaries of the plan. 8-31. 15 COMMON AREAS - PROVISION, 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 other stated devices which attain this objective . The proposed method of assuring the maintenance of such lands shall be included as part of the Land Use and Development Plan. 8-95 . 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. Site Development Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development; recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses, or erection of structures, having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter, or which are not properly related to their -sites, surroundings,--- traffic circulation, or their environmental setting. Where the use proposed, and the adjacent land uses, environmental significance or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation is found to so require, the Planning ' Director may establish more stringent regulations than those otherwise specified for the District. 8-95-1 . SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: PROCEDURE. The Planning - Director or his designated representative shall receive and decide applications for Site Development Review. No public . hearing is required, except in the case of a concurrent application for a Variance, or in the case of a Conditional Use . TITLE 8, Ch. 1, ALAMEDA COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF .DUBLIN: 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 . 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, utilties and public facilities with community and neighborhood plans ; to assure that areas dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved initially so as not to be a future burden upon the community; to preserve natural resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain suitable standards to insure adequate, safe building sites ; and, to 'prevent hazard to life and property.. . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared on this project. A copy of the MND is attached to this report. NOTIFICATION: Public Hearing notices have been published in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners and posted in public buildings . ANALYSIS : GENERAL COMMENTS This is an application for a Planned Development rezoning and corollary Tentative Map. Unlike a standard rezoning, a Planned Development (PD) rezoning includes specific approval of land use including the type and amount of a use, a preliminary site plan, and preliminary architecture and landscaping. A Planned Development zoning permits the development of a project wherein each building does not, for example, have to be on its own lot with specific and uniform set-back and building siting -3- a limitations . The PD allows buildings to be clustered together and open spaces to be combined. Design flexibility, and the ability to increase density and the amount of .development are primary reasons for its use . In exchange for these developer benefits, cities usually end up with projects that are better designed, and which contain special landscaping, recreation, open space or transportation elements . The Barratt project, originally referred to as Castle Green, and now called Arbor Creek, is located on land that is now zoned for neighborhood commercial uses : retail shops, offices, banks, restaurants, and the like . A previously approved project contained 110 , 000 sq. ft . of office .space, in 6 two-story buildings with 413 parking spaces . Approximately 80% of the site was to have been covered by buildings and parking. One redeeming feature was the provision of landscaping between the site and San Ramon Road. Several land use characteristics change by revising the land use for the subject property from commercial to residential Planned . . Development.` These include : the provision of more landscaping; less traffic and noise generation; :-smaller buildings; and an overall different appearance . On the negative side, ''residential development creates much less revenue for -the City and requires some increase in municipal . services such as police and schools . PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONSIDERATION There are four primary considerations which are commonly assessed when determining the acceptability of a PD rezoning request : 1 . Land Use 2 . -Environmental Impact 3 . Design 4 . Economic Impact Each of these considerations, as applied to the Barratt application, is briefly discussed below: 1 . LAND USE. The subject site is very visible from San Ramon Road and almost acts as an entry point into the central business district or "downtown" area. It is also transitional between the heavily travelled San Ramon Road and residential - property to the west. Martin Canyon Creek, which runs along the southern edge of the property, tends to act as a barrier .between downtown commercial development and residential development . The proposed use will create substantially less traffic than the current C-N zoning permits and will contain twice as much landscaping, which is more compatible with the neighboring residential uses than the previously approved office development . Its appearance can be made to provide a positive "entry impression, and mesh well with the other residential develoment in the area. As for the appropriateness of the proposed density (18 dwelling units/acre) , the proposed units will be small (530 to 685 sq. ft . each) and consist of 56 1-bedroom and 56 2-bedroom units . These single story units will be built into two story buildings, typically called stacked flats . The applicant has stated that similar projects have an average of slightly over 1 person per unit (See attached Buyer Profile of a 32-unit project that Barratt recently completed in Fremont) . As such, the actual number of people/acre is between a duplex development and an apartment development . For example, the 4-plex development on Silvergate Lane, just west of the subject property, contains 14 -4- • C C units/acre ( 42 units total) with 2+ bedrooms per unit. The Springs apartment development, at Dublin Blvd. and San Ramon Road, contains 20 units per acre (176 units total) with 1-1/2 bedrooms per unit . Both of these projects contain larger units than the Barratt proposal, and therefore, have less landscaping and open space . The number of people per acre will reasonably be less for the Barratt project . It can also be expected to be a ' more attractive project . Additionally, the proposed units will provide housing at a cost ghat is not readily available in Dublin, starting at approximately $60, 000, according to the applicant. 2 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. When the Barratt project was first proposed, it contained 128 units . Because of Fire Department, design, and seismic concerns, the project ' s design was revised and the number of units reduced to 112 . Detailed traffic engineering, geologic, and acoustic/noise studies were prepared to address the following environmental concerns : Noise from traffic on San Ramon Road as related to the proposed residential development; Traffic Safety 'as related to traffic impacts on adjacent streets, :and intersections ; Flooding related to Martin Canyon Creek and both 'on and off-site impacts and; Seismic because a known fault traverses the eastern portion of the property. The noise concern -relates to traffic noise from San Ramon Road. With an anticipated traffic volumn of 40, 000 trips per day, the noise is projected to exceed State and City standards of 65dBA. Therefore, the units adjacent to San Ramon Road will have acoustic treatments that assure that the habitable rooms will have acceptable interior noise levels as related to traffic noise (45dBA) . A noise study is available from the Dublin Planning Department. Local traffic will be increased about 20% due to this project . In order to mitigate the expected traffic and traffic safety problems, ' signal improvements will be necessary at Silvergate and San Ramon Road. The developer has agreed to contribute a fair share--approximately 25% of the cost of these . signal improvements . Martin Canyon Creek flooded this last year. To protect this and adjacent property from flood damage, drainage and flood protection measures will be designed into this project . The Calaveras Fault traverses the eastern portion of the subject property. After considerable field and data investigation, a fault zone has been established by the County Geologist and the applicant ' s geologists . Habitable building setbacks have been set to assure that a reasonable safety factor . exists . The applicant has either revised the design of the project, or agreed to implement specific mitigation measures which will cumulatively result in a project that will not have any significant environmental impacts . As a consequence, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared (See Exhibit B) . 3 . DESIGN. This Planned Development application review includes a preliminary design review. It involves the initial review of the aesthetic components of the proposed planned development . After the land use and the basic design is found acceptable to the City, the applicant will need to submit detailed design information. This information is submitted for a Site Development Review approval which is done by the Planning Department staff, as per Zoning Ordinance Section 8-95 . The staff decision is appealable to the Planning Commission. There are four primary components to the design consideration: site planning, architecture, landscape architecture, and grading. -5- The revised site plan shows the site divided by a central loop driveway, with a central open space, containing a common recreation/swimming center . The residential buildings will be on both sides of the loop drive and will have carports in front of them. In most cases, the units are oriented toward some open space . The critical exceptions to that orientation are the units that back to San Ramon Road. As little as five feet of rear yard is provided. The second story units look directly out onto San . Ramon Road and, in turn, will be extremely visible from the Road. The loop drive is proposed as a private vehicle accessway, \ and not a public road. All traffic will enter and exit the site at one point along it, directly across from Dublin Green Drive . Parking is proposed on both sides of the driveway. Traffic flow down the drive and into or out of the parking spaces may be a bit awkward because of the narrowness of the drive--28 feet with carports on both sides . A wider drive, at least along its initial straight section would reduce traffic/parking conflicts . The architecture of the buildings -is acceptable in that the. .- buildings have some articulation--variation in form--and have added visual relief due to balconies and decorative trim on all . four sides . The building materials are standard--stucco, composition shingles. and wood trim. One set of buildings (those adjacent to San Ramon Road) will be extremely visible, being two-stories high, and as close as 5 feet to the right-of-way line . Given that it is .unlikely that San Ramon Road will ever be widened up .to the project, . this impact will likely not be as great as it could be. Nonetheless, some changes in treatment to the landscaping and fencing are recommended to reduce the' visual presence of these units . The other units are well sited and will present a pleasing streetscape . The landscape architecture shown is schematic at this point. It is not definitive and will need further refinement before it, as well as the final architecture, will receive Site Development Review. It is at the Site Development Review phase that the specifics of the landscaping will be analyzed. At this point, the landscaped areas are of reasonable size and generally relate well to the units . . The amount, size, and type of plant material is not now known. It _is Staff ' s expectation that the final landscape plan will show a substantial amount of relatively fast growing plants . Some additional lawn areas are needed to provide for recreation activities in other than the central open space. . The most crucial concern regarding the landscaping concerns _ 1 . The lack of fencing along San Ramon Road, which makes the site highly visible and presents a large parking lot as the primary view of the project. 2 . The close proximity of the buildings adjacent to San Ramon Road, which results in very little landscaping along the most public side of the project. It is very important that the eastern side of the project have an especially attractive appearance and that the visual dominance of the two-story buildings be reduced. For this reason, it is recommended, as with the previous approval on this site, that intensive landscaping be installed between the project and San Ramon Road, similar in quantity to that used at the Hibernia Bank at Dublin Blvd. and Regional Street . The landscape buffer should be comprised of .two sections . A minimum 20-foot-wide intensive landscaped area should be provided between the eastern property line and the pedestrian trail along San Ramon Road. A high quality, well designed wall shall be installed along the eastern property line . The second section -6- should contain ground cover and accent trees and shrubs, and should be installed between the pedestrian trail and San Ramon Road. In addition, some public improvements , such as a par course, should be provided within the San Ramon Road frontage right-of- way, to enhance its public use and enjoyment . As an alternative to providing the "second section" of landscaping between the trail and San Ramon Road, and the par course, the buildings adjacent to. San Ramon Road should be reduced to one story-resulting in a project with 100 units . The high quality wall and intensive landscaping should still be provided. This alternative would help offset the aesthetic impacts of the building being 5 feet away from the property line . Lighting and signing will need to meet both police/fire safety requirements and aesthetic concerns . Again, the details will be reviewed later. Directory signs and lit building numbers will be integrated into the project. 4 . ECONOMIC. Residential development initially produces less property .tax revenue than does commercial develoment. Residential development also does not produce sales tax. However, from a residential buyer ' s perspective, smaller units at moderate-cost are in short supply in Dublin and, therefore, this project will benefit many first-time buyers and people with moderate incomes . TENTATIVE MAP This application contains a Tentative Map which shows how the site will be graded and drained. It shows the location of . utilities and general engineering design factors . Four lots are proposed. This will enable the project` to be phased. The Dublin San Ramon Services District, and the County Geologist, have expressed some concern about the location of utility lines relative to the fault line and open space . Concerns revolve around the ability to maintain the utility lines and the lines ' ability to withstand seismic activity. It is expected that these concerns will be resolved by the time of the Planning Commission meeting. If not, this portion of the application can be continued to another meeting, or the Tentative Map conditioned appropriately, and the rezoning can still proceed to the City Council for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION . REQUIRED The Planning Commission needs to take three actions related to the Barratt rezoning and Tentative Map applications : 1. Take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2 . Make a recommendation to the City Council on the Planned Development Rezoning request consistent with Section 8-31 . 0 of the Zoning Ordinance . 3 . Take action on the Tentative Map. PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2 ) request that the City Council - approve the Planned Development Rezoning; 3 ) approve the Tentative Map, as attached and described in Exhibit A, B, and C, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit D, E, and F, and make the findings contained therein. These conditions have been developed to assure the City that the project will be built as proposed, that the future property owners ' interests will be protected, that the City' s financial position will be protected, that environmental impacts will be insignificant, and that the -7- project will be beneficial to the City as a whole. Many of the Conditions listed below will ultimately be incorporated into standards of approval . At this time, and as the City establishes its standards, they need to be listed directly as Conditions of Approval . Each condition has been recommended for a specific reason. At the Planning Commission meeting, Staff will explain any Condition on which the Commission wishes clarification. Attachments : Exhibit A - Development plans Exhibit B - Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit C - Tentative Map Exhibit D - Resoluti-on Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit E - Resolution Recommending Approval of Rezoning Exhibit F - Resolution Approving Tentative Map Background Attachments (7 ) -8- sit.Summary 8011d9p A—a single Family Attached wroow FOOTAGE! A w mwouo wvEnncE ,z.a 9 sa : ees J E _-Y e vEwcu.n covEnncE sia 99ic1r \ 1__z_ — L_____.,--t— I % ' ,.'°°• Lo<ellon Map ' �'--- -- office \ �\ •� - / �a DUBLIN GREEN \ \ imcn EUU.a _ l:J DRIVE _ 99 y �\ i " g; F -�_ _-- i---' W Retail Comm.relal \ I I I single Family J\\ \\ _ —� _ I• c I D.tach.d pl I - I I I I I I \ T}- ♦OE OE SLOE \ \�-SEianOa•NE i0'01 BANK E 1 Z lB/ nE0...ri•i9 mOVEFD Br H160O/Zl ldq a•S90OeaE9 « SAN RAMON ROAD ARBOR CREEK A,) DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Barratt San C E t \° � �,.,...—.,....,.,,,....,,....... ,�_ of Dublin THE ENVIRONMENTAL CErdr)l(oP DUBLIN PLANNING I t - F.1-:s Suildnq A..a. SI,gl.Family Attached?. coo+oE - se : ees r-s !_ I t `slrE E 1 _ -.— L_____..__ A.a--..- I : ICI I I E-1-EFxuU �� _') Locatlon Map / — R' / !- _ -- — 01H.. / .. tY00p TnlLlp _ o B nEm D U ..,. woL aotrwE aurnx � LIN GREEN Exmv n+vlxo DRIVE 1 - N.t.11 Comm.rcla — — Singla F.mIIY _J\ _ __ ____ '_ ___ I I _-- - _ _--�-- -r rz-{o-�}� -I•E cI1L_ 1 xEn x V 'CE SS IOE OF SL"' LWE — — Tong n'� ETE.r.., T..UM.Plant Ll.t .-..-•.•- .•--•- -•-•-"- �-- .,.... :•::. •'t' SAN RAMON ROAD �,;,i,LJ'"......• ..._..... a ...... .... •..... ... ARBORCREEK ) CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN _ Barratt San Jose of Dublin _ THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 3 IAA =��'.'.• as-t4f T-H-r..-s.i.�u AL 1 1 rT� L)-z w, a Z H �Emz u rJo' £de J - ---� �� z C Z Q �1N•1DP M•.• Z z O� Z13 hD7 tAiN I'CVCpAP > j y l 4 11 ItT txt Wsr w` fa w� w HA is !+F DofmN PNL ! I , IxD WWARD WAN`r ! FENCE DETAIL ETtirmml"6 MAILBOX DETAIL • w A'pWVilc EFPO+lSICrI Join W O P/�WnN EY!�D xeKWT FW(t rcc WN MWIM %W WMM A919t ((,A.a1-0 ol" us q :) Z I .. Ic o wvr / C Q m cc eow.t20'NGN 3'PFD �' - ----~ Q m t�" ! FgOR tD rAlNfilYs ! 4&-a v._ DID'TDpy �v-�'Y�y. '•�/.,�3yh:'- ... tm awl:: -W n'A ` (O'!Ph7bN(AS FEK'SAS m mr) —- 4--2'•/e�rte+.rqx c� _ i- . Kt'fitY TO EE FPJLy�j7 5U6'I�PD� (g5ai (yM5VLT10N �i-`r � LIGHTING DETAIL ENTRY PAVING DETAIL i W Z; w U J <m 2x 8 SKID RAIL RtDNCOD GONaRc1E W`u &M AN 4t COPIER PRATE 6aN5'PROCTION &KADN 2�aK WALL PaX�H 1`1911A(PAINT V Z MA1cH aarr. —4'D 0.x 6P, o' v' o LA[N WLT O N 4, 45'Cof(�6ND OF 1X85YJO RAIL 51wYsJ m 01510c,"LL o y G�A,ETE bIOCR. WALL != SKID '4%2".. me..EIYE w 5 Q a RAIL MA�tO2Y sc(IT 10 F _ -CANE LAVA NI GLfft MEW LAI) � O 9w 15'-�CB4 • y b '''�- —°�'00�6AHE ME LATck 01wm TO Of IfAFEWORK WITH SCREWS.WOOD S A 6VAY OD CORNER PLATE Tu I .• ,•. EOLTsj fPEDRHI 5`EEL;;ISLE fi.f I. 3 wm wgsiE: DISPENSER „ti CaNG.E.LWk 70 WY1EL STOP— (TOWL�C F2R ENCLOSURE) 't 5 .� ,� e �'EI'!E IUSBFN h'LX 42'WX 48h•H: � ml�k .,.. EYP Eq.TS. � I'v c,�!J.S,mL_ y o WASI;ER'o. PAX DP LOW,GUR6. %66vt 0 � PAIN(COPIER TAft ALL 6c1.i5 i0 µ', PIPE r CANE LATCH W ALL FlIaS,NUfS,WA�!Em y BACU-OF Low,cuRe. RE6t!YE[1;♦r L4k!t. b•a•.o•- S 2-:,OATS aX�roL[UFI W a Z RINM Ta 6E Nwi ap.. WHITE F.�.O WASTE 9-O• '8'�K2X2'LAE4 WLS5;0) f °4'TNICK STEEL ANa.E V DISPENSER 4'v" rMrATIN fo sECUKe TPA"V401M MCK PLATE 619-0 1 of WALT. COPIER PiATES HIXES 18'O.c.to 0 a ENCL—OSU�RE W� ggq�p,s®INU — Sl" O a cc 4 Pt9AR vMTICA.j — i0 MATM ELVd. WHEEL STOP cc e Ilr'0.c.i K1FIwNTAL ' 9.1'p Q N'0.�. — ALL CONE,.ELOGKS — <1 a m TO of 6XD%Iro 'A"�1`iD/GATE McUyi TO — NHTS(AcNAL TM.' I m 6�'!L'RETE E+.lY.#.NA!L 5 yB'}7`'10'X 15%' ,.I.• �^ WITH 3 NEAvY MTf ! — (PAkwj ECND"EN). WA0. 'N(LA/1 tats ) u,+I-t's•-,,,�. BliO V?sD:x( XP ....✓ fzA .�'- �•T v '�'1NV,E tRWtzXUTA_I" Y4'THIGk 51EE1 ,VULE ws k To 1x4 LATE CRahPELE 61MI,CORNER PATE NREEL 510r W(N-0 •••• WAMIf�' WIN NWD�Pl,W I ALL 60W9zTf:M Psl. I 10 RELINE Y4'Q ROLES IF 06,(ONE N jlow2EAR m le' @ 2D DAis i 600C:TE N4T- Wslod EAR LE OWL)i7p MT 2 calTS ... NM. TO et sttlT PALE.nNw N'fXV40F,r-1-L*(4•)V FDCTIN0S (qW,A'UNITS AN 6,40 WITH ALL CELLS TILLED 4 RP.hA� �D'p A9499'J'fats 4N'Tlivv', ET.ERE 6ON6.an Imo%ry'(?g7UT=I FART f.CEMENT,* Pewrs BOND,1 fLY-REOD ID'O.L, 'NAIL CGuIRS PARES fEA�RAYEI.i MpR{p� I fARf P.DEMENT,91%Jtf PAINT ALL VM TO W111 —I-- LIN1E PUTTY-,4Y2 PARIS CLEAN $4110. �4. �"W. —1= — i .,s. -,3 — W- Z w U_ _j z Ld 2 Z 01 Z w w uj Ll0ff(lWANDESctNT)Wj METAL WARD W 15DVATtjZUM TO 900P FUM196f 4LEKF(OlAffi COJER O% aPASW t0IAW109 6OWS UNIMU MW 815 F14 AAMF 00 'IV olff, LLMLJ Q)eg(;s wT To Lu IX4 p6w If4m X—IY4 FA0%M Y 0 W wm z to 61AV FO-,T _Pl96T0q(tQW(,f0F,TO WfUT Ll smmll (o %VftBft9 FM AMR 0 WE,MR M 40 SIX) cc TO WAI)P6 m 9 SIDE VIEW ca OP ALL VNnmvlfLw LpTfags Ct k--211a ca EB— 1111 h II 6,x(p pcet W WRAP AFoolD 5.Oil, 46 MITM-)clNf 14�,EW, SITE FM I.,.. IX4 TRIM =U 00 10,MNAW meTs AL fm Qves or fA. WAVAL 6NDUq (As PER CODE) wm I'llm Sot IWA W(p W. ty:��10 VINI FRONT VIE Ism,pwW,TO ef pr460M Twfev 7 DXYAX flA 60KUfW&W i AU Gtqfg WMW Qla 9.tL'AAHD-GW' -ALL VVX). ?Plf owe IN &x6p FvT-W Fwwe 91,NAILS P WgCWPf,TD to OU(MrWo. W)OD IV ft M"fip CoWIMIJON&W (Pico POST. :'; ............. ALL tULTFJCAL� ALL Wp TO male 1-64,Z wTs4cr PARTIAL SECTION ID MW RILDUI&i MC?.TO Ef "'R FWM UMA.,VE4 11 DXTMUD VY WTG�W AIRW.0-riftV. PROJECT DIRECTOR vo 1 77 lqft,V,;, ",.,m y 93'0" �{ .«>mar• �� I l_ I 1 lq'1— _ rl �, .I beNOo maste, b ed 1, `_ — 1- •E 1 1 room i li L.., E t� I.J �I ..� IE'__E r h_,• -7 ,I.: .I ,4 Gvmq _I f1 �L ,.�;; ,,�J<••'•''- - , '�� Lti.; - � 1._i 1 `�- � � �:�, kd r kit bedroom _i! � L `�,�1- •!1�/ � .t7 ,�'�- Ll ilk I, iF'of -',� tl�••/ \<E �"r'n , - —r SECOND LEVEL f Patio enclosure (T 1-- rr1`il i i� a a ' s v• �i'�j aster — 1 1 I ,�Le, I gii_11j lbjrdro edroom r .-1— -- INkv bo O•v'I I '• - -,` �i'��Q I fi �! Q ...'� E '.I ;11�\- 4H �-}I�TrO f bedroom — � I` L4•�+ ,1�, +r U.f1II'I'.j+� Ilf!-�/ � ., i:l/ I �t�'. - .y '"'� 1 �. " — U L1 a • -- FIRST LEVEL i FLOOR PLANS (NEWCASTLE) za'6' E 22.0" .4 BARRATT SAN JOSE 1/25/83 THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 82062-A 1—)zee.sis2 ',rr'c : V V OWN&' =R Ro k LID IT Ar FRONT ELEVATION .-d tft sta.k*d g—ea ptywod WvQ—X L stucco TT 7! _T, "OUT "tr=L Min.!1jMm _110 ROM jgg-�4 m REAR ELEVATION fj W.f.1-kv A.— 20' -d—M.1— cam carpoM ELEVATIONS (NEWCASTLE) BARRATT SAN JOSE 1125/83 THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 82062-A SIDE ELEVATION n SA.S.—f 8.11dlr A....o� PRELIMINARY......Family Alt.Ph.a GRADING PLAN^ P. It offi- -. aa., ,rr rrrnnr.e.e.r erOOr ` _l_-�_�_-'. ^ ____.,__L- fl / j 4 .-• l ��� I/ d1.+ /I �r/�j�•a,,. I'� J �♦. DUBLIN GREEN DRIVE -Y I I' R - "' t ^ /I I. \' _ W Raal commercial + Simile Family 0.1.0.6 "'y-A.— ' ❑ f >=I'i ,ri i :d.-"�I—a—1 � I I ��hl._� i fi� _ �:I, M ncEr. V�\,'-,a� i I r.�,.. <. fir,...,/�_.�_�'/-�_.;�-�-�-��_1_ �-- }t ��ya• :T LME e, o,o..,ae - SAN RAMON ROAD 1 ~y ! r(nfb Wm n'el tTlr a tOamwn wary vra®sneaewvn¢,m. •µ - - ° m _ �'°" �. .r - " ARBOR CREEK :� I Barratt San Jose of Dublin t M THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER I mut Y:'t..l.'tu01'r4'1 Trau MLlltN./Ylal Mri aaruel �w�.......r..w -. ..vr erwN 1 ! � I I BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC MAP TRACT 421 77-77-7- WE 21.66' rj ? RE BLIN 7 GN DR. j cl A ..... tit] TW30-t 235.56 N11-3 y 1_3'33'30'W 228.10' --- ----------------- -- ---------------- -- (D -------- SAN RAMON ROAD ARBOR CREEK 0 Barratt Son Jose of Dublin CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Barratt San Jose PA 82-033 112 Unit Residential Condominium Planned Development Rezoning (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION AND PROPONENT: South west corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. Applicant - Barratt San Jose Owner: APN 941-101-4-7, and 941-101-4-12 :- Union City Investments DESCRIPTION: Request to rezone '6 .2 acres from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Planned Development (PD) . This will permit the construction of a 112-unit residential condominium project. Fourteen 2-story buildings, plus carports, a recreation building and pool, and parking for 224 cars are proposed. FINDINGS: The project, as now proposed, will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental components . Each has been mitigated by revisions to the initial project or through a binding committment by the applicant, as outlined in the section below entitled Mitigation Measures : a. . Noise Impact b. Flooding Impact C . Seismic Impact d. Traffic Impact MITIGATION MEASURES: a) Noise - Acoustic insulation and air conditioning will be provided for the units adjacent to San Ramon Road. b) Flooding - Martin Canyon Creek will be improved and the project site graded to protect the project and adjacent property from flood damage, as determined by the City Engineer. c ) Seismic - A fault zone and building setbacks have been established as a result of extensive field and document research. The site plan is now acceptable to the County Geologist--from a seismic safety standpoint. EXHIBIT B i y e l Barratt San Jose - Mitigated Negative Declaration Page Two d) Traffic - The applicant will contribute 25% of the cost of signalizing the Silvergate and San Ramon Road intersection. This will significantly reduce the traffic impacts of this project. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, ( 415 ) 829-4916 . SIGNATURE: ka#t" 7.��—� Date: March 28, 1983 Laurence L. Tong, P an ing Director FINAL ASSESSMENT ; CITY OF. VUE3L11,1 I March' 23, 1983 P No. 82-033 . . _. I F_rM 1R0Nmr=NTA4.._._.,Ass Esssmr=N T FORM , IN-F_-2tM ...J (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. F.:- be completed b the PLANNING STAFF SECTION 3. INITIAL" to cam p by ..the ` N ame o f Pr olect,or'Applrcant: BRRRATT .HOMES A ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Description of protect site before the project, including information on .topography;'soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing `structures; and use of structures ': The site is' vacant flat`with''no, egitation <except along the southern property line , where ` a creek`," d dens'e stand of trees ' are located . it is adjacent. to .a . scenic-°thoroughfare ; and is bounded by two roads , the creek , and ; mu]t_i-pl.exes : ( to ;the w,est ) . . Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development. The :ere"ek provides 'the best habitat for animals and plants in the vicinity. The surrounding •zoning is N- ( CN ) , E- ( R- 1 ) , . S- ( C- 1 ) , & W- ( R-D ) The property is currently zoned ( CN-) . B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no".are re- . quired on attached sheets. OII�TT IMPALZS SCALE OF IMPACT NO YES LTNfQ`OWN QJAL IFIED to l N 1.0 WATER ! 1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will construction of the project alter the hydro- logic balance? X 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of ground water supplies? 1.T Depth to Water Tablo Will the rate of water withdrawal change the depth X or gradient of the water table? 1.4 Drainage and Channel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern or cause alteration of stream channel form? X { 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in an area result in major sediment influx into adjacent water bodies? I 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due j o flooding? 11L X _......_. .. -.........._. .-...._. ....... _...__._.... _ _.._ A-5 i COLS MNE NT -D1PACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES U <NOWN NO � IH o l to l 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking water supply Fail to meet state and X federal standards? Will sewage be inalawotely accommcdoted and X treated? Will receiving waters fnil to meat lo=nl, stn'c and I I federal standards? Will ground water suffer eonrominotion by swfu:e seepo}i, intrusion of solt or polluted water from adjacent water bodies or from another root i-ninated o .siFer? 2.0 AIR 2,1 Air Pollution Will there be generation and dispersion of FrOlutants s by Project related activities or in prow:rite te.t!-.e Project which will erceed state A. ncti InG a quality standards? - 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terrain impede p escilirc v.ind X flow causing channeling along certain rorrijs-s or I I obstruction of wind movements? ' 3.0 EARTH Are ' .potential don ^rs related to a foJvres? X 3.1 Slope Stability C. A e p e 8 op 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property 9c-o :e of X excessive deformation of materials? 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life at property becars:e of I I excessive consolidation or foundatiar rvim. als? 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subsidnrice ossr)cicted with the project? - i 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss resnitina Frrm earth- quo'acactivity? X' I . I •:•.I , 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project cause or be exposed to liquaraction of soils in slopes or undpr foundoti-:n5? - " 3.7 Erodibility Will there be substantial loss of soil r'-,n to crn- I I I struction practices? - . . . 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils assoclat!rl with the'. project present odverso conditions relative tc de- X velopment of wells? 3.9 Lltsique Features Will any unique geological features be damo3ed X or destroyed by project activities? 3.10 Mineral Resources . Are there geologic deposits of potentinl rwn-rercinl X I I I •:q value close to the project? 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS ( . 4.1 Plant and Animal Species ' Are there rare or endangered species pros-cite Are there species pre ent which are particularly X . susceptible to impact from human activity? '. ," •', ': '•. IS there vegetation pies^.ntr the loss of which will • deny Food or hobitot to important wildlife soceies? X ( I Are there nuisance species of plant or niimzls or which conditions will be improved by tFe project? X 4.2 Vegetotive Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnts thot may • be of scientific interest? Are there vegetotive community tyres vrhich are X particularly su:cep'ible to impact frwri tsuman cctivity? Are there major trees or major vegetntioi that will ho edvcrs^ly nffrr.tr.•l by the,project? p Arc there vc3_:otivr rommunity tyn^s r-^cent. tl^r. Iris of which will deny revs-1 or hobitw to i-. >'or.t r:Nlir'. X species, or to a:u)str_ntial num!s of rr.:i­-rn• cn:-sal;': _. 4.3 Diversity Is there substa:s:inl diversity in Iles n^.••'n. as reflected in the number and type^f p!nnt or nr.rrnl species present or the three-dimensinrnl orrnn!7rm^n: X of plant species present? I I I I 1 it I I • I I I I A-6 1 COMPONENT INL'ACrs SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKN9gN NO t I to � I I � tE, ° It0Io ntt t5 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educational Fact Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- I' Wing or proposed facilities in terms of spacing for all activities, including classrooms, recreational _ areas, and staffing needs? iWill the project impact the pvpil/teocher ratio so as to impede the learning process? Is the school located such that it presents a hardship for a port;on'of the enrollment in terms of travel time X distonce,'or safety hazards? 1 , 5 2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to ?• commercial Focililies for the project? 5.3'. iquld Waste Disposol Are provisions for sewo3a capacity in for'- the needs of the project without exceeding quality standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors associated with wastewater treatment plants? X 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid °c wastes generated by the project? 5,5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quontity or quality of water supply to meet the needs of the project? .. 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water droinoge be inadequate to prevent I I I downstream flooding and to meet Federal State end . X local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population, facilities, or other features generate an in in police service I I or create o police hazard? X t~ 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, or other features generate an increase in fire services X ( I - or create o fire hazard? 5.9 Recreation Will the project hove inadequate facilities to meet - X the recreational needs of the residents? .. 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project X I I residents? 6.0 TRANSPORTATION I I I 6.1 Transportation Facilities ,. Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently of or above capacity?.If not,.will the traffic gen= erated by the project cause the adjacent roads to reach or exceed capacity? X t Are the other transportation facilities which serve the project inadequate to accommodate the projects I, travel demands? X 6.2'Circvlation Conflicts Will desig-s of the project or conditions in the surround ing area increase accidents due to circulation conflict:. 6.3 Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lock X of traffic controls? 7.0 HEALTH 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any,intense X odors? 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or high density in their physical living environment? 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that may be considered as nuisances? 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques fail to meet state and local building codes? X 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project b exposed fn r generate adverse X noise levols? 8.2 Vibrations Will the project be exposers to vibrations nnnoying to humans? ( I 1 i COMPONENT IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNa N, NO :. 10 I t o --- ollolo 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of' orgonizotions or groups within the community? X 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the ' 1 community in terms of distribution or concentration of income, ethnic, housing, or age group? 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project bo exposed to or generate an Physical Conditions area of poor stability anJ phfsicol conditions? J s ' 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY ; 10.) Views Will residents of the surrounding oreo b_adversely X J affected by views of or from the project? Will the project residents be adversely affected by views of or from the surrounding area? " X 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or gen erate excesswe X I { ,.. ... .,.,.. shadows? 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTLF2AL RESOURCES •. J 11.1 Historic and CuituroI Will the project involve the destruction or alter- I Resources ation of a historic resource? ' J J Will the project result in isolotion of a historic X I resource from its surrounding environment? Will the project introduce physical, visual, audible ( ( { or c!mospheric elements thnt ore not in character with X { J I a historic resource or its setting? �.,• 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration I I- 'A X and Structures of on orchoeolo3ical resource? Will the project result in is->lot;on of an archaeological I I ( X resource? " Will the project introduce physical, visual, audible or almospheric elements that ore not in character with on archaeological resource or its setting? s 12.0 ENERGY J 12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems with the supply of X energy required for the project? Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity I of the service utility company? X Will there be a net increase in energy used for the J { project compared to the no project altarnotive? 12.2 Con servotson Measures Does the project planning and design fail to include I ( J avoilob!c crrer�y con:crvation m^_o;urr.:? ' 13.0 LAND USE . . :.. ' J 1 13,1 Site Nazards Do conditions of the site,'proposed site development, X. or surrounding area create hazardous situ- J J I 13.2 Physical Threat. Will the project or the surrounding oreo create a feeling of insecurity and physical threat omong the residents X I J I and users? I J J 13.3 Sanitary Landfill Wil! the project be exposed to structural dmmnge, ( J noise, air, or vuface nrd ground wcter pollution or other nuisnncns ossaciate-J with a sonitory landfill? X 13.4 Waterways Will tka project affect on existing waterway through J filling, dredging, droining, culverting, vosle dis- I ( J chorgcs, loss of visual quality or oth.-r land use practices? . I J :. - A-8 COMPONL = IMPACTS SCAM OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES UN Xylgl NO z � � IatH ^�� • • ol� tot � - 'i.:/-,L ✓'C.. .Iraq +{o-s:.i.:' ,i+.: c �.;t. r -' ,• i .. 1 1. C • _ Other Environmental Cornponenlr ` y : r - C. _MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIFIE= NO 140 YES UNIQXMN (�) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce X the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, .cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ex,:imples of the major periods i 7., s or California history or prehistory? Does the project h-�ve the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X. goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but X where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) he project.have environmental effects which (4) Does t p I , will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? A-9 D. MITIGATION MEASURES- Discussion of the ways to mitiga`e the significant effects identified, if any: See Attached Notes E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: 3Q The Gty of Dubl�hEfinds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ity ;-- -. , ... ticutar-.characteristics of this project and the. mitigation measures incorporated into the'de'si n of the ro'ect o�id. .h�. F;�ctual basis forthe findin A NEGATIVE 9 P ! P 9- .DECLARATION !S REQUIRED , The ,City of_VtAH in finds that`the''propose'd protect MAY have a significant effect $ on the environment 'AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED" Signature and date 2 /$ Name and title: ,�;Ast� 1r�, J-.-.TO mQ6 ( C "NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so tha' poi a:i�ial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be requ"red i-Weod of an EIR. Attachment to Environmental Assessment, Initial Study March 23 , 1983 PA 82-033 - Castle Green - Barratt Homes 1 . 6 Recent flooding of Martin Canyon Creek, just west of the subject site, indicates that there is a potential for flooding of the site . Alameda County Flood Control has requested additional hydrologic information in order to determine what needs to be done to protect this and adjacent property from flood damage . 3 . 5 Substantial information is available that shows that there is a fault trace that runs north/south across the property. The Calaveras Fault, of which the trace is a part, has a maximum credible earthquake potential of 7 . 5 (Draft Ala. Co. Seismic Safety Element - 3/82 ) . The location of the fault -is now known. Setback for buildings and carports have been established to the satisfaction of the County Geologist and assure that a reasonable safety factor is provided for. Structural design for all buildings will need to address their proximity to the fault zone. 6 . 2 & 6 . 3 This project will increase local traffic by about 20% . A 25% contribution to Signal improvements is proposed to be included for Silvergate and San Ramon Road to assure good circulation_ in the area. Until they are installed, the addition of traffic will increase accident potential and create some traffic conflicts with local residents . 8 . 1 San Ramon Road noise levels are increasing above the current 65dbA level . While the current traffic volumn and the distance from the current road width will not result in substantial noise impacts, the likely widening of San Ramon Road, and increased future traffic, will result in noise at a level that will need to be mitigated interior to the easterly residential units . Adequate acoustic insulation and air conditioning will be provided for units adjacent to San Ramon Road. 10 . 1 The site is quite visible from San Ramon Road--a major thoroughfare . The design of the project will need to consider visual impacts to and from the project. Current designs indicate that 2-story units will face directly toward San Ramon Road with little or no visual buffer. The City' s Site Development Review process will address design concerns/details . (r r 11 . 2 No archaeological data is currently available. 12 . 2 No data is currently available regarding energy conservation measures that will be incorporated into building designs . C-3 Traffic and noise problems are, and flooding problems will be mitigated. The potential for significant environmental impact, therefore, does not exist as the project is now designed. C-4 The current site plan addresses seismic safety concerns, and is acceptable to the Alameda County Geologist, based on new data provided by Berlogar Long & Associates which establishes an earthquake fault zone and minimum building setbacks . Each building within the development will be structurally designed to comply with seismic safety standards . Reference Documents : Traffic Noise Assessment for Castle Green by Edward Pack Associates, Jan. 7 , 1983 Traffic Analysis by John Forristal, Jan. , 1983 Geologic Investigations by Berlogar, Long & Associates, March 4, 1983 , Jan. 28, 1983 Geologic Investigation by Terrasearch, Inc. , Nov. 22, 1982 CNVIRGNMLNTAL ASSESSMENT I=ORM (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) In 1970 the State Legislature passed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to protect the environment. The State adopted guidelines for implementation of CEQA which all public agencies must follow. Beginning January 1, 1977, the amended State EIR Guidelines _.. . --, --rrequire the Planning Staff to take on active role in preparing environmental documents. This comprehensive Environmental Assessment form is designed to assist the staff in p-eparing a _omplete and accurate environmental assessment in a timely manner and in conformance with the EIR Guidelines. The form has three sections: General Data, Exemption, and Initial Study. The applicant is requested to complete Section 1, General Data. The Planning Staff will prepare either Section 2 Exemption, or Section 3 Initial Study. Please type or print legibly in ink. Attach additional sheets if necessary. C'-" SECTION 1. GENERAL DATA ' - - to be completed by the APPLICANT 1 . Name (if any) and address of project: CASTLE GREENS San Ramon Road and i vergate way 2. Proposed use of property:_ Single family attached residential 3. Name, address, and telephone of Applicant: Barratt San Jose 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 245 San Jose., cA 95118 4. Name, address, and telephone of contact person ED in addition to opplicant or ❑ instead of applicant:_ Richard S. Frisbie , THE ENVIRONMENTAL rF =R 1961 The Alameda, San Jose ._ CA 9512b 5. Attached plans are© preliminary or❑ fully developed. 6. B •ilding area: sq.ft. 7. Site crew: 6. 2 ❑ sq.ft. or acres. -8. Current zoning: CN 9. Maximum Building Height 2 . Oft. or stories. 10. Describe amount of daily traffic generated by number, type and time of day: 900 trips per dam 90-100 peak hnnr 5-6 n M- 11 . Number of off-street parking spaces provided: 256 12. Number of loading facilities provided: n/a -1- • - i • 13. Proposed development schedule: beginning: Supper 1983 completion: Fall 1984 14.a. If residential: number of new units 128 ; number of existing units 0 ;number of new bedrooms 180 ; unit sizes * ;range of E] sole prices or ❑rents ; type of dwelling ❑single family❑ duplex 0 multiple.*7432 •sq. ft. , 496 sq. ft. , 683 sq.ft. 14.b. If commercial: scope of project❑ neighborhood, ❑ city, ❑ regional sales area ❑ sq.ft. or❑ acre; estimated employment per shift ; hours of operation 14.c. If industrial: materials involved hours of opera estimated employment per shift ion 14.d. If institutional: major function ; estimated employment per shift estimated occupancy ; hours of operation 15. Describe City permits required ..:::- _-_ ❑ \/arionce; C,'`� -' � ® Planned Development; E] Reclassification (rezoning); (l Subdivision Map; "1_ ❑ General Plan Amendment; for 16. Describe other public approvals required: Ex7.unknown; 0 local agencies;❑ regional agencies; ❑ state agencies; ❑ federal agencies; for FEES The fees indicated below are non-refundable initial deposits. If additional fees are required, the applicant will be charged _ - : --1 to cover the estimated costs. The applicant must deposit the additional fees with the City prior to additional processing and expense by the City. CERTIFICATION hereby certify that the information submitted is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I un ^rstand that the findings of.this Environmental Assessment apply only to the project as descri e a ov Signature: Date: 11/30/82 Nome (print or type)-.Richard P. Mindigo, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER -2- FACTUAL DATA RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: San Ramon Road and Silvergate Way EXISTING ZONE: CN PAS° Planned LAND AREA: 6. 2 acres PROPOSED ZONE:Development NAME:CASTLE GREENS Proposed Maximum Allowed . FLOOR AREA: la ra ge TOTAL F.A.R. : No. of STORIES: 2 BUILDING HEIGHT: 21 feet UNIT SIZE: No. . Proposed Unit Size Minimum Required Size Studio 12 432 sq. ft. 1-Bedroom 64 496 sq. f t. 2-Bedroom 52 683 sq. ft. 3-Bedroom 0 TOTAL 128 )ENSITY Planning Area (POP/NA) Net Lot Area Dwelling Units (DU) 128- Total No. of Bedrooms 180 Total Population (1 .25 pop. x br.) 225 Proposed Allowed by General Plan 'op. POP/NA POP/NA 3edrms. BDRMS/NA BDRMS/NA )U DU/NET AREA DU/NET AREA . )ISPLACEMENT: Units Bedrooms Population >ETDACKS: Proposed Minimum Required Comments (orientation) 'ront 25 ' .eft Side 201 tight Side 10 ' tear 30 ' 'ARKING Proposed Minimum Required a b CLP AP AP >tandard 128 128 256 Standard landicapped Handicapped *Maximum alla.-ied ;ompact Compact* compact parking TOTAL TOTAL stalls. tic cle Propose Minimum Required Comments _ANDSCAPING OF 'ARKING AREA )PEN SPACE 2N•b, S D E.E SETME%EURAINEHICLTEiCCESS EASEPUT S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT iy5t BAR ADAD M.L.E. WATER LINE EASEMENT i—♦- SANITARY SEWER/MANHOLE (W,-im) NOTES: STORM DRAIN/MANHOLD/CATCH BASIN �•''• 'w' -'-+�--•- WATER LINE (U•AML) I, OWNER: UNIOV CITY INVESTMENT COMP MY a TI 1180 WHIPPL[Rao », O EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATION UNION[ITT,cAElfaMl.9ASB7 J: A• /�J 2. SUBDIVIDER: BAR PA IT$AN JOSE ,- TRACT Np 7 3150 ALMA DEN EFPPESSNAT 4N sAe4 RD.ID n 71 SM JOSE.CALIFORNIA 95118 (RITA7'S 6SG�At' J. ENGINEER: 035ADETROITAVENU E.SUITE ENGINEERS.230 INC. g CONCORD.Cµ1FORNIA 9ASIB v C SITE I ... 1. SEE PRELIMINARY GRADING AND O VELOPMENT PLAN (F.D. ZONING PACKAGE)FOR PRELIMINAR YES TREET GRADES. ] a t ^ •5(A - S. SEE PRELIMINARY GRADING MD TV PLM FOR 1CSA \ I•»» I`' PRIVATES SipEEi WIOixS AND(ROSS SECTIONS PROPOSED. r. >• Os0 , .\1 b 6. NO AREA Of THIS SITE ARE SUBJECT i0 FLOODING EXCEPT WITHIN SMART INY CANTON BATED CREEK MBREF. FEDERAL FL000 •. �� L iCT'� '',�„ 7. $(HERO ANDNDWATER PSERVICESNOARE TO BE PROVIDED BT 2 >;i7. », DUBLIN-SAN RA" SERVICES DISTRICT. SYSTEMS SHOWN �Y -� -� �• APE INTENDED 10 BE OWNED MD MAINTAINED BY M O.S.R.S.D. AND ME SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN D lip 8. S ST.�" O Q► JTF+ —� c, APPROVAL BY O.S.R.S.D. [<' • C i" ". -- STORY DRAIN SYSTEM Y OWN I$ MENDED T BE PRIVATELY O ^' ✓ .. I \ T 11 °• 2 OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ' \J'•� ».• I' / EI[EDI f0q THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN TRACT 1218 MD _ 1 SILVEPGATE DRIVE, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLICLY i\O. -D `' .MP -.. „� _ '•L 7 OWNED MD MAINTAINED By THE CITY Of DUBLIN.ROVEMENTS 4 I -• ••• -T r-T� -- �I T�1 O - j_• ' r 9. IMP f0 THE SITE INCLUOE THE CONSTRUCTION OF 112 CONDOMIM RUM UNI A IS. PRIVATE ROADWAY SYSTEM, A '\ •I I PIBL IC SANITARY ANO WATER SYSTEM, A PUBLIC AND ✓�, �I ((WR1 / T -� r',•• -{,..,}•{. I PRIVATE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION Z• ... -4 `S; '• 1 1 ' AND APPURTENANCES THERETO (SEE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT I 3 _ PACKAGE). IMPROVEMENTS ME TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN \ \» ('n .VL[y y »„ •• •' THAI TIME SPECIFIED IN THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT. •/ 10. NO PUBLIC AREAS PE PROPOSED. '• \ ✓ 7, - yyhp CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE TO BE Ni' �•• \ ^ ""' 'I AN 0~*+ E--I- ).1/ I, �_ PECORDID THE S APPROVED i PLANNED WILL DISTRICT FOR Y •,• ••. - �� m L. THIS SITE. f M1 ��. �• -. _ - -:'�'\, BUILDING SETBACKS FROM EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES MD MADWAYS WILL BE PER THE APPROVED P.D.PLAN. \ _ 13. LU NUMBERS ARF SHOWN 1. IDENTIFICATION ONLY. -• I \^• �� ; 10. EMI)YING IORING: C.N. (NE IGHBORN000 COMMERCIAL) �•� ` • Y "r •. .•. RW�=w. / a PROPOSED ZONING: P.D.(PLMNEO DISTRICT) % IS. THIS MAN I$ BEING FILED FOR THE 918DIYISIQ OF II2 ,� - __ CONDOM IN IUI'MC IN ADDITION TO THOSE LOTS 90W 16. THE CONSTRUCTING WISH(S 70 RETAIN T • ro— 91 / '.a ' ���GREEN D�K CON$TPJ[TING TATS PROJECT IN PHASES. 14 OPTION Of I — 17. FINAL LOT LIMES MAY YPY SLIGHTLY FROM THOSE SHOP. 18. AUDIT ZONAL FU BLIC SERVICE OR UTILITY EASEMENTS MT BE RECORDED AS REQUIRED BY UTILITY COMPANIES. 1 S1I 111 / J/�1 I� ,,pBa/T11M 79. ALL LOTS ARF TO BE GRANTED ACCESS RIGHTS OVER ���� 1, �fvjj r _f� -• -r- �I(�- � � U - �' ':I PRIYA 7E ORIYE$$HONK. �-''� - - -1 L �E L ��_ 1 r' -.,' -• I 10 .�� \_ / 20. Pq IYATE DRIVES ME ALSO INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC `1YI SERVICE ANDIOR UTILM EASEMENTS, SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS, WATER LIME EASEMEM i$, $iOtM DRAIN It EASEMENTS.AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMEN75. 1 \ •9) t ^• _ -' .-. - ' E ILL +• {�J 21. FOR SITE PHOTOS, no CONTOURS, STREET DETAILS, 5 fINISN GRADING, LMOSCAPE OETA IL S, MD STREET LIGHT • � 9r 1 ±»;�A��' •` l VATG - +�• - 1e' A \ 22. TO PAILS SEE PLANNEDADEORLOPM IS AILIµEM FROM AN I TC~• i`E�A•L ',;- ,b. AERIAL i0P0GNApHIC SURVEY PREPPED BY AE0.CfIETR[[ SURVEYS.DATE DF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY --' KGB •_tlILADI_--• Q •� 1511/6/82. � \ � .� T'Eb � _ � U- � .M'sDIN � --- 2J. A SOIL REPORT fUl THIS SITE HAS BEEN DRFPPEO 8T N r 1 •• - _ ', LJ Nib TERRASEARCH, INC., DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1982, PROJECT NO. 1191-E. \ -. Tt • wN'n/++ N ZA. THIS SITE IS DESIGNATED AS PMCELS 911-101-1-12 ANO 1 \ - I ^• '- 94!10 .. 9A 1_101_d_7 BY NNE COUNT'ASSESSOR. -� A ) ` I -•� _M h%A _�= _ \\\\\\\\\ "'**+��� ( `M 25. SEE T11LE REPORT FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of THIS SITE. W.L.G. -• -. _ � - �__sy _ _ "' W 7 ..T i ! N lo•h•� ' l _I7j-L snkirApty AIN `..� 1 N11• eeg _ I I-_1__ _ _------------_-_-T ��� y'- ___ ------ R R -n------------- ,.••A.G ENDI[ssar �9_)NFA)(- fi FOR CONDOMINIUM PU RP O A E 4 TENTATIVE MAP _ ... / •.<CY O_,`Nn 12770 � �oR rROJ FLT'fiC /,G•..,. ••'AI�(2 X MIN) TRACT 5131 TYMAL GNCTIowENTPm4cr NO SC^y, PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: • aa. ARBOR CREEK uLNr TYPI4AL SOCTION-PRIVA-6 DRIVG �XwiZ,� Seta =lD�=e1Bf 9T11[RRII 9[[IOF THIS STATED Ill THE CONSTITUTE AN Of ESSOFINDIN Of APPROVAL, --- 1 NO f.G••H-o CNYIL r+awEENs 7APPiDrll DE THIS MAI SNW CONSTI TUTS AN EXIRF55 FINDING THAT THE 0 40 BO 120 �QQ9 R5IS10s AIp R7ELOIIEITT OF 714 SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL NOT UNREASONABLY CONCOPD fiAl1FOPFNA RTII TIE FXEL Alp CDF4LFTE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN GOYERNMENi cm 59[711.emu(c) (T). GRAPHIC SCALE .c...: IM•')0• _. JAN.MKI55 .,,-._ 49N67 EXHIBIT D . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 82-033 BARRATT SAN JOSE WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental - Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on April 18, 1983 ; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on April 18, 1983 , did resolve as follows : 1) the project, PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, has either been changed by the applicant or the applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures that will result in a project that will not have any significant environmental impacts that were identified in the Initial Study; 2 ) the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete; and 3 ) specific flood control measures and security measures along the creek shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of Building Permits . WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on May 23 , 1983 ; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows : 1) the City Council finds that the project, PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, has either been changed by the applicant or the applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures that will result in a project that will not have any significant environmental impacts that were identified in the Initial Study; 2 ) the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete; and -9- Resolution No. --Mitigated Negative Declaration Page Two 3 ) the City Council finds that the specific flood control measures and security measures along the creek shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of Building Permits . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1983 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -10- EXHIBIT "E" ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 82-033 BARRATT .SAN JOSE WHEREAS, Barratt San Jose, with the property owners consent, propose to rezone 6 . 2 acres of land (APN 941-101-4-7 and - APN 941-101-4-12 ) at the southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road from (C-N) Neighborhood Business to (PD) Planned Development, for 112 residential condominiums ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on April 18, 1983 , did recommend approval of PA82-033 as presented in Exhibits A, B, & C, and upon making the findings and subject to the Conditions, as amended; and contained in its Exhibits D, E, & F, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Dublin is in the process of preparing and adopting a general plan, and that there is reasonable probability that the proposed rezoning will be consistent with the future general plan; and WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning will be a detriment to or interfere with the future general plan, should the new zoning ultimately be inconsistent with the future general plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, will be visually attractive, will not overburden public services, and will provide housing of a type and cost that is desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the publc welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the Planned Development (PD) rezoning request for a 112-unit residential condominium as shown on the Plans labelled Exhibit "A" , and subject to the following Conditions : GENERAL PROVISIONS 1 . Compliance with the plans contained in Exhibit "A" and as amended by these Conditions . 2 . Site Development Review approval by Staff shall be acquired prior to issuance of any Building Permit. The Site Development Review shall implement these General Provisions concerning the physical development of the project. 3 . The maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 112 condominiums . 4 . All condominium units shall contain standard and currently available energy saving devices, and be insulated in accordance with Title 24 , State of California Administrative Code and evidence shall be provided to the Building Official -11- from P .G. & E. that the units meet P .G. & E. ' s requirements of the "Energy Conservation Home Program" if it still exists at the time the units are to be constructed. 5 . loopCompliance with the City of Dublin Residential Condominium Development Guidelines (as amended 3/30/83 ) . 6 . Compliance with City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions . 7 . Compliance with City of Dublin Police Services Standard Residential Building Security Requirements . 8 . Full disclosure shall be made. to potential buyers of the - project which shows the location and describes the potential impact of the earthquake fault that traverses the property. A written acknowledgement of the review of this information prior to purchase is required of all buyers of units within the development, and a copy shall be filed with the City Planning Department. 9 . The developer is to be responsible for the maintenance of all Homeowner Association facilities for at least a one-year warranty period, commencing when each phase is at least 500 occupied. 10 . The Developer is to provide to the City Planning Department a status report as to the occupancy characteristics of the development once each year for three years. 11 . 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 Planing Department prior to issuance of Building Permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project. 12 . A 6-foot high architecturally designed wall shall be installed along the easterly property line. In addition, an intensive landscaped buffer, containing fast growing trees and shrubs, shall be installed within a 20-foot minimum wide landscaped area to the east of the wall and within City right-of-way. The remaining right of way area, up to the roadway, shall be provided with low level landscaping with accent trees and shrubs . The landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system and be maintained for one year by the Developer, and thereafter by the Homeowners ' Association. A recorded contract, to run with the land, is to be established providing the City with authority to repair and/or maintain the easterly wall and the landscaping within the public right-of-way. This contract may be exercised by the City in the event the developer or the Homeowners ' Association fails to maintain the wall and landscaping in such a manner that they present a neat and well-taken-care- of appearance . Provision is to be made in the contract to enable the City to recover costs of work performed by the City in the right-of-way and on private property related to the wall and landscaping. The contract should recite that the Developer and Homeowners ' Association grants the City authority to enter and repair and maintain the wall and landscaping across the adjacent private property if conditions so require . The repair and maintenance costs incurred by the City are to be shared, pro rata, by all units within the Homeowners ' Association and collected as assessments along with County property taxes . -12- 13 . A par course shall be installed along the San Ramon Road frontage bikeway, as acceptable to the Planning Director. 14 . 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. 15 . Carport columns shall be a minimum 16 ' from the center line of the adjacent driveway. 16 . Handicapped ramps and access to each ground floor unit shall be provided. Seven handicapped parking stalls, appropriately signed, shall be provided evenly throughout the project. 17 . Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. & R. ' s) shall be established for this development. The C.C. & R. ' s shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to filing 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 of all commonly owned facilities, property and landscaping including open space, roads, parking, lighting, recreation facilities, landscape and the exterior of all buildings; 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 maintain all common areas in good repair", including drainage and erosion control improvements, fences, and landscaping; d. The Association shall keep the City Planning Department informed of the current name, address, and phone number of the Association' s official representative; e. Payment of the water and street lighting (maintenance and energy) bills and maintenance and repair of storm drain lines are the obligations of the Homeowners ' Association, excepting where said storm drain serves public property (streets and/or public land) in addition to the subdivision, the controlling public agency shall then be responsible for maintenance; f . Each buyer is to sign an acknowledgement that he has read the Constitution and Bylaws of the Homeowners ' Association and the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions applying to the development. g. The Homeowners ' Association shall contract with, or be advised by a professional management firm, as to how to handle maintenance operations and fee collection procedures . h. No recreational vehicle or boat may be stored within this development. i . The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall provide that upon sufficient notice to homeowners, the serving utilities be authorized to enter any portions of the units whenever restoration of gas, electric, and telephone service is required; that the utilities shall have the right to install, move, remove, or run new -13- lines in or on any portions of the common area, including the interior and exterior of the units (except where undergrounding is required by the Subdivision Ordinance) as is necessary to maintain telephone service within the subdivision, and that this provision may not be amended or terminated without the consent of the utilities .. j . Guest parking areas must be identified by signs and the C.C. & R. ' s shall prohibit the use of these areas by homeowner families . k. The Constitution and ,Bylaws of the Homeowners ' Association shall include the obligations of the Association to be responsible for public liability in case of injury in connection with public utility easements, and for maintenance of the 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 . 1 . Provisions exist that require each. purchaser to sign a statement, prior to the purchase of a unit, that he or she has read a statement that shows the location and describes the significance of the Calavaras Fault that traverses the property. 18 . Solar hot water systems shall be offered to buyers as an optional improvement. 19 . After the project has been completed, and subject to observing any minimum and maximum dimensions specified in the approved plan: a. In the common areas, plant materials, arbors, fences, paving materials, and similar landscape features may be added .or replaced, in kind. b . Any construction, repair or replacement which would occur in the normal course of maintenance of the common areas as the project matures may occur subject to the securing of any permits or paying fees required by other ordinances . 20 . All utilities to and within the project shall be undergrounded. 21 . Utilities for each unit shall be individually metered. All meters shall be screened from view and enclosed by an enclosure that is compatible in design and materials to that of the building to which it is installed. 22 . Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary sewer collection system excluding individual laterals . The system shall be designed as acceptable to DSRSD . 23 . Landscape plans showing substantially more landscaping than is shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan, shall be submitted to and be approved by the Planning Director prior to any permits being issued for this project. Two lawn areas (Min. 201x 40 ' ) shall be installed where ground cover is now shown. In general, six ( 6 ) trees per 1, 000 sq.ft. of landscaping shall be shown within all open space/landscaped areas . At least 75% shall be 15-gal . size . 24 . Light standards shall be used which shield the light source from view from off-site, and shall not shine onto adjacent property. -14- 25 . Street trees shall be provided along Silvergate Way, as acceptable to the Planning Department. 26 . Heating of the pool shall be by a solar heating system, the location and design of which will be reviewed as part of the Site Development Review. 27 . The at-grade patios shall be fenced and landscaped for privacy of the units . 28 . Developer shall furnish and install signs stating "Not a Publicly Maintained Street" and "Fire Access - Park in Designated Locations Only" in right-of-way of private streets . Parking spaces shall be designated by sign, paint or equal . 29 . Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable, to the satisfaction of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department, prior to combustible construction. 30 . Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any 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 . A 4" high concrete curb (minimum) to separate all paved parking and passageway areas from landscaped areas shall have been installed. Curbs may be deleted where a sidewalk adjoins parking and passageway, provided the sidewalk is at least 4" higher than adjoining pavement. d. Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit in the subdivision, in accordance with existing City regulations . e . 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 Homeowners ' Association. f . Street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, shall have been installed. 31 . 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 equal to the cost plus 10% of the landscaping, lighting, appurtenant structures, irrigation system shall be provided to the City. A statement from the Project Landscape Architect certifying that landscaping has been installed under his/her supervision and is in accordance with approved plans shall be submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director. 32 . Private Vehicle Accessways : a. Backfill of all utility trenches in private vehicle access way areas is to meet the recommendations of a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in the field of soils engineering. ( In the absence of such a recommendation, City public street standards for trench backfill shall be utilized. ) The soils engineer shall provide full-time inspector services when trenches are being backfilled in accordance with this recommendation. All work done within public utility -15- easements is to be inspected by the responsible utility to a point six inches over the top of the pipe. All other work in the access way is to be inspected by the recommending soils engineer and/or the City Engineer. Trench backfill in private vehicle access ways shall be compacted to a minimum of ninety percent relative compaction as determined by California Test Method No. 216 . Trench backfill in other areas outside of the private vehicle access ways shall be inspected and specified as to material and compaction requirements by the respective utility agency. In the absence of such requirements, the City Engineer shall make the determination. b. The Homeowners ' Association is to covenant and be responsible for the maintenance of all facilities in the private vehicle access way which are not maintained by a public utility agency, except that all maintenance work resulting from backfill failure is to be the responsibility of the Homeowners ' Association (after the one-year warranty period) . The developer is to be responsible for maintenance of all facilities during the one-year warranty period. C . The connection between the private vehicle access way and the public street is to be by a standard driveway type of connection. Driveway throat width (at back of sidewalk) shall be the same as the vehicle access way. d. Safety lighting is to be provided on private vehicle access way and on pedestrian-way facilities connecting thereto. Lights shall utilize "vandal resistant" enclosures, and shall have sufficient power and spacing to provide an average maintained foot candle level of 0 . 12 . Uniformity ration and increased lighting level at entrance shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director. e . A recorded contract, to run with the land, is to be established providing the City with authority to repair and/or maintain the private vehicle access way in the event the Homeowners ' Association fails to so maintain in a manner that adequate access by vehicular traffic is provided at all times, so that fire, police, health and sanitation vehicles and public utility vehicles can service the properties contiguous or adjacent thereto, and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning areas . Provision is to be made in the contract to enable the City to recover costs of work performed by the City in these access ways . The contract should recite that the Homeowners ' Association grants the City the authority to enter and repair and maintain the private vehicle access way in consideration of the City allowing the use of private vehicle access ways to less than public street standards, and that repair costs incurred by the City are to be shared, pro rata, by all units and collected as assessments along with County property taxes . 33 . Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is specified in Section 8-31 . 2 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1983 . -16- AYES : NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -17- EXHIBIT F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5131 CONCERNING PA 82-033 BARRATT SAN JOSE 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 and approve the proposed Barratt San Jose Tentative Map #5131 at a public hearing on April 18, 1983 , and; WHEREAS, an interested party did appeal the Planning Commission approval of Tentative Map #5131, and; WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Tentative Map #5131 at a public hearing on May 23 , 1983 , and; WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed associated rezoning and tentative map and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council finds : 1. Tentative Map #5131 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinances . 2 . The City of Dublin is in the process of preparing and adopting a general plan. 3 . There is a reasonable probability that the proposed Tentative Map will be consistent with the future general plan. 4 . There is little or no probability that the Tentative Map will be a detriment to, or interfere with the future general plan, should the related Planned Development rezoning ultimately be inconsistent with the future general plan. 5 . The Tentative Map will not have a significant environmental impact. 6 . The Tentative Map 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 . 7 . The site is physicaly suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown, provided geological consultants ' recommendations are followed; and the site is in a good location regarding public services and facilities . -18- op 8 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the design and improvements are consistent with those of similar existing residential developments which have proven to be satisfactory. 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 Plumbing Ordinances control the type of development and the operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development . NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council approves Tentative Map. #5131 subject to the conditions listed below: Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map #5131 as recommended by the City Engineer : 1 . Prior to filing the Final Map, the subject property must be reclassified to (PD) Planned Development as shown in Exhibit "A" . 2 . Any modification of the project design approved by the PD reclassification action shall supercede design on Tentative Map #5131 and shall be considered as an approved modification on the Tentative Map. 3 . As part of the submittal for subdivision improvement plan, grading plan and Final Map, the developer' s engineer shall field survey Martin Canyon Creek and perform hydrologic calculations indicating the capacity of the Creek. Should the Creek not handle the 100-year storm flow, improvements shall be designed so that this capacity is met, with an effort to maintain the natural appearance of the Creek. In addition, finished floor elevations of the units along the Creek shall be set so that if the Creek becomes blocked, the storm waters will flow onto San Ramon Road before water would enter the residential units . 4 . The following Creek setbacks shall be adhered to: a. For existing banks of 2 : 1 slope (horizontal over vertical) or steeper, the setback is established by drawing a line at 2 :1 slope from the toe of the existing bank to a point where it intercepts the ground surface and then adding 20 feet. b. Where the existing bank is 2 :1 or flatter, the setback shall be 20 feet from the top of the bank. The following information shall be provided to determine an adequate setback from the creek and for the required hydrologic calculations : a. The precise location, both horizontal and vertical, of the Creek centerline and toes and tops of both sides of the creek. b . Cross sections of the Creek at intervals acceptable to the City. Sections at 100 ' intervals are typical; more frequent sections may be required. 5 . Grading and drainage shall be designed so as not to block and to accept drainage overflow from the south end of the adjacent Silvertree subdivision. 6 . An erosion and sediment control plan shall be required as part of the grading plan submittal . -19= 7 . The habitable building set back shall be 25 feet from the fault zone based upon geologic studies conducted by Berlogar, Long and Associates, Jan. 28, 1983, and March 4, 1983 . Carports shall be located outside of the fault zone and be constructed on "floating slab" foundations heavily reinforced and/or prestressed, or utilize other appropriate construction techniques as acceptable to the Building Inspection Department. 8 . Underground utilities shall be designed so as to minimize crossings of the fault, stay out of the area within 25 feet , either side of the fault, and where practical, provide flexible conduits and joints for underground utilities in the _ fault zone as acceptable to the City Engineer and the Dublin. San Ramon Service District. 9 . Based on the major traffic impact on the Silvergate Drive leg of -the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection, the developer be required to pay 1/4 the cost of a future traffic signal at that intersection ($25, 000 ) . A bond shall be established with the City, prior to filing of the Final Map, to cover the expected improvement and design costs. 10 . The special acoustical treatments noted on Exhibit "A" shall be followed to .mitigate the potential noise impacts . 11. The private roadway entrance to the project on Silvergate shall be directly opposite Dublin Green Drive. 12 . Sidewalk shall be completed along the Silvergate frontage. 13 . The developer shall be responsible for the following frontage improvements along San Ramon Road: a. One lane of traffic and 8 feet of shoulder (20 feet pavement) or equivalent. b. Curb gutter and a 6 foot sidewalk. C . Replacement of the bike path where necessary for ultimate improvements . d. Necessary drainage improvements . e . Related signing and striping. ' f. Street lights on one side of street. 14 . The developer' s engineer shall develop the expected truck length and turning radius criteria to use the private streets (delivery, garbage moving trucks, etc . ) and design the curb radii accordingly and submit this data and design criteria with the improvement plans . 15 .. The emergency access roadbed shall consist of materials which will support a fire truck without excessive deflection and landscaping that can handle occasional wheel loadings without damage (i .e . grass in turf blocks ) . 16 . Wheel stops within the project shall be the curb at the end of the parking stalls wherever possible. Where freestanding wheel stops are necessary, concrete stops shall be used. -20 - 17 . On-site circulation shall be constructed to private vehicle accessway standards as acceptable to the City Engineer and include street lighting. 18 . 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 . 19 . Prior to filing the Final Map, 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 subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 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 approval 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. 21 . The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, and traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin. 22 . Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, other approved dissipating devices, or tied into the storm drain system. 23 . Dust control measures, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be followed at all times during grading and construction operations . 24 . Construction and grading operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and the hours from 7 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p .m. , except as approved in writing by the City Engineer. 1 25 . 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 construction period, as determined by the City Engineer. 26 . Prior to issuance of Building Permits : a) Grading must conform with the recommendations of the 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. b) 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 . -21- 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 Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications . 27 : Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to filing a Final Map, a detailed construction grading plan (including phasing) , drainage, water quality, erosion and _ sedimentation control plans 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. Performance guarantees related to these plans shall be provided to the City as required 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 insure 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 such as creek slope vegetation. All erosion and .sediment control measures shall be maintained by the developer until responsibility is turned over to the project Homeowners ' Association at the time the City accepts final improvements and releases the performance guarantee as required by the City Engineer. 28 . 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. Inspections that will satisfy final subdivision- map requirements shall be arranged with the City Engineer if grading is undertaken prior to filing the Final Map. 29 . If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map, a surety or guarantee, as determined suitable by the City Engineer shall be filed with the City of Dublin to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion resistant state if the project is terminated prematurely. 30 . 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 under Condition 27 is released; thereafter, maintenance shall be the reponsibility 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. 31 . The subdivider shall grade the tract, install landscaping, soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage control measures , and improve all streets and easements, as shown or indicated on Exhibit C and these conditions . Performance bonds shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that are of sufficient value to assure complete installation of said improvements . 32 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and materials on site until disposal off-site can be arranged. Subdivider shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City. -22- 33 . Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the Dublin San Ramon Services District in accordance with present standards . Provide raised blue reflectorized pavement markers in private vehicle accessways at each fire hydrant . 34 . If during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the 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. 35 . Parkland dedication fees shall be paid as determined by the City Engineer in accordance with City Subdivision regulations . 36 . Some additional sidewalks shall be installed to assure that pedestrians can walk within the project without having to walk down the private vehicle .accessways, as acceptable to the City Engineer. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED 'THIS -DAY OF 1983 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -23- i a cf , Homeowners Association ',. =t 7508 Silvertree Lane Dublin, - CA 94568 April 20 , 1983 Dublin Planning Commission c/o City Clerk 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Commissioners: As the representative of the residents of the Silvertree Develop- ment, the Board of Directors of the Silvertree Homeowners Asso- ciation wishes to appeal an April 18, 1983 decision of the Dublin Planning Commission. The specific item was listed as 8. 2 on the agenda and is referred to as Arbor Creek. The development would be located at the corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. We wish,: further, to appeal the decision to change the zoning of that property from commercial to residential. The reasons for this action are as follows: a. Inadequate documentation of the traffic impact due to loca- tion and density of the development. b. Inadequate documentation of a demonstrated solution for the prevention of the annual flooding of Martin Canyon Creek. c. Additional impact of Items (a) and (b) in relation to the recently approved Neilson Ranch development. d. Visual impact concurrent to the future overall plan for Dublin. e. Relative benefits of commercial zoning vs.. residential zoning and the impact of both on area property values . RECEIVED APR 211983 DUBLIN PLANNING 4-20-83 Page 2 f. Effects of the proposed development on municipal services such as schools, police, fire, etc. g. Alternative lower density residental development. h. View restriction of the proposed development. i. Discussion of possible alternative zoning such as recrea- tiohal use of the land. We are looking forward to your response to this appeal. Respectfully, Peter L. Baldo Vice President Silvertree Homeowners Association PB :fs i Dublin Planning Commission ' Minutes - Regular .Meeting - April 18, 1983 Road, with several illegal add-on signs . The original Conditional Use Permit, approved by Alameda County, expired March 4 , 1982 . The applicant was asked on several occasions to remove the signs or file a new application for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff _ recommended approval of a new Conditional Use Permit with the conditions that: 1) the applicant post a bond for the signs ' removal ; 2 ) for revoking the permit for cause; and, 3 ) both . directional signs be brought into conformance with the original plans within 14 days, or the building official shall remove the signs at the applicant 's expense . There was discussion regarding the $200 deposit which is on deposit with the County, and which is being sought to be transferred to the new Conditional Use Permit. It was suggested by Cm. Alexander that the deposit be increased to $1, 000 to give added incentive to the developer to bring the signs into conformance with the conditions of approval. Cm. Woy made the motion that: 1) a $1, 000 (One Thousand Dollars) cash bond shall be deposited with the Alameda County Building Official within 14 days, to guarantee compliance with this permit, and removal of the sign upon termination. Additionally, any time or expense incurred by Staff to achieve compliance or removal of the signs shall be charged against the deposit. Should said deposit not be posted within 14 days , the existing signs shall be removed immediately; 2 ) this permit shall expire on April 18, 1984, and shall remain revocable for cause, in accordance with Section 8-90 .3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 3 ) the directional tract signs related to the "Canyon Creeks" subdivision at: 1) Silvergate Drive/Castilian Road; and at 2) Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road shall be brought into compliance with the approved plans within 14 days . If the signs are not in conformance thereafter, the Building Inspection Department shall have the signs .removed at the applicant' s expense. The motion was seconded by Cm. Mack and carried unanimously. DETERMINATION REGARDING BARRATT SAN JOSE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT PA 82-033 Mr . Tong introduced the topic, noting that the Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis was included in the Commissioners ' packets, along with plans of the project, giving detailed information related to the study of this proposal . The fact that the applicant has either revised the design of the project, or agreed to implement specific mitigation measures, was also pointed out, resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was also a part of the information provided to the Commissioners . Mr . Arnie Hollander, Planning Consultant for the City of Dublin, was introduced from the Chair, and invited to comment on the project and be open to questions from the audience. Mr . Joe Head, representing Barratt San Jose spoke briefly . regarding the project, and stated that upon completion of study of Staff ' s recommendations, Barratt is in agreement with all of Staff ' s conditions . He reflected on previous Barratt projects in other cities and how this project will be improved and modified. He also presented statistics regarding purchasers of the condominium units . Mr. Rod Andrade, of MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, was also introduced by Mr. Head to answer questions from the audience. The audience was invited to pose questions to the Commission, Staff, and the developer. Specifically, the questions were as follows : 1 . How will the Creek flooding be handled? Will there be grading, concrete siding, and modifications to the "upper end" of the creek? Mr. Andrade answered that it is unknown as to the particular circumstances which caused the flooding. There were, apparently, "constrictions" in the creek, and it was not known where the constrictions (obstructions ) occurred. It has been agreed, as a condition of approval, that the reach of the creek adjacent to the property in question be improved, to be capable of withstanding a 100-year storm. Also, any water which does overflow shall be redirected from the property, back into the creek at a different site. It is not anticipated by the developer that cement work will be done in the creek bed. Mr. Head added that Barratt has severe liability if they were to build a project with an obvious flood problem. He noted that the litigation would most likely be against Barratt, rather than the City, if major flooding were to occur on the site. The statute of limitations runs at least 10 years, according to Mr. Head. 2 . Where are the two-story structures located? It was pointed out that all buildings, except for the carports, are to be two-story. 3 . What kind of landscaping is proposed on the west side of the project to back up against the Silvertree project? Richard Frisbee, Landscape Architect from the Environmental Center, responded that the area is considered a "10-foot minimum landscape area" , generally planned with pines and other trees which would eventually perform a screen to the area. He added that the carports were specially designed to be an attractive structure, and not as a typical carport . 4 . What is proposed to alleviate .the traffic problems in the area of the intersection of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road, and Dublin Green and Silvergate Drives? Mr. Frisbee answered that a traffic engineer had been employed to study the traffic situation at the areas noted, and that the Planning Staff and City Engineering Staff have studied the reports generated by the studies, and have made recommendations accordingly which Barratt is prepared to accept. Mr. Tong concurred with Mr. Frisbee ' s statements . He noted that the applicant ,(Barratt) will be required to contribute to the signalization of the intersection of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive to the extent of approximately $25, 000 . Other projects in the area may also be asked to contribute to the signalization, along with the City absorbing some of the cost. 5 . Why have sewers for this project been approved, when it was believed that the Nielsen Project did not receive approval for sewers? Mr . Tong responded that the City does not provide approval of sewers at this time. That is a function of the Dublin San Ramon Services District . It is Mr. Tong ' s understanding, however, that the Nielsen Project does have sewer permits . . 6 . How will the problem of owner-occupant vs . investors ' speculation be handled? Mr. Head stated that Barratt anticipates selling only to owner- occupants, and noted that there are ways that lenders can be enlisted to aid in controlling whether financing will be extended to other than owner-occupants . 7 . How many children are anticipated to live in the project, and how will the local schools be impacted? Mr. Head noted that there are no children currently living in the projects built by Barratt in either Fremont or San Jose . The units are not designed to accommodate families with children. Mr. Hollander added that the local school districts were contacted by Staff, and the response was that there was no impact on the schools anticipated by this project . 8 . What is a par course, and what were the various improvements proposed along San Ramon Road? Mr . Tong explained that a high quality wall and a bike trail are required, along with very intensive landscaping. A par course is an excercise route with various exercise stations which can be followed by the individual . 9 . What kind of landscaping will take place along Silvergate Drive? Mr. Tong stated that the landscaping will be detailed -at a later time, during the Site Development Review stage . He reminded the Commission and audience that the issues being addressed at this meeting were the questions of rezoning, which will deal with land use and density, and the preliminary site plan and preliminary landscaping. Also being dealt with at this meeting is the Tentative Map which indicates what type of public improvements will be necessary (i .e. grading, drainage, water lines, etc . ) , and how the area will be divided legally. 10 . What is the height of the proposed fence along San Ramon Road, and what materials will be used? Mr. Tong stated that the height will be 6 ' high. The material will probably be of block or precast masonry. Intensive landscaping, approximately 20 ' wide, will be set back from the wall for security and maintenance purposes . A recorded contract will be required that Barratt, and the Homeowners ' Association, will be responsible for the landscaping and perpetual maintenance of the City property. The City is currently studying long-term improvements along San Ramon Road, and lighting of the overall City is part of this study. 11 . What is the emergency access noted on the plans, and what provisions are there for maintenance of this access? Mr. Tong stated that it would be a barrier, approved by the fire department and police department, and maintained as an emergency access only. It would be maintained by the Homeowners ' Association. 12 . Will the tax revenue offset the cost of services to the area? Mr . Tong responded that, typically, residential projects do not generate enough funds to pay for all services . However, there are other economic benefits derived from residential projects . f 13 . Where else has Barratt built such a project? Mr . Head answered that a development has been completed in Fremont, one is under construction in San Jose, there is an approved development in Hayward, and a proposed development in Morgan Hill and San Rafael . 14 . How does this project fit in with the overall plan for Dublin? Cm. Tenery stated that this question would be the -first item discussed after the public hearing was closed. During the Planning Commission closed discussion, some of the questions addressed were : 1 . Is the proposed use and density appropriate consistent with the overall plan for the city? 2 . Can the Planning Commission direct that the units be strictly owner-occupied? 3 . How will the project affect the security of the creek area? 4 . Is the image projected by the development consistent with the overall image proposed for the area? Cm. Woy motioned-that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration Concerning PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, with the addition of requirements for added security and further Planning Commission/City Council review of the flood control measures . The motion was seconded by Cm. Alexander and passed, four (4 ) in favor, Cm. Vonheeder opposed. Cm. Alexander had several questions and comments regarding undergrounding utilities in the project, lighting, backfill and compaction which were answered by Staff and the developer, and Cm. Vonheeder was concerned as to the enforceability of the C.C . & R. ' s . There was a short recess, after which all Commissioners were present . Cm. Alexander clarified the point regarding public notification of hearings before the Planning Commission. In this case, property owners within a 300 ' radius, according to the most current Assessor ' s roll, were notified by mail of the hearing. In addition, notices were posted at several locations on-site, as well as in public buildings in Dublin. Also, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Tri-Valley Herald on April 8, 1983 . Cm. Woy made the motion, with Cm. Alexander ' s second, to adopt the Resolution Recommending, to the City Council, Approval of Planned Development Rezoning Concerning PA 82-033 Barratt San Jose, changing item 32a) , Sentence 2 , to add: "In the absence of public utility standards, City Standards shall be utilized. " The motion was passed, three (3 ) in favor, Cm. Tenery and Cm. Vonheeder opposed. The matter of the Tentative Map was next addressed. After a brief discussion, Cm. Woy moved, with Cm. Mack ' s second, to adopt the Resolution Approving Tentative Map 5131 . The motion was passed, three (3 ) in favor, Cm. Tenery and Cm. Vonheeder opposed. OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director Planning Commission Chairman 1 • Wig I + ' L ,:o 941-1G I 4-12 Z ? 103 ; w CO z A_ cn LU : p 103 Q 103 I' m W 103 �` t ; 172 ooActf 1 f \ Irr �'Id i �s ..-, r ., •+. /,• 173 9.24 Ac.t of 2.59Ac.f Q P •'-S.L.T.GENTRYPROP. AT//7673 ' Z i • r � r. •j° 40 t CASTLE GREENS OF DUBLIN Project Description Castle Greens is a planned residential community featuring Barratt' s one and .two bedroom "flat". .style units. `:..The total project contains 112 dwelling units in 14 . two-story _buildings (8 units per building) , situated on: a vacant 6 .2 acre site. Located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Silver- . gate Way and San Ramon Road, the site lies proximate to major streets , freeways , and downtown and regional shopping areas. With respect to surrounding land uses , a natural drainage course, namely Martin Canyon Creek, separates the site from both single family residential and retail commercial .uses to the south. The terrain and existing tree cover form a physical and visual buffer along the creek. The native trees within the channel represent the only existing trees on the site. The creek channel and all existing .trees are left in a natural state and are incorporated into the development scheme. In order to preserve the natural atmosphere of the creek, and also as a structural safety measure, all proposed project building foundations are located at least 20 feet from the top of bank, (or 20 feet from an imaginary 2:1 slope line extended from the bottom of the channel in areas where channel walls exceed 2 :1) . A recently constructed two-story condominium -project lies adja- cent to the westerly site boundary. These condominiums have rear yard areas along the site perimeter averaging approximately 15 to 20 feet in depth. The site plan envisions a supplementary buffer landscape planting here to enhance these adjoining yards. The buffer planting area is of varying width, but in all cases R E C E I V E D JAN 2 C- 1983 DUBLIN PLANNING is at least ten feet. North, across Silvergate Way, the - land uses consist of both offices and retail commercial, each located on opposing corners of the intersection of Dublin Green Drive. East, across San Ramon Road, are numerous single family. residential tracts . Access' to the site is from Silvergate..Way. Aligned opposite Dublin Green�Drive, ':.the special design divided entrance highlights decorative paving . and _keynote landscape features. Interior .to the -site, a connecting .28 =`foot wide private "loop" driveway provides direct access to the detached carports and open guest parking bays. The -parking arrangement is designed to provide carports immediately adjacent to units to which they are assigned. Overall parking is provided at a ratio of two spaces per unit; twenty spaces, or ap- proximately 18% of the 112 open spaces , are designed as compact spaces. ' As alternate access , an eighteen foot wide emergency access connects the loop driveway to Silvergate Way east of the main en- trance. Several special studies have been prepared by consulting profes . sionals , namely geologic/seismic, traffic, and noise. An identi- fied fault trace traverses the site and lies roughly parallel to San Ramon Road. As a consequence, no habitable structures are permitted within the identified 50 foot wide fault restriction zone. The results of all the aforementioned studies are reflected in the site planning effort and are presented in full as part of the project application.. The individual buildings contain four one bedroom interior units (530 square feet) , and four two bedroom end units (685 square feet) . The units are highly space conscious , utilizing single bathrooms , efficiency kitchens , and multi-purpose spaces. Barratt has tailored r this product as a housing option -for young, first-time buyers , f "empty-nesters;" and retired persons , thus satisfying an impor- tant socio-economic need of the community. . . Architecturally, -the buildings are elevated on all sides to pro- mote : the integrity of the design.'.'.':-. Exterior materials feature .,. stucco ;and _.wood elements in .combiriation with composition shingle roof The `.detached .`carports are designed to °complement the wood elements . of.:the main buildings with features to make them appear as wood`Itrellises, '.and are situated nearby 'f or .convenient front door access.' ::.: The -main building grouping surrounds a major open space which acts as the :focus 'of the project. Central to the major open space,is._ the main recreation area consisting of- pool, spa, pool and spa equipment building, decorative trellising and meadow-like open turf areas for active recreation. Meandering pedestrian walks link the recreation. area to the various buildings traversing through passive landscaped open areas. The overall landscape con- cept is illustrated on the Preliminary Landscape Plan. In terms ..of phasing of the project, the 'improvements will be phased as set forth on the submitted tentative map. Maintenance of all on-site .improvements will be guaranteed by the project CC&Rs and implemented by the home owners association once such is formed.. Barratt also provides a maintenance guarantee for one year after .formation of-the homeowners association. The Castle Greens .project also demonstrates characteristics which have community-wide importance. In terms of potential alternate uses that could occur on this site, Castle Greens represents a significant traffic generation reduction over potential 'Commercial uses permitted by the existing CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone. �J Additionally, the residential use is more compatible with the general residential character of the area. Measures of bene- fit to the city as a whole must include the provision of af- fordable housing, packaged in an attractive, well-designed and landscaped format. The plan utilizes siting criteria that are equal to or exceed the requirements of the City of Fremont. As Fremont is noted region-wide .for their pioneering effects with respect to ' iting standards ''for condominiums ,-•the project standards should .be more than adequate. -The 'City of Dublin will ,;, .. .. ..,: .. g. - . ..::.. . ., . . . also benefit lon term in that al interna streets are private s streets maintained by a homeowners 'association, --thus -requiring ' no municipal maintenance expenditures. Immediate benefit to the_ city is the upgrading of the in-place streets and infra- structure as a consequence of. construction of the project. 7&4 s 1035 DETROIT AVENUE, SUITE 230 CONCORD,CALIFORNIA 94518 CIVIL ENGINEERS PHONE 415 - 689 - 4321 4967 . May 17, 1983 Mr. Lee T ompson, City" En ineer City Dublin 6500 Dublin Road, Suite 218 D in; `CA 94568 ..... . Dear Lee: Re: Arbor Creek Project, Dublin Subdivision No. 5131 .. . At the request of our client, Barratt-San Jose, we have analyzed the storm drainage capacity of Martin Canyon Creek adjacent to this project. The following is the result of that effort: 1. The Martin Canyon Creek drainage basin. is some 1,000 acres large and 16,500 feet. long. Using rational .method formulas the quantity of flow expected from a •15-year and 100-year storm was calculated as follows:. Q15 = 665 Cubic Feet/Second Q100 = 990 Cubic Feet/Second Correspondence received from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District confirms the 15-year ._flow to be 660 cubic feet/second. 2. Cross .sections of the 320 feet of Martin Canyon Creek adjacent to this project were field surveyed.. Eight sections were measured in the field with the largest distance between sections being 80 feet. Measured sections of the creek have been marked in the field for your reference. Hydraulic analysis of this section of the creek reveals that the Arbor Creek project is not subject to flooding from estimated 100-year flood flows within Martin Canyon Creek. . RECEIVED MAY 18 1983 DUBLIN PLANNING OFFICES IN CONCORD • FAIRFIELD • SACRAMENTO • SAN JOSE • SANTA ROSA • UNION CITY 4967 May 17,1983 Page 2 3. We have been advised by. you`.'and by information provided at recent . public hearings on this. project-_that .flooding has occurred within the'project to the west:of, Arbor`Creek: and .that. flood flows from ­ the'.west might be expected from water..escaping `the banks of Martin ' Canyon Creek westerly. (upstream) of.the.Arbor Creek project. . ''.. . . An analysis of this situation has been made Flood waters from the`west''(should this occur) will be accepted into and routed through this project ,without .affecting neighboring homeowners..:''Private streets•. to be constructed adjacent to Arbor Creek's .westerly boundary:will not -block..?drainage but rather' will accept drainage from adjacent.!ands.. These street systems are designed to convey-this flow-:to-.the. corner .of Silver Creek Drive and San Ramon-=:Road where.it ;will:=be. allowed.:to`continue north _ .,. . . ' across.. Silver .Creek-Drive without- inundating the. dwelling units .. Within the Arbor Creek. project..^:The lowest building pad to be constructed--with:-this -project will be at ,..least one foot above the center median of Silver Creek Drive.:: This analysis has led us to .believe that the Arbor Creek project, as . proposed,- will• be protected from storm _f lows:,that-:would occur during a :100-ye4r storm.and-that .this-project.will-.in .no.way increase the ' flooding potential .of.._adjacent properties. .. .,;; Spec and topographic,maps are attached for your . reference.' ....,.. .: . . ..:. :. ....._. . Best regards, . S _ . Ro ey .T ade Enclosure cc: Nate Meeks :..Larry Tong i - JOHN J. FORRISTAL CONSULTING TRAFFIC ENGINEER 3320 GRAND AVENUE PHONE* 1415 836-4687 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94610 May 16, 1983 Mr.* Nathan Meeks Barratt San Jose 3150 Almaden Expressway . Suite 256 San Jose, -CA .. 95118 Dear Nate: Accompanying this letter is an intersection turning movements form showing projected evening peak hour trips through. the Silvergate Drive- Dublin Green Drive intersection after completion of your project and the vacant property west of the end of Silvergate Drive. Also included is the standard form for calculating the service levels for unsignalized intersections. (Interim Materials on Highway Caeacity Transportation Research Board - January, 8 The projected eve of service for traffic turning left from Dublin Greens Drive into Silvergate Drive - against through traffic and traffic turning left into your project - is Level A, described as little or no delay. I can forsee no opera- tional problems not typical for intersections with similar character- istics. The delay may be a little longer during the morning peak be- cause of the heavier outbound volumes on Dublin Greens Drive, but would not be attributal to traffic from your site, the vast majority of which would be king right turns.onto Silvergate Drive. Very tr y ur J. orristal JJF:Fi Enc. nF � EIVED ICI AY 18 1983 cUBLIN pLANNING 1 t co N O -� r- r` v GJ a L N I N 1 C . ,r • O CO .. - 1 O 2 3 16 _ 1 226 160 386 71 71 in n .3 11 - 11 124 75 195 - 11 11 Silvergate Dr. 0) N U r(D Existing TRaffic Q2 Projected Traffic N t0 N LO M 03 Total Traffic 1 1 / LOCATION Silvergate Drive and Dublin Green Drive PERIOD P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS, JOHN J. FORRISTAL CONSJL.T.N; ENGINES. O GK�ANC. CO(,IFO ANIA 1 - t i y� Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Calculation Form J L .J�c vim- Intcrsectwn RC,d :Fy - Locatwn Plan: D Count !f4 )L Date ----- Q v Dal 00 t) j Time - - -- --- -- N � l 1� Pre%ailing Sprcd a fiLvfRCATV -- Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to _ r Ap(xtatc•h ,+ ., B C U Slo%cmcnt Al' J AT A,, , Bt r Br B. L Ct "N Cr Ca/� f), Ut + OA.✓ �otume i S r -7 2- to v 8 Z. v Step I ..Right Turn from.0/D Omflicung Flows = MM = 'h AR t AT _ 4: IIR . +. Br tfmm Fig. I) - --- + _ ---- + -- - Critical Gip from Table 2 T,_.. sec —_xc Capacity(Tom Fig. 2 M...= M, M; Demand = CS - s.A D„ = - - -KA Capacit% Used = 100(C,/Ni,)= 100(DA/M;)= —_ Impedance.Facutr from Fig. 3 = P, _ __ p•_ -- - , Shared Lau - See Step 3 No Shared Lane-M ailable Reserve M, -CR = M; - DR= scA Delay dt Level of Service(Table 3) Q O Step 2 Left Turn from B/A BL r A, J Conflicting Flows= MM = AR + Ar BR + Br (from Fig. I) + _ + _ Critical Gap from Table 2 To_ xc sec Capacity from Fig.2 = M,%.= M, _ ,TA M.;.= M; Demand BL = „rA AL= Capacity Used= 100(BL/M,) 100(AL/M;)_ ---% Impedance Factor from Fig:3= P,_ Available Reserve= A13 - BL = PrA M; AL Delay&Level of Service(Table 3) O Q Seep 3 Tisru Movement from C/D Cr 4 Dr Conflicting Flows= MN= 'h AR + AT t AL t BL + ST. + BR V48 R + + BL + AL + Ar + A R (from Fig. 1) + + — + — + + tB t � + 1�t ,LS+ LL (Mr do MT are used in Step 4) MN= Mr= w+ M„= Mr Critical Gap from Tablc 2 T,= %cc G _sec } ,.A Capacity from Fig. 2 = _ Adjust for Impedance M,. x P, x Pi= M, _ •4 M;,. x P;x P, - M; = s Z L.rA Demand = Cr,. 2 /rA Capacity Used = Dr = -- 100(CrlM,) _ % - 100(Dr/M;) Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 P, _ .t i •�- � � Calculation Form .c � tinned 'J Unsignahzed Intersection Capacity ( ) ; ll Step 3(Coatintred) Cr Dr 1 No Shared Lane { Available Reserve M, —Cr- ,r" M;— Dr' —LO Delay&Level of Service(fable 3) 0 Shared Lane with Left Turn See Step a Shared Lane Demand= CK+Cr= Car= ,,,, DR t DT= DKr a K4 Shared Lane with Right Turn ICK+Cr) (D, + Dr) M,J (CR/M,)+(CrIN1,) M" (D,tm*) + (DTIM;) ". , Capacity of Shared Lame M• .. .., . . Mir PrA ..Available Reserve:-; Mu-CRT= „n Mia_ per° r" Delay&Level of Service ITablc 3) Step 4 : Left Turn from C/D - CL DL Conflicting Flows= MM= MT + Dr + DR .= MT + Cr + CR = (M.&MT were calculated in Stcp 3 + + _. �.► �J, �" + _ Critical Gap from Table 2 T,_ $cc to scc t Capacity from Fig:2= :M". Adjust for hnpcdance MN, xP,xP;xP;xP;=M, M;v.xP;XP,kP, XP,— M; I ' - No Shared Lane Demand = CL DL Available Reserve = M,—CL= .rA M,— D, Delay&Leve.l of Service(rabic 3) 0 Shared Lane Demand= Cr+ CL=CrL= K" Dr+ DL- Dn= WA Shored Lane with Thru { (Cr+CL) Dr+ DL M' Capacity of Shared Lane = I M'4 (Cr/M,)+(C,/M,) " (Dr/ti1;)+ (DL/%I,) •Available Re-.erve = Ma•—Cn= ar" K.— Dn= —'�" Delay&Level of Service(Table 3) Shared Lane Demand= CR+Cr+CL=Cm= ,r. ' D, + Dr+ DL= DnrL = Sham Lane with Thru&Right .. CR + Cr + CL D, + Dr DL Capacity of Shared Lane= Mu. = hl;,, _ ! (C.,/M,) (Cr/M,)+(CdM.) (DK/',1;) + (Drl'�1;J PrA Available Reserve= M,3•-CRn= K" M..0-DRn= pelay&Level of Service (rabic 3) Overaff Eval adoo - . j r ' Buyer Sex ARe Profession Gross Mo.Inc. 1st Home Buy. Prior Rent Marital Stat. in Unit Cosigner 'Prior Residen` [l F 26 Secretary 81850.00 No $350 mo'. Single 1 DPL Mt. View ' ##2 M 23 Sewer Service 2000 Yes At Home Single 1 No Fremont S ##3 M 28 Sales 1800 Yes 450 Single 2 No Mt. View 'r i §4 M 33 Atari 2000 Yes 400 Divorced 1 Yes Hayward §5 M 36 Gov't. Engin. 2666 No 1125 Divorced 1 No Palo Alto ##6 M 26 Teach. Asst. 500 Yes 325 Single 1 Yes Palo Alto + ##7 M 25 Tax Auditor 1750 Yes 1100 Single 1 No Hayward o #8 H/W 28 ✓ Tech. Instruc. 2700 No N/A Married 2 No Salinas ##9 F 23 Beautician 1500 Yes 350 Single 1 Yes Fremont ##10 M 50 File Clerk 1583 Yes 350 Single 2 No Oakland ' s ##11 M 28 Warehouse Wkr. 1300, Yes At Home Single 1 Yes Hayward D ##12 M 30 Real Estate Sales 2500 No 1t00 Single 1 No Dublin ' D ##13 H/W 66 Janitorial (Owner)2000 Yes 550 Married 3 Partner Hayward S ##14 M 29 Mech.' Designer 2600 Yes 375 Single 1 No Sunnyvale ##15 M 35 Management Analy. 2600 Yes 375 Single 1 No Walnut Creek p ##16 M 36 Tech. Illustrator 2100 Yes At Home' Single 1 Yes Santa Clara p ##17 F 22 Grocery Clerk 2200 Yes At Home Single 1 No Pleasanton ##18 M 28 Computer Program. 2700 Yes 450 - Single 1 No Sunnyvale S ##19 F 29 Asst.V.P. B.of A. 2100 Yes 425 Divorced 1 No San Francisco 0 ##20 F 29 Computer Program. 2400 Yes 425 Divorced 1 No Hayward I ##21 F 25 Computer Program. 1800 Yes 325 Single 1 Yes Sunnyvale I S ##22 M 55 Retired (Invest. ) 1900 No 325 Divorced 1 No Hayward S ##23 M 32 Computer Analy. 1900 Yes At Home Single 1 Yes Fremont p #24 F 22 Nurse 2100 Yes 1+25 Single 1 No Fremont D ##25 H/W 35 N/A 2500 No 535mort. Married 2 No Fremont S #}26 F 30 Secretary 2500 Yes 425 Single 1 No Belaire s ##27 H/W 48 Welder 3200 Yes 400 Married 2 No Hayward D #28 M 25 Machine Operator 1200 Yes At Home Single 1 Yes Fremont p #29 111W 39 Printer 3000 Yes W/Relatives Married 3 Yes Taiwan s ##30 H/W 27 Podiatrist 3000 No 1+50 Married 2 No Daly City 0, s ##31 F 38 C.P.A. 2300 Yes 1125 Single 1 No Hayward i b ##32 M 23 Computer Program. 1800 Yes At Home Single 1 Yes Moraga ' Relevant Information : Bead of Household: Average Income : Mean Rale : 53% ##17 Single 81% � (Overall $2,126.23 mo• Average Prior Rents : Female : 28% ## 9 Married 19% r All Singles $2,009.26 Singles S390.75 Married Couple 1 7# 6 J tSingle Male $1,935.24 Married Couples : $487.50 •10 32 units / ' Single Female $2,083.33 Racial Composition : Caucasian Sub Catagori�s : Median Caucasian 63% Chicano 3% Anglo 60% ( $2,100.00 / Lea +Chinese 22% Philli ino 6% Jewish ' Japanese 6% Non 4910 35% / ( ! The Jut i.a. Mangan Cen,ten : 2640 CoZteoe Avenue Be ketey, L. 94704 Inquiring S'vstems Inc. (415) 843-3135 NEWCASTLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTS SURVEY FINAL REPORT DECE_*SEER 23, 1982 ti SUBMITTED TO: - - - Herb Epstein Director of Planning City of Fremont, California SUBMITTED BY: S. Loren Cole, Ph.D. Executive Director Inquiring Systems, Inc. UNDER A CONTRACT FROM: Barratt Corporation San Jose, California NEWCASTLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTS SURVEY SURVEY ANALYSIS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the results of a survey of 32 units of the Newcastle Housing Development conducted during December, 1982. The survey effort had several primary objectives: 1. to identify who the residents are that live in Newcastle 2. to determine why they chose to live in Newcastle 3. to determine who is actually occupying the development (i.e. , owners or renters) 4 . to assess the value of building housing units of Newcastle's size and price A secondary objective.was- to obtain resident opinions about this particular project that would further assist the City of Fremont and Barratt Corporation in evaluating the building of more units of this size and price. II. SIGNIFICANT THEMES EMERGING FROM SURVEY ANALYSIS 71% of the units are occupied by one person 82% are employed the average age of residents is under 35 years 687 of residents choose to live there because of cost 64% are using Newcastle as a stepping stone to purchase other housing small size is the biggest complaint from residents about the units (27%) 932 indicated that they would recommend others to live in Newcastle the overwhelming majority supports this type of housing and would like to see more of it 1 2. III. SURVEY METHODS An anonymous, confidential questionnaire was developed (see Appendix for sample) , and delivered to each resident with a self-addressed, stamped envelope attached. Ten responses were received (31%) and attempts were made to obtain telephone numbers of all 32 residents. This proved unfeasible since most numbers were unlisted or unavailable. We obtained a list of residents from Barratt Corp. sales records,-- and a mailing was made which included another self-addressed, stamped envelope and a request for each resident to assist us in this survey. An additional 4 questionnaires were received, bringing the total to 14 (44%) . The sample size is sufficient to draw some conclusions from the data. The survey was made somewhat more difficult because of the need to insure confidentiality and anonymity. Without these conditions present, we could not rely on the candidness of the respondents' comments and information. IV. THE SAMPLE DATA Fourteen questionnaires were returned from a total population size of 32 (a sample size of 44%) . There were 19 residents occupying these 14 units, which indicates that the approximate population of Newcastle is 44 people. The ages range from 18 to 78, with the" mean average at 34 .3 years. Since the sample size is relatively small, we have included most of the data directly. V. SURVEY RESULTS BY QUESTION 1. Total number of people normally residing in your home: 1 person: 10 (71%) 2 people: 3 (22%) 3 people: 1 (77.) 3. 2. Ages of Adults : 18 through 78 Mean Average 34 .3 years * 63% are 30 years old, or less 3. Marital Status : 2 Married; 1 Separated; 2 Divorced; 11 Single; 1 Widowed *79% of residents are single 4 . Employment Status: 82% are employed; 14% retired; 6% unemployed 5&6. Occupation/Years at Present Job: Programmer-Analyst/2� yrs. Plumber/2 yrs. Bank Dept. Mgr./9 yrs. Instructor/ 6 mos. Spouse Unemployed/3 mos. Grocery Clerk/ 5i yrs. Sales/2 yrs. Technical Illustrator/8 yrs. Industrial Engineer/1 yr. Programmer-Analyst/10..yrs. Test Operator/ lz yrs. Record Keeper/25 yrs. County Manager/13 yrs. Janitorial Service Owner, work with Spouse/8 yrs. Secretary/4 yrs. * 59% white collar workers; 35% blue collar workers * * Employed residents have been on the job an average of 6.7 years 7. Incomes ranged from $12,260/yr. td $30,000/yr. with a--mean average of $22,559 8. Mean Average Income when qualifying was $22,196 9. 937 are owner-occupied units 10. One respondent was a renter at $400/mo. 11. Renter did not purchase because: . Unit unavailable; down payment; qualifying income 12. The length of time living in Fremont Area ranged from 2 weeks to 15 years, with a mean average of 2.47 years . 13. Areas where residents lived prior to moving to Newcastle: 4 . Sunnyvale Santa Clara Union City San Jose Oakland-2 persons Walnut Creek Salinas Hayward Pleasanton Milpitas Mountain View-2 persons 14. Reason for choosing to live in Newcastle: (Percentages do not add up to 100 because respondents provided more than one answer) Cost of Units: 687 Tax Purposes: 5% Rental Cost: 5% Unit Size: 52 Close to Work: 212 Credit Arrangements: 322 Type of Community: 167 15. What is your racial/ethnic background? (An optional question) Ten people (10/14=537) chose to answer this question Caucasian: 70% Chinese: 107 Japanese: 107 Chicano: 107 16. Are you using this housing as a stepping stone to purchase other housing? Yes: 9 (647) No: 3 (227) Maybe: 1 (77) N/R: 1 (77) *Those respondents answering yes indicated that they plan to stay an average of 3.64 years. 17. 637 of respondents indicated that they intend to stay in Newcastle (5/14); one stated definitely not (77) , and 2 maybe's (147) . 18. What do you find satisfying about living in Newcastle? Cost: 10 (537.) Unit Size: 2 (107.) Location: 7 (377) Community: .2 (107) Neighbors: 3 (167) Other Comments: (1) Appliances included-2 persons (2) Attractiveness (3) Backyard (4) Low PG&E (5) "I like Barratt homes" (6) Quiet (7) Having a place to live without throwing rental money away (8) Credit arrangements (9) Ownership 19. What are some of the disadvantages of living in Newcastle? / 5. *78% of the respondents answered this question. The following ' comments were made, with unit size being too small as the one repeated comment (27%) . (1) Unit size may be too small for future resale (2) No TV antenna for buildings (3) "I am used to a 1 bedroom apartment; this feels somewhat small." (4) No garage, no yard (5) No clubhouse or pool, so owners have a place to entertain and/or meet each other (6) Homeowners' Association does -not' seem to keep up with care (7) Cost and size of unit (8) Longer commute to Peninsula (9) Commute to San Francisco is terrible, especially having to go to Bart so early to find parking (10) No recreational facilities; not a scenic environment (11) No access from freeway exit 20. 93% of the respondents would recommend to others that they live in Newcastle. 21. What recommendations would you make to Barratt Corporation in design- ing future developments? (1) Give more kitchen space (2) Put better quality cabinets in units (3) Use better quality windows, include eaves and rain gutters in design; include garages or some storage in carports (4) ' "Keep up the good work. I just love Newcastle. Keep using the space as wisely." (5) More mini—condos; also studios, but better to have furnished with optional, not required or standard package, for solo studios (6) Homeowners' dues, cost, zones, locations of developments (7) Bigger yards (8) "The condo single units are just too damn small. There was enough room to double the size right here." (9) Swimming pool (10) Make the access from both directions easy and convenient 22. What recommendations would you make to the City of Fremont concerning future involvements in this type of housing? (1) "Keep developments small: 32 units is just about right." (2) "There should be more, so that more young people as myself can afford something as Newcastle." (3) "O.K. to get started, and develop some types of units in a few locations." (4) "Affordable housing will help promote industrial growth in our city: the city should promote such housing." 6. (5) "There should be more of these, but closer to Bart station; the bus service is lousy here." (6) "I support development of affordable housing." 23. Other Comments: (1) "What really clinched the sale was the backyard size. Turned out the studios 'had a smaller backyard than the studio model. I felt I had been deliberately misled." (2) "Very pleased with Newcastle." (3) "Would like to see more varieties of mini—condos with 440, 500, 550, 600, 650 sq. ft . to build in future." (4) "Once escrow was settled, Barratt forgot I existed. It's still impossible to get them to answer your calls. I am quite unhappy with their sales personnel." APPENDIX ANONY(' /CONFIDENTIAL NEWCASTLE DEVELOPMENT DEMOGRAPHIC/OPINION SURVEY Please fill out this survey form and mail back using the enclosed, addressed and stamped envelope. You should be as candid as possible since the survey is anonymous and confidential. We are only interested in the characteristics of the whole population of Newcastle and not in any particular person. The information obtained from this survey will be used by the City of Fremont and Barratt Corporation in planning future housing projects. Please complete and return this form by Thursday December 2. 1. Total number of people normally residing in your home: 2. Ages of adults in your home: Ages of children in your home: 3. Marital Status: Married Separated Divorced Single Unmarried/Living Together 4. Are you: Employed Unemployed Retired Fixed Income 5. Your occupation: Your spouse: 6• How long at your present job? Your spouse? How long retired/unemployed? Your spouse? 7. Please state your present annual income: $ Your spouse: $ S. What was your total family income when qualifying for your unit? $ 9. Are you the property owner? Renter? 10. If you pay rent, how much? $ /month 11. If you rent, why did you decide to rent; or what prevented you from purchasing a unit? 12. How long have you lived in the Fremont area? 13. Where did you live prior to moving to Newcastle? 14. Why did you choose to live in Newcastle? (More than 1 answer is ok): Cost of units Monthly rent Close to employment Type of community Credit arrangements for purchase Unit size Other (Please state) 15• OPTIONAL: What is your racial/ethnic background: 16• Are you using this housing as a "stepping stone" to purchase other housing? Yes No If yes, how long do you intend to stay in Newcastle? 17. Do you intend to stay in Newcastle? 18. What do you find satisfying about living in Newcastle? (Such as cost, location, neighbors, unit size, community, etc.) 19. What are some of the disadvantages of living in Newcastle? 20. Would you recommend to others that they live in Newcastle? Yes No 21. What recommendations would you make to Barratt Corporation in designing future developments? 22. What recommendations would you make to the City of Fremont concerning future involvement in this type of housing? 23. Other comments: * * * * * * THAN: YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIY.E AND ASSISTANCE . DUBLIN SAM AMON SERVICE'S DISTRICT General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard • Dublin, California 94568 (415) 828-0515 March 18 ; 1983 Mr . Larry Tong, Planning Director City of Dublin P . 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: PA 82-033 - Castle Greens Dear Larry: In response to your letter of March 16 , we have reviewed the latest plans and find they are in conformance to the Fire Department ' s request for an emergency access and a better layout for locating water and sewer utilities . We have been in contact with the engineers for this project and are waiting to see the revised plans for these utilities . We will inform you if any further changes are required on this project upon review of these plans . Very truly yours , cbl- Emil Kattan Assistant Civil Engineer EK: cb cc: Miles Ferris RECEIVED MAR 211983 DUBLIN PLANNING A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA • PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF AMADOR-LIVERMORE AND SAN RAMON VALLEYS ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES. . DUBLIN SAN RA � C DISTRICT General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard • Dublin, California 94568 (415) 828-0515 February 15, 1983 Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director City of Dublin P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Furnishing Water, Sewer, a d Fire Protection Services to Tentative ract No. 5131 Gentlepersons: You are hereby advised that the subdivision/parcel referred to above lies within the boundaries of Dublin San Ramon Services District, Ala- meda County portion, and is entitled to water, sewer and fire protection 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, institutional and fire protection uses to said subdivision/parcel known as Tentative Tract No. 5131. Water facilities must be connected to the District system and must be installed at the expense of the developer in accordance with District 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 District and will be subject to field inspection by the District. Fire Protection The District is capable of providing adequate fire protection to all structures in said development at this time. 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 requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District, the Insurance Services Office, and the applicable provisions of the Alameda County Ordinance Code. All such work will be subject to the joint field inspection of the County Public Works Depart- ment and Dublin San Ramon Services District. R E C E I V E D FEB 17 1983 DUBLIN PLANNING A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA • PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF AMADOR-LIVERMORE AND SAN RAMON VALLEYS ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES. 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 specifications. 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. Water 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 gutter, 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 Miles A. Ferris Director of Public Works MAF:EK:cb NOTE: This tract will require additional sewer permits. ����I1������yyy��'ppp+++,,,`�`�` SAN ([p�gR�yyJ�y/ ( (,�q�Pf.�yj�'y DISTRICT General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard . Dublin, California 94568 0 (415) 828-0515 February 9, 1983 Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director City of Dublin P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Tentative Map Tract 5131 - Castle Greens Dear Larry: With reference to your memorandum dated February 2, 1983, and our phone conversation of today's date; I am confirming our concern of the proposed layout on the water and sewer services to this development. The staff has reviewed the alternative layout with the engineers, MacKay and Somps of Concord, and hopefully, appropriate changes to the design will be forthcoming. In response to your questions in your memorandum, please note that: 1) . The information provided is not sufficient enough to do a detailed analysis at a later date. We require elevations on sewer manholes; and location of meters, sewer laterals, and valves. 2) . Major concerns that we have are the accessibility of all our utilities within the travelled areas. Minor concerns are potential conflicts with storm drains. 3) . Changes that we would like to see made have been presented to the engineers, as indicated earlier. 4) . When a detailed review of the project is undertaken, we will recommend the various steps that must be taken according to the District's water and sewer specifications prior to our approval. Very truly yours, Miles Ferris Director of Public Works MF:cp cc: Emil Kattan RECEI (V�nED FI'JLhii CAl S'J9QI SION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA • PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF AMADOR-LIVERMORE AND SAN RAMON VALLEYS DUBLIN PLANNING ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES. wc DUBLIN SAR RAMON SERVICES L)ISTRICT FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS STATION 9399 Fircrest Lane 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone: San Ramon, California Dublin, California 94566 829-2333 January 11 , 1983 Mr . Laurence L. Tong , Planning Director The City of Dublin P . 0 . Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Tong : In reference to your letter dated December 30 , 1982 pre- application plans , Castle Green of Dublin , Silvergate Drive , The Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department will require one additional entrance (preferrably southeast of complex off of San Ramon Road_) with accessibility through middle of complex , private 25-foot Loop Street must be marked "Fire Lanes- No Parking" , on-site fire hydrants every three hundred (300 ' ) feet with curb painted red in front of each hydrant , smoke detectors must be installed in all units including equipment and/or recreation buildings . . Numbering of each unit shall be highly visible with at least two (2) lighted directory systems , fire extinguishers (zalobc) must be installed every seventy- five (75 ' ) feet o travel in flush-type cabinets to prevent vandalism. If any questions , please contact me . Yours truly , JAMES M. MORTON Captain Fire Prevention CC : E. Kattan JMM/nlw R E C E I V E D JAN V_," 1983 DUBLIN PLANNING THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. BON 2340 Dublin. CA 94566 (415) 829 3543 MEMORANDUM APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS Date: February 2, 1983 FILE NO.' PA 82-033 RECEIVE Angelo Isquierdo, cFC . -F EB .1983 ATTACHED FOR YOUR REVIEW ARE: DUBLIN PLANNING i:' :�(See 'Attached Material) 2 . 3 . . PLEASE COMMENT AS NECESSARY AND RETURN THIS FORM TO DUBLIN PLANNING BY: February 9 , 1983 . COMMENTS : NO REVIEW NECESSARY AT. THIS TIME COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ATTACHED RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHED . _..-.-_ .... ._.. .- prior' �"o -��•e ISsLkav\c-C OF OLV\Y - • SS 1OY� �L1S S1�Ce- . , ��l\S D�(('''T�ce- :2. . .o a��-�.,�y�• u a dQ+�, - --- - ---t P - ' - --- - - a da e d k y dna�Q i c �}�l.e_ S-40�vn drain 4�e sy s e m -t°7° c , s 1g2t,o I2�� p t W� } y(ze S4Y�..c{�- v►oSS sic -h s �4 II �d i �� -{�, i n c<<•.fie. -e x i s�-i r� a�� ctm e/ws i'mi Lo,•\�>-2 jc� o.Q�' 0.Q .(Jc re •,c� V y `^� ►^ r�_ 1 W•l�` 122 V� � t wg 20 cc � 1 : If it is the intent of the developer to leave this reach of the channel in its natural state, we will require his engineer to demonstrate with current field data and hydraulic calculations that the existing creek can adequately pass the 100-year flow. 'Should the creek be inadequate, certain improvements may be required. 2. An adequate setback from the creek should be provided. If the existing banks are 2:1 slope or steeper, the setback is established by drawing aline at 2:1 slope from the toe of the existing bank to a point where it intercepts the ground surface and then adding 20..feet. Where the top of bank j s poorly defined or the bank slope is steeper than -2:1 , the set- back 'should -be 20 feet on both sides from the intersection of .a 2:1 slope drawn from the 'toe of bank and the elevation of surrounding ground. 3. The following information should be provided to determine an adequate setback from the creek and for the required hydraulic calculations: A. The precise location, both horizontal and vertical , of the creek centerline. 6. Cross sections of the creek at intervals acceptable to the District. Sections at 100' intervals are typical ; more frequent sections may be required. . c r z