Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 AllAbrdMiniStorage Amend Sty • CITY CLERK File # gl-#2. Q - 3. AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 16, 1999 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 98-024,All Aboard Mini Storage General Plan Amendment Study Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator ATTACHMENTS: • 1) Study area map 2) Alternatives Analysis 3) Letter from Shyam Tagggarsi 4) Letter from Frank Ridley 5) Letter from John and Annette Wahlgren 6) Letter from Gary and Sue Wilson 7) Letter from Janet Tsui 8) Letter from David Knowlton . 9) Letter from Pedro Ledezma 10) . Letter from John-Steinbuch 11) February 9, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes 12)' ' Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Program (Mitigated Neg Dec&Mitigation Monitoring Program distributed under separate cover) 13) Draft Resolution amending the Dublin General Plan RECOMMENDATION: . 1) . Open public hearing 2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony � P. 3) Question Staff and the public; Close public hearing 4) Discuss General Plan Amendment options 5) Adopt draft Resolution (Attachment 12) adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA 98-024 6) Adopt draft Resolution (Attachment 13) amending the Dublin ' 'General Plan by adopting one of the following alternatives: a) Planning Commission Recommendation. First, amend the General Plan to add the Campus Office designation as presently only defined in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area to the plan designations that would apply to the Primary Planning Area(The central developed portion of Dublin west of Camp Parks.) including the study area. Second, amend the General Plan to apply either the Medium-High Density Residential (14. - COPIES TO: Union Pacific Railroad Company Ed and Irene Omernik Ed and Judith Wright ©V( In-house distribution ITEM NO. 64 25. du/ac) or the Campus Office designation to the study area"~ (Wright, Omernik and.Union Pacific Railroad properties). .. . . . b) Staff Recommendation. First, amend the General Plan to add the Industrial Park and Campus Office designations as definec in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the plan designations th would apply to this Primary Planning Area including the study area. Second, amend the General Plan to apply a combination Industrial Park/Campus Office designation to the study area properties. c) Another General Plan Amendment option: • Commercial only • Residential only • Campus Office only • Combination Commercial/Residential 7) Give staff direction concerning the Planning Commission recommendation to conduct a General Plan Study for the area south of Dublin Blvd., (Dougherty/Scarlett Court area) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Potential fiscal impacts would depend on development proposal for the properties, not the designation of the General Plan category. BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Recommendation. On February 9, 1999, the Planning Commission on a 4 -1 vote first recommended that the City Council amend the General Plan to add the Campus Office designation as presently defined in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, to the other plan designations presently that could be considered for the Primary Planning Area, and second, to amend the General Plan to apply either the Medium-High Density Residential(14. - 25. du/ac) or the Campus Office designation to the study _ area (Wright, Omernik and Union Pacific Properties along Dougherty Road.) The Planning Commission minutes are in Attachment 11. Land Use Study. The Planning Commission at its February 9, meeting also recommended that the City Council conduct a General Plan study of the area south of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Court as a possible area for land use changes. Staff Recommendation. The original staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was that a combination Industrial Park and Campus Office designation is approved for the study area properties. DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment Study. All Aboard Mini Storage proposed an 85,699 square foot self storage facility on 4.21 net acres owned by the Union Pacific Railroad Company located East of Dougherty Road. The City Council initiated the All Aboard Mini Storage General Plan Amendment Study on May 5, 1998, to analyze General Plan land use alternatives for the railroad property and for two other properties lying east of Dougherty Road, between the railroad property and Houston Place (Attachment 1). Frank Ridley, a representative of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, notified the City on February 3, 1999, that All 2 Aboard Mini Storage is no longer involved in the project(Attachment 4). The owners of land in the study area are the Union Pacific Railroad Company, Edwin and Irene Omernik, and Edwin and Judith Wright. Location. The study area is located on the East side of Dougherty Road, from the north side of the.Union Pacific Railroad Company south to Houston Place. This area is strategically located at one of the main entrances to the central portion of the City of Dublin and to Eastern Dublin. It lies along,Dougherty Road, a major arterial connecting Dublin to Contra Costa County to the north. The site is relatively level and drains toward the railroad right-of-way on the east. Current land uses. The Union Pacific property is currently vacant but was used for railroad purposes between 1915 and the early 19807s when the tracks were removed. The Omernik property is the site-of.a - truss manufacturing company. The Wright property is used for automobile repair, paint sales, newspaper distribution and a marble bullnosing company. Zoning. The Omernik and Wright properties are zoned PD allowing C-2 and M-1 uses. The Union Pacific property is zoned M-1. General Plan. The Omernik and Wright properties are designated Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage on the General Plan. The Union Pacific property is designated Transportation Corridor. ANALYSIS: 0 Setting. The study area is located in an area characterized by a mixture of land uses. To the east lies the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. To the south are the Mayflower and Caton van and storage companies, a proposed contact lens manufacturing facility, an automobile repair shop, a building supply company and a mini-storage company. To the west on the other side of Dougherty Road is a commercial district that is characterized by mini-storage uses, auto-related uses and light industrial uses. These uses include automobile repair,painting, sales and parts, a mini-storage company, a concrete coating company and a printing company. To the northwest on the West side of Dougherty Road is the 283 unit Park Sierra Apartments complex that is currently under construction Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road is the main north-south surface road connecting Dublin to Contra Costa County to the North and to Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. Dougherty Road is classified in the Circulation Element as a Six-Lane Prime Arterial with a design ADT of 50,000 and a 110-foot wide right-of-way. Currently,the road has four lanes. The West side of Dougherty Road has been widened to its ultimate extent adjacent to the study area. Any development of the study area along the East Side of Dougherty Road will be required to dedicate land to provide the ultimate right-of-way. Dougherty Road will eventually be six lanes wide when the Dougherty Valley development in Contra Costa County is built. Design character of Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road south of the Union Pacific right-of-way is designated Retail/Office and Automotive on the General Plan and is characterized by a"Strip Commercial" character with continuous primarily service and auto-related commercial uses. Scarlett Drive. Scarlett Drive is proposed to be extended north from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road along the Union Pacific right-of-way. The road will terminate at a signalized intersection with Dougherty Road opposite the new Park Sierra Apartments development. Scarlett Drive will eventually have one northbound and southbound automobile lane,the Iron Horse Trail, and one northbound and southbound bus lane in a 109-foot wide right-of-way. It will serve as an additional route from Dougherty Road eventually to the BART Station. 3 , Houston Place. Houston Place will eventually have one eastbound and one westbound traffic lane in a 64- foot wide right-of-way, connecting to Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road. Land Use Alternatives. Staff has analyzed four alternative land use scenarios that are included in the Alternatives Analysis in Attachment 2. The alternatives analyzed were: Commercial, Industrial Park/Campus Office, Residential, and Commercial/Residential. The analysis describes the characteristics of each alternative land use,potential square footages or dwelling units, vacancy rates, comparable developments in Dublin,the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative in the study area, and the Zoning and General Plan implications of the alternatives. • Definitions of alternate General Plan designations. Industrial Park. Presently only used in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area,this designation accommodates a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses such as manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication, research and development, printing, warehouse and distribution, whole sale and heavy commercial uses,provided the activities do not have significant external effects in the form of noise, dust, glare, or odor. Outdoor storage would be permitted as long as they do not have adverse effects on surrounding uses. Residential uses are not permitted in this designation. Campus Office. Presently only used in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, this designation is intended to provide an attractive campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Anticipated uses include professional and administrative offices, administrative headquarters,research and development, business and commercial services, limited light manufacturing, assembly and distribution facilities. Ancillary uses are permitted including restaurants, gas stations, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banks and other such services. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential peak-hour traffic generation, meet a specific housing need, encourage pedestrian access to employment and shopping, or create an attractive, socially-interactive neighborhood environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a masterplanned mixed use development. In such developments,the residential component would not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. Retail/Office (Commercial Alternative). Shopping centers, stores;restaurants,business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification as applied to the study area properties. Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25.0.du/ac). Projects at the upper end of this range normally may require some understructure parking, and will have three or more living levels in order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements existing Dublin. Examples are the Springs (17.8 du/ac) and Greenwood Apartments (19.8 du/ac). , Letters From Wright Tenants. Four letters (See Attachments'5 - 9) were received about the project from individuals who operate or work in businesses located on the Wright property. They are concerned that eventual development of the property will eliminate locations for small businesses, including where they do business. They also expressed concerns about the appropriateness of residential development in the study area, resulting traffic and school impacts. . 4 • • Letter from Shyam Taggarsi. A letter was received from Shyam Taggarsi of Archstone Communities (Attachment 3) in which he states his firm's intention to build 177 apartments on the Omernick property. The residences would be similar to the Emerald Hills Apartments (Villas at Santa Rita) under construction by his firm at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. He is in favor of changing the plan designation for all properties in the study area to Medium-High Density Residential. Letter From John Steinbuch. A letter was received from John Steinbuch (Attachment 10), who represents Mr. Taggarsi, recommending that the City Council seriously consider the residential alternative. He feels that high density residential is the best use of the site and is more compatible with the shape of the properties and restrictions imposed on the site by nearby roads and a power line that runs behind the Wright and Omernik ownerships. . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the General Plan Amendment study. The environmental' impacts to each environmental issue studied were based on the alternative that would have the most impacts with regard to that issue. RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive Staff presentation and public testimony, question Staff and the public, discuss the General Plan Amendment options, adopt the draft Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA 98-024, and adopt the draft Resolution amending the Dublin General Plan for the study area as follows: • Planning Commission Recommendation—Campus Office or Medium High Density Residential (14-25 du/ac designation) . • Staff Recommendation-Combined Industrial Park/Campus Office Designation • Others- Commercial only - •Residential only - • Campus Office only - Combination Commercial/Residential Give direction to staff regarding the Planning Commission recommendation to conduct a General Plan Study for the area south of Dublin Blvd. (Dougherty/Scarlett area) • 5 : I ~'-S"~~"';UI~-2:l:~~l';;:i;:-~"\'.i-~;""'~5f.j~';;::.E:;!f.:!i~~~~~~~.:::J. ,~"'-:::.i:1l....-~-",-,-,-.-;;.-...~~- -, - _. - ......:.<-~_ -"'r:-....:;.;;~" ."Ii....r-65-;--"-'--::;:~.I~......~- ..1",,-"'~';'~ . .-- .... ::z.;.;- '",r~~:.Q.7.,~.J.:I:~" -~~~ .~.-.r~_~;<I:".I""'._"''';'~:::'''''~ .<~~..:~--!"~:.:..."G";:-~"- -~J~~ . - -. . --, ~ =--=:--=.'-" ~. ~~--:; ~ "'~~~~ +;:E~.~.J,~.;;..e:~-!';-~l:-:-~rt~~'::~.;;'\;.~..r =~;-.:~~ ~~ ...-=..-=~..~e-1.-..~~~.. ~~~tl~1(~~.:-:~~~ ~=P~~ ":-'"':.~____. ".;.'.". _~~.....:.!i ._~~....._..__._ _..._:.:--._~.r..to "1".. ...:.~.~~""'j;~~'t")' ~~'.____~~:.......:.r;:-.-~~~"'t..",""""",,"...~...r" ':~"-:-"~~~P2~ Es t a fe~ E E J '2.~'A~;:' 0' 0 U'S H E R~R ~7{~lt8:-P9.7--F':;? ~::/:;.~~-.:.: ;:J;;:"~: ./ i~~;~~"L :;'.::;:\: :,~.; \~"-i:~~'""':;;-:~~" .A~~~~c--7---'~'-~~;<"'o~::'-~,o':'~, ~:h<{::7:~?i:~:f:" .' ~f1!.-'~!1Et!P{4:~.lt{4e/'7f({!f.N:~q.f;.POl((!ljslfT:l1'.t=~~~~ ?~~o) ~." ~., ," .- . '. ". '".' ~:. n,'; '-::-\~ :..::-::. ':<"'~"'.;,:'::- ':. ..;.... ::::,,-::;.: ,,: _:. '; '::';':':': DM"-28f7 /" .>.:: :.. p.' u' 710'0 -. c;: 10 . _ ',". :...... .... II ' . I . ,"". r;. 123 E3. .j\"l. -,22.1_1.~.. ~'.~ r ...i..". ~ S'" I · I = 2 0 0 . .,......:, -. .... - . ~~ cae PM. 6571 203/32 I 4 :3Q 2 M. 4008152/51 TR.664421O/93 2M. 7080 225/:.>9 ........./.. ~.:~ ~ / / ~ J(z c;2;( ~~ ~ _~V ~.2 g~t2 0 .-4.f "'\. J~/ ..... Co. Rd. ~2 40~? .........I~~~ ~ :J -' ;f/:sf/ ..s./.'. ~' S.:::J:SD";-V(d.) ~\~"" c.::fZ .~~~~.?i_<=:l "" ...3::::::-=; .: ;:l""~'IOJ.~. @~S/.-':3Fy... ., F-.0-r..J'EC ~ :;_ ...J ,a",.. ^'rIJ.~:...r.... . ....,.,-;J~r,.. , , , r ~ "," r;~,~ 7..Z3 ~:s J ,..r';"I~ .:'\ ~~~~-:: ~;":. ~ 5.'J: J ~~~:; r-..j:. j- ~ .. ... ~_."'\ ~ 1_" ~.....--.... \. ~'I'\, :'k~~0-~? 'i~~l I ~~~ ,...... ""'" -.... ,-- ~ i~.~.\ j~ ....I:J ~ '..1':" -- -. -~V>:-< J .... ._.~~ :,:J I:' ~:-_____::J ~ .:;-!~~. : ;.......;-=...;:/:::,.5 .,...~L .~;l S I "' L F," ~ :~ J Z5~=.'= 'l-J I : '~I ::: @ ... 9 I ~," J..; < ,.:;/ !'\J....::: I . "I.... L"'I'. C\I 1.-' ~~ C',.., ....:: ;: ~-""CIoo .,":-- I:''' I ~ I~ - I~ I ::. I i;J.t-: I ~ .... oj ?O- - ~ "'"';i-' .. ...- ..~I- ALAMO , i' ':::> {'Yo ':\) ~7e r.U7.Z-FJ F:n " ~ ' c:r-...JI o ME.rzy.JICK,." .'" .., .., .3 8 ~ WRI(1~1 ~. // <?~ /// J. ...~~~ - 0'::;- . ~ 1*...- ......_. 8 :::: @ A @ c C:\ o , ~ k L;:~,~.:~;'., ': , :.; ;~; ~ .c B I 'l~ ~~:. it 0.:::...:.;: 'lii W I 2.31 ':":.! 4.Z3~::..~ c " ASSESSOR PARCEL NET SQUARE FEET 1'\ET ACRES ..: .~ 9.n-550~5-1 (Omernick) 305,404 i.01 - => . ..' ;r-! ._ ~1~ ;' '17"": ":3: ":'1- /~ - . -.1':' . , 941-55--7-1 (Wright) 51,756 1.19 941-550-21~5 (UPRR) 183.400 540,560 4_21 12.41 AL TERNA TIVES ANALYSIS /1/ c-\ ~~ r ~_ ...... " --- -....- This Alternatives Analysis looks at four General Plan lvnendment alternatives for the All Aboard Mini stora' General Plan Amendment. The alternatives analyzed were: CommerciaL Industrial Park/Campus Office. Residential, and Commercial/Residential. The development potential as welL as the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, are shown. This report provides estimates of square footage and acres of potential land uses and of dwelling units. However. the actual yield for these developments could be less due to dedication requirements, internal circulation requirements, and site development difficulties. Acreage. The acreages for the study properties are shown in the table below. Net acres are used to determine allowable square footages in non-residential projects. Gross acres are used to detern1ine the number of dwelling units permitted in residential projects. This report provides estimates of square footage and acres of potential land uses and of dwelling units. :\' AME Omernik Wright Union Pacific Railroad Company Total NET ACRES 6.2 1.19 4.21 11.6 GROSS ACRES 7.95 1.57 8.85 (est.) 18.37 Commercial. The General Plan Amendment designation of Retail/Office as defined in the Staff Report would allow all retail and general commercial uses. This designation could also allow a concentration of strip . commercial/retail commercial uses or shopping center development on the 11.6 acres. Specific definition of what commercial uses would be appropriate for the site would have to be determined by a Planned Development Zoning District when a development plan is submitted. A typical retail commercial shopping center is characterized by retail and personal service uses. The Floor to Area Ratio for the appropriate General Plan designation of Retail/Office ranges between .25 and .50, which would yield floor areas of between 126324 square feet and 252,648 square feet for this project. The vacancy rate for commercial centers in Dublin is 4.6%. The following chart shows examples of retail shopping centers in Dublin: SHOPPING CENTER Dublin Village/Carl's Jr. Dublin Station Pak 'n Save Shamrock Village Orchard Supply/Ross Dublin Square/Plumbery Dublin Place Mervyns/ Albertsons Hacienda Crossings San Ramon Village Plaza/Duckett- Wilson, American Furniture ACRES 2.92 4.16 10.72 9.17 10.51 4.13 34.86 19.51 50.0 5.17 A IT ACKMENT 4. Advantages and disadvantages 3 wz5 36 . Advantages 1. A retail commercial development could provide sales tax and property tax revenues to the City. 2. Development of this area for commercial uses would be well suited for p.m. traffic northbound on Dougherty Road. 3. A commercial development would provide jobs and services for Dublin. 4. A commercial development would provide spaces for small businesses in Dublin. 5. New Retail/Office uses. might be compatible with the adjacent existing commercial area. Disadvantages 1. Additional auto-related commercial development in the study area would solidify the present strip service commercial/auto mall conditions now present on Dougherty Road. 2. A new retail commercial use may not be compatible with surrounding strip service commercial/auto mall land uses. 3. Commercial development could generate more traffic on Dougherty Road than present uses. Zoning and General Plan implications. Zoning. A PD Zoning District would be applied to any proposed commercial development on this site. . General Plan. It would be necessary to change the Omemik and Wright properties from Business ParklIndustrial: Outdoor Storage to Retail/Office and the railroad property from Transportation Corridor to Retail/Office. Industrial Park/Campus Office. The Industrial Park/Campus Office designations are defined in the Staff Report. An Industrial Park/Campus Office land use is characterized by a campus-like setting for non-retail office uses, and light industrial uses which do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. This type of development combines the desirable traits ofIndustrial Park and Campus Office uses into a "Flex" use that meets the needs of businesses with both industrial and office components. This "combined" land use designation has only been applied for the Opus Business Park in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Industrial Park and Campus Office designations of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan do not currently apply to the "Principal Planning Area". They could be applied to the study area either singularly or in combination. The Floor to Area Ratio for the combined General Plan designation of Industrial Park/Campus Office ranges between .35 and .8, which would yield theoretical floor areas of between 176,854 square feet and 378,972 square feet for this project. The vacancy rate for industrial park/campus office centers in Dublin is typically around 7.5%. This rate will fall after the Creekside Business Park project is leased. The following chart shows the sizes of the industrial park/campus office centers in Dublin. . 2 INDUSTRIAL PARK/CAMPUS OFFICE CENTER Creekside Business Park DeSilva Group (Hexcel) Sierra Industrial Park Sierra Trinity Park (Bedford) Creekside Office Park - ACRES L/ z:6 :36 . 25 8.31 10.72 13.86 29 Advantages and disadvantages Advantages 1. An Industrial Park/Campus Office "flex" development would be more compatible with surrounding industrial uses and strip service commercial/auto mall uses than residential uses. A flex development could provide high value office spaces that are in high demand. A flex development could provide a high value incubator spaces for start-up companies. A flex development could allow incidental retail by businesses located in the center. This type of development might set the tone for possible redevelopment of the surrounding area into a high value employment center. A flex development could provide sales tax and property tax revenues to the City. There is a high demand for flex space in the region. Vacancy rates for this type of use in the South Bay are very low and demand is increasing in this area. . This use would provide jobs and services for the City and for commuters from Contra Costa County to the North. The location of an employment center near the BART station is ideal. An Industrial Park/Campus Office center on 11.6 acres may be economically viable with the appropriate tenants. ") -'-. .... -'. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Disadvantages 1. In the short term, Industrial Park/Campus Office development in East Dublin could keep vacancy rates for this type of use high for a while, thus delaying the leasing of similar uses on Dougherty Road. 2. Industrial Park/Campus Office development may generate more traffic on Dougherty Road than the current commercial uses currently allowed for the site. Zoning and General Plan implications. Zoning. If an industrial park/campus office project were to be pursued on this site, a PD Zoning District would be applied. General Plan. It would be necessary to change the General Plan to apply the Industrial Park and Campus Office designations to the Primary Planning Area and the study area. Currently these designations are. only used in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A combined Industrial Park/Campus Office designatio would then be applied to the study area. 3 5 o;:f' 3D Residential. Potential residential type use and density for this location could be three'story apartment or condominium units with an average density of 20 dwelling units to the acre (approximately 367 units for the .entire 18.37 gross acres). This would correspond to the Medium-High Density Residential designation of the General Plan that has a density range from 14. I to 25.0 dwelling units per gross acre. This development would be similar to the Park Sierra project located immediately to the northwest on Dougherty Road. The present vacancy rate for medium-high density residential developments in Dublin is close to Zero in the present housing market. Shyam Taggarsi has submitted a letter (Attachment 3 to the Staff Report) in which he has shown interest in developing the Omernik property for residential purposes. His concept would propose 177 units on 7.95 gross acres. The proposed density would be 22.26 dwelling units per gross acre. This density corresponds to the Medium-High Density Residential designation of the General Plan. The following chart shows the sizes of the Medium-High Density residential Developments in Dublin. MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY DWELING RESIDENTIAL (14.1 - 25.0 DUlAC) UNITS ACRES DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE 16.62 19.76 California Brookside Park Sierra Apartments Jefferson at Dublin Emerald Hills Apartments (Villas at Santa Rita) II"" _:J 283 368 324 7.4 14.32 16 11.9 I"" _:J 27.23 (for comparIson purposes) Advantages and disadvantages Advantages 1. A residential development would be convenient to 1-580 and the BART station for the commute to jobs elsewhere. 2. A developer is interested in developing the American Building Components property with 177 units at the present time (See Attachment 3). 3. A residential development could provide needed medium-high density residential units. 4. A residential development could provide property tax revenues to the City. 5. A residential development could be consistent with the nearby Park Sierra development. Disadvantages 1. A residential development would not be compatible with surrounding land uses. Noise from Camp Parks and the adjacent van and storage operation and auto repair uses could disturb the residents and result in demands for code enforcement services. The surrounding area is not an inviting pedestrian environment for potential residents and could be potentially hazardous for pedestrians. Residential development could generate significant traffic on Dougherty Road. Tax revenues for a residential use would be less than those of an Industrial Park/Campus Office or a Commercial use. 2. . "" :J. 4. 4 bqj'~ 5. COStS to the City for services to residences are higher per acre than those of the other alternatives. Zoning and General Plan implications. . Zoning. If a Medium-High Density residential project were to be pursued on this site, a PD Zoning District would be applied. General Plan. It would be necessary to change the General Plan from Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage and Transportation Corridor to Medium-High Density Residential. CommerciallResidential Development. A combined commercial/residential designation could incorporate commercial development such as retail and eating and drinking establishments on the ground floor and apartments or condominiums on the second and third floors at an average density of 20 dwelling units per acre. This type of development would be new to Dublin and would resemble the type of development existing along Clement Street in San Francisco and in European cities. Approximately 245 dwelling units would be built and between 42,108 and 84,216 square feet of commercial development would be built if the entire site were built as a mixed-use development. Advantages and disadvantages Advantages 1. This type of development could be an interesting urban style development that would be . attractive to the public and residents alike. The commercial and residential uses could have a synergistic compatibility where each benefits and justifies the other. The project would provide needed medium-high density residential near 1-580 and the BART station. It could provide significant property tax revenues and sales tax revenues to the City. 2. .. ,j. 4. Disadvantages 1. This type of development is quite intensive and urban in nature and would be better suited to downtown Dublin. 2. This type of development may not be viable with so few square feet available for lease. 3. A mixed-use development would continue a strip service commercial/auto mall condition further north on Dougherty Road. 4. A mixed-use development use might not be compatible with surrounding strip service commercial/auto mall land uses. 6. The residential component of a mixed-use development would not be compatible with surrounding land uses. Noise from Camp Parks and the adjacent van and storage operation and auto repair uses could disturb the residents and result in demands for code enforcement services. 5. The surrounding area is not an inviting pedestrian environment for potential residents. . 5 Zoning and General Plan implications. 9 ot '3cJ . Zoning. If a mixed use project were to be pursued on this site, a PD Zoning District would be applied. General Plan. It would be necessary to change the General Plan from Business ParklIndustrial: Outdoor Storage and Transportation Corridor to a combination of the Medium-High Residential and Retail/Office designations of the general Plan The following table summarizes the alternatives before the City Council: ALL ABOARD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY AL TERNA TIVES NET FAR FAR SQ. FEET sa. FEET GROSS DWELLING ACRES LOW HIGH LOW HIGH ACRES UNITS Commercial 11.6 0.25 0.5 126324 252648 Ind. Park/Campus Office 11.6 0.35 0.8 176854 378972 Residential 18.37 367 Commercial/Residential Use 11.6 42108 84216 245 (commercial on ground floor. and residential on 2nd and 3rd floors) g:pa98024/ Alternatives Analysis . . 6 ") " . " ,;.::'~..~ t.!~'~rt"7':-~ t. C'.'- ~', ,,. tQi ,.., <.. l-' ", ... ;,; .,y......- -.. ..;:,;:,- ,:~,~, - A-It~c H S T 6'N' E "'-...7 ",.- ...::... g if pO . November 10, 1998 Archstone Communities 22320 Foothill Boubard, Se::ond Fic Harward, California 94541 Tdephone (510) 583 2100 Fax (510) 728 7111 "'"VI'w.ar::hstone::ommunmes.::om Mr. Dennis Carrington Planning Department City of Dublin 1 00 Chic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Omernik Property Dear Dennis, Pursuant IO your request, enclosed please find information- regarding the Omemik Property, located on the northeast corner of Dougherty Road and Houston Place. A.rchstone Communities Trust has the subject property under contract and is proposing a . 177-unit residential development on 6.9 net acres. The concept that Archstone intends for this site is an upscale apartment community V\'ith site planning and recreational amenities designed to accommodate families as well as singles. The proposed development consists of residential units designed as a series of three story buildings built at-grade with tuck-under private garage and carport parking, grouped around a landscaped recreation courtyard. The buildings are designed to provide a rich ehierior and interior. Attention is paid to the details of the architecture with the use of divided light windows, overhanging eaves, varied roof lines and accent colors. Buildings are placed along the perimeter of the site to create a residential feel to the edges of the development. The architecture sets a high standard of design quality and is compatible with the upscale residential development that is being built in the Emerald Park area. Tbree floor plans will be available: one, two and three bedroom units. The 3-bedroom units provide greater diversity than typical adult apartment complexes that have only 1 and 2 bedroom units. The two and three bedroom units have ample room for family living yet afford the privacy of master bedroom suites. All units have patios or balconies with storage areas, washer/dryer connections and separate dining areas. All units have computer . alcoves that are wired to allow for Internet connections. ATTACHMENT "? oJ ) -~ c; ~ 30 . ....-:;;;;.... November 10, 1998 :Mr. Denni~ Carrington Page two The units will come with 9' ceilings, designer selected, color coordinated wall-to-wall carpeting and window coverings, range/oven, refrigerator, and dish,,'asher. - EX1ensive amenities will be offered that cater to families, children and adults. Tne Clubhouse will feature activity spaces for all of these groups. A central feature of me Recreation Center will be an entertainment room that can be used for movie nights, children's parries, baby showers and private functions. There will also be a pool/spa off of the Recreation Center. In addition, the development will feature an outdoor recreation courtyard with BBQ equipment, picnic area, and adult conversation seating areas. . This residential community is designed to provide a superior quality living environment for its residents. Attached please find a schematic site plan and character elevations of A..rchstone' s proposal. .fu"chstone would like to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and P.D. Rezoning as soon as possible. If you have any questions please call me at (510) 583-2118. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, A.RCHSTOl\~ COMMUNITIES ___ I 7i~____ Shyam Taggarsi Vice President . NIST L<ll<tll> City of Dublin f<: Omomik 11.lo.-9~.d<>c , I .-~/,~t71 /?~ -,-. /0 of ~D . J ~ q: i ~ ~ r :.ar~. . . C;:;~ /'f~~ fYJ:. U. 1'~':::" ~E. tZJIJcc:nv4C-- S/i"E. r,-f;f/ (/ M?.AN / I<... Pf<o,t:1S~ rl t:PK../~ CIf/...(~//f- . . . ~ . .' ,. , , . . I . ~~. :~'.'::1. ~... . I . '," ~., ) FRONT ELEV ATlON ,. ~ . CUMPUSIJ IUN SlIlNGlE RUUF . SAllD FINISII STUCCO · S IUCCO WRAPPED TRIM . 1lJ IlE STEEL GUARDRAILS -j, MOTOR COURT ELEV ATlON ~"CI.11! C- Hln.1! . ''lAPIrlIUG UP'C '1l.1I! tn '~l"l arl.."..n trV[?lO(Q:~lL CHARACTER ELEVATIONS @ It'~ By IIllrltE rAl'!::m rliitl(llPoI(J AL.I.PlIOln!lPlt:SEFtYtIl, .~.... IIIII -~ SECUIUTi' CAPITAL PACIFIC THUST ........... ........... c:\ () BURIIE .~ -..... .) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY CONTRACTS & REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT 8 /~ 4 U> . 49 Stevenson Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 541-7051 . Facsimile (415) 541-7060 Frank G. Ridley Senior Manager Special Properties, Sales & Development Febmary 3, 1999 In reply. please refer to: Mr. Eddie Peabody Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94)bS Rc: General Plan Amendment Study PA 98-024 Union Pacific Railroad Co. property on Doughel1y Rd. Dear Mr. Peabody: Please refer to letter dated December 12, 1997 from Richard Gooch of this offiee requesting that the Transportation Corridor overlay for Union Pacific's parcel ofland bet\veen Dougherty Rd. and Dublin Road be changed to M-l to be consistent with the site's zoning. At that time our partner, All Aboard Mini Storage, was invcstigating the feasiblilty of using the railroad's land for a mini storage facility. All Aboard is no longer involved in this project and the administration of this property is now my responsibility. . I recently was provided a copy of your Notice of Public Hearing for a February 9, 1999 hearing (which I understand has been rescheduled for Feb. 23). Can you please add my name to your list to receive future notices for this project. Your notice should now refer to the property owner as: Union Pacific Railroad Company and drop the reference to All Aboard Mini Storage. As infonnation, I plan ou piacing this parcei uf ialld on the market for saie. i would imagine that our future prospective buyer will want to become actively involved in the General Plan Amendment study process. I will be attending your Planning Commission meeting on the 23rd and would like to meet you. If there are any questions in the meantime, my phone number is: (415) 541-7051. v cry Truly Yours, ~~c ~/k Frank Ridley 7 RECE!VE:> . ATTACHMENT 4 ,~o"' ~ 0 It 1Q:13 ~.,otl ~" DUE-UN ?!.AhlNa.~G . . . John's European Auto Service ---:'\. ..1 Phone (925) 551-7822 Fax (925) 551-8128 Mayor Guy S. Houston City ofDuhlin Dublin, CA 94568 ~~ 6295 Dougperty Road Dublin, CA 94568 13~3~ . " . .1 February 22, 1999 Dear Mayor Houston, This is to inform the City of Dublin that we, the tenants at Dougherty Road (o\\'ned by Ed Wright) oppose the decision made by the City of Dublin Planning Commission to recommend approval of the general plan amendment made on Tuesday, February 9, 1999. Obviously, this change in zoning \\'ill effect every tenant and every employee, as well as the families of all tenants anf! all employees. There are tenants in our building who, in the past month, have invested thousands of dollars in remodeling costs to the interior and e"-1erior of their leased store and warehouse. This construction work has been carried out with full approval of a knowledgeable landlord who has chosen not to divulge any information concerning this re-zoning to his tenants. We, as tenants, understand that property in Dublin is at a premiwn and re.zoning would benefit the property owners, the City of Dublin, the development companies, and future apartment dwellers. However, this puts the small business o\\ners at a serious disadvantage. Because there is a shortage of rental property in Dublin and surrounding areas, this move by the City of Dublin ",ill put small business o\\ners at a serious disadvantage in making a move to relocate. Combine this serious disadvantage with a landlord who is not keeping his tenants informed of progress in his plans to re.zone, then sell his property to developers, and many of us could find ourselves not only out of business, but in financial ruin. Is this the best the City of Dublin can do for small business O\mers who have shaped the character of Dublin over the last decade? Is the City of Dublin so influenced by the idea of being prosperous that the planning departments would rush into a deal to increase their profits "ithout considering the costs to individuals involved? We think not. We think that the planning and zoning departments can take a step back and see that integrity should always come before profit The City of Dublin should consider every aspect involved, and understand that each project that is done is worth doing correctly. Please consider this letter an official appeal to the re.zoning decision made February 9, 1999 concerning the property owned by Ed Wright on Dougherty Road The basis for our appeal is the fact that no tenants were notified of the JIleeting, the content of the meeting, or any changes that could take place at the meeting, which left no opportunity for tenants to be present and no time for preparation of appeals. We do not want residential zoning on the Union Pacific Railroad, Ed Wright and Ed Omernik properties because this decision would put existing small business owners out of business. Residential areas are not compatible with the west side businesses on Dougherty Road Automotive customers need dealer alternatives for their car repair. The area is not inviting for pedestrians or residences. Noise from Camp Parks (planned burns, helicopter drops and soldier training) would disturb residences. Even after Dougherty Road is widened, tr.lffic will be a nightmare beyond belief. Thank you for considering this matter and also the fate of Dublin small businesses. CJ;~1 sc:r~1 ~~ /1Iit John and Annette Wahlgren /' "." , .. ATTACHMENT i l;lULLL.UO::>U'ili me. 6287 DOUGHERTY RD. DUBLIN, CA 94568 -; ,,:,--. .... /1 06"~ DEAR COu"NCIL MEMBER, THIS LEITER IS TO IN FORM YOU THAT WE THE TENANTS AT 6287 DOUGHERTY RD. {OWNED BY ED '\iVR.1GHT }, OPPOSE THE DECISION MADE BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING DEFT.WE Ubi1)ERST AD TH...c\.T RE-ZONINO THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL USE WILL EFF.ECT FAR MORE PEOPLE THAN YOU REALIZE. . #1 YQU WILL BE KICKING our THE SMALL BUSThlESS OWNERS, THERE F .AMIT.JES, AND Al.L T&:RE EMPLOYEES. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOUR COMPANY WAS DOWN SIZIN"G, A..~"D YOU WERE ON' THE LIST TO LOSE YOUR JOB. THIS IS YOUR SER VIV AL. WOu1.DN"T TOU DO EVERYTrlING IN YOUR PO'vVER TO KEEP T.r:nS FROM RL\PPENThG. YES 1 'IHi]';1( YOU WOUlD. #2 YOU lit... \IE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE TENENTS :i:N TIllS BlHLDmG VrHO lit... V.l:'. INVESTED TIIODSA..."NDS OF DOlLARS IN REMODELING COSTS, TO THE JNTE..1UOR A..1\jl) E.."\.lE...'UOR, OF THERE LEASED STORES A..~n ~W.REHOU~E'SPACE. #3 YOU lit... VE NOT DO'l'-.'E STUDIES ON THE POPli"L.ATION GRO'vYT.d OF T.rE p.DDmON.~~ 375 APPARTMENTS, A..l'lD HOW IT \VILL.t:..r r l::CT THE CITY OF DL.i'ELlN. DOUGEER.1Y RD. H.A..S NOT YET BEN Vv1DTh"ED. T.dE PL.<\..'''.;}'lING COMI\.lISION omcv..LS EAVE NO IDE.<\. Vv"I-:EN r.r:ns vm.L T.A..KE PUCE, .A..Nn 'W':--iO VvlLL BE P A'i:1NG FOR IT. 'KOW ACROSS Tr.;-= STREET FROM US, ..c\:RE 397:N"EW .A2P ART.M:E:N"TS .AL\.10ST FDrrS"rlED. JUST Tr::E\"'K, TriOES OF YOU WEO 'IRA VEL DOWN DOUGHERTY RD. Dti1UNG RUSH HOlJ"R. NOW ITS PREITY BAD. \-"v"ElL w"HATS IT GOING TO BE LIKE w"HEN THERE ..6:.RE .A..PPRO:x::r:MEIL Y 600 MORE C.A.RS {L5 CARS PER HOUSEaOLD}. YOU ALL ~,..!-MTOBE SO ADA!.\tIIT ON .-\LLOVv'ING TI<:::rS BIG GROwT.d IN" DUBLIN. W.dO IS GOISG TO TAKE RESPONSIBILI}'r" FOR . T.r:IE RA.Z....\..1IDS OF T.rlE POPUL<\.TION ),.1'-1-.0 TRAFFIC PROBI..E1vrs T.dIS w1LL CREATE. #4 T.dE MOST lMPORTAl'-t"T ISSUE T.d.A.T H.4..S NOT 'YET BEN ADRESSED IS , T.2E PLACE..t.\tIB,TT OF ...;u TrlESE SCHOOL CHILDREN. I HAv'"E WORKED AT v\iELLS lvIIDDLE SCHOOL FOR THE Lo\S1 3 ~ YEARS. TI<:IS SCHOOL HAS HAD A GRowrn RATE OF ISO N.c W STUDB1TS EACH "fE..Q.. r.dEY ARE AT A POINT NOW WHERE THEY C..<\..'!>.j1fOT TJ..KE A...r..r NEW STIJDEN"TS, VvTIHOlJ"T MORE NEW B1Jl!.DINGS OR PORTABLES, NOT TO Jvf2\ilION TrlE NEED OF MORE QUALIFIED TEACHERS. THE CITY H.A..S BEEN WOILTCING ON A.lf EXTENTION MEDIA. BT.JllDING 1\1;' WE.LS SCHOOL, FOR THE UST 2 ~ YEW. IT SEBvIS TA-A...! Vv1-<::EN" rrlE CITY HAS SON.lE1BING TO BENIET r.dEM FINANCIALLY, THEY CA.lf GET SOMET.rlING Bu"'TI..T IN SEVER.AL MONT.dS. BOy\iEVER. VVHEN IT COMES TO THE SCHOOLS, T.dEY ARE SLOW AS SNAJLS. NOW ):~OU TELL 1v!E, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SUPPORT, NOT OK!. Y rrlE l'-t"'EW A.PP..A.R.1MENT BLDG., BUT ANOTHER ONE 'WITHIN ONE r.t.AR. RE!vlEMBER WE ONLY HAVE 4-E!..EMENTRY SCHOOLS, l-MIDDLE SCHOOL, A.. ~ . l~!-::JGH SCHOOL. ITS LIKE AN UP-SIDE DOYVN FUNNEL. All THESE kIDs GET PUSHED T.dR.OUGE: lEE SYS~ A.~ OUT THE SMt\LL TUBE AT ~ END. THERE ARE ONLY SO MAY THAT CA..~ SQuEZE THROUGH. ljNLESS OF COU.R.CE YOU PEOPLE TAKE A STA.'ND AND SLQW r.dE GROWTH DOWN OF HOUSING INDTJBLIN, DNTIL YOU HAVE BUILT A.."N'OTHER:MIDDLE SCHOOL A..~n EIGrl SCHOOL, FOR r.dE FtTrtJ'EE OF OUR CHILDREN. IF YOU DON"T TAKE A STAND NOW WE ARE GOmG TO DiD UP 'WTTH A..."N" OVER POPULA:.TION OF Du"BLIN AND A SCHOOL SYSTEM TRA..T Wll.L CLOSL Y RESEMBLE TEE 0.4.KI......A..ND SC'".rlOOLS. BULlNOSING mc. . . GARRY G. WlLSON SU'"E M WJI.SON """"" _\ C } / . /' .i .~~ t/7tc/~ . ATTACHMENT to _-/5qfb . March 3, 1 Q;)9 . CITY OF DUBUN 100 Civic FW:a Dtbin, CA 94568 " Re: Project., 96-024 suqect Re-zoning Dol.VlertY Road <South of Camp Parks> . TO WHC>M THIS MAY CONCERN: TIjs ieUer.s to Oppose the Plamilg Commission's decision made on February 9, 19Ee. The area south cI Camp Parks is not suit:tHe for apartments. We do not need more residential areas on Oouglerty React Traffic is bad naN, and even after Dol.VlertY Road is widened, it wiI- not be enoug, for 30T new apartments. We know there are 1100 homes pIamed for 00Lg1erty Valley, whose owners will also be traveli1g on ~ Road. This oLInbe.-, is not COUlti1g the 300 apartments currently beiOd bc.ilt on the west Side c:I Dot.gherty Roed. If we add more residences, the tmffic wil be rriserabIe. We do I1eed the services that D.Jbli"I smal businesses provi:Je. D.Jbfil resDents needt:Ju5i ~ and.service aIIarnatives. The properties South d Camp Parks are an kJeal location for small busi1esses. Sincerely, ??~ /~ . ~ ;.- ,.. '. , - . - , r.. r:;;; Ii.. ioo. .. "'l ''Ion "" - I..~l\ 6! .'. .' ;:-TTACHMENT 7 DU::.-l~N ?:... .. ~. .., ."- It; ~'3D . March 3,1999, CITY OF OUBUN 100 Civic Aaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Project # 93-024 Subject: Re-zoning Dougherty Road <South of Camp Parks> TO VVI-tOM lHlS MAY CONCERN: This Jetter is to oppose the Planning Commission's decision made on February 9,1993. The area south of Camp Parks is not suitable for apartments. We do not need more residential areas on Dougherty Road. Traffic is bad naN, and even after Dougherty Road is widenecf, it Will not be enough for 367 new apartmentS. We know there are 1100 homes planned for Dougherty Valley, whose owners will also be traveling on Dougherty Road. This number is not counting the 300 apartments aJrrentfy being buitt on 1he West . Side of OoI.gherty Road. If we add more residences, the traffic wit be miserable. We do need the services that Dublin smaB businesses provide. Dublin residents need business and service alternatives. The properties South of Camp Parks are an ideal location for II businesses. Slnoerefy, a ffl C [ f\n: ~J . ATTACHMENT <1 ~".;;l r: P F~l . t. ,., v U .-.......1- ou~.t~~~J p~~.\: ~~ (~;.;::. . . . ~~tf:!iut!~I1~!mW:IifjmIJ1~ItII~~~~HIII!JItHD~ljlmIIWlIlJ!~WnIJIIlIlmnlililWIIlIIIltll1 -QJ vfVY1.,,<..''J I? 00 1>D Rf:'f~~!V'E'[) f'JD 4 0 ~fQf_li' . tI. ..\ I _oj:) DUBUN PLANNii'JG March 3, 1999 CITY OF DUBUN 100 CMc Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Project # 9S-024 Subject Re-zoning Dougherty Road <South of Camp Parks> TO WHOM ll-iIS MAY CONCERN: This letter is to oppose the Planning Commission's decision made on February 9,1993. The area south of Camp Parks is not suitable for apartments. We do not need more residential areas on Dougherty Road. Traffic is bad now, and even after Dougherty Road is widened, it will not be enough for 357 nem apartments. We know there are 1100 homes planned for DoUQI'1erty Valley, whose ovmers will also be traveling on Dougherty Road. This number is not counting the 300 apartments currentfy being built on the West Side of Dougherty Road. If we add more residen=es, the traffic win be miserable. We do need the services that Dublin small businesses provide. Dublin residents need business and service alternatives. The properties South of Camp Pam; are an ideal location for small businesses. Sincerely, ;l?L .a:. ATTACHMENT!] jg1f9D --- . -. COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 5050 Hopprd Road. Suite 180 Pleasamon, CA 9~58B USA Tel: 925-~63-2300 F",,: 925-~63-07 ~7 www.colliersparrish.com ... "', ~.'> . -. r. ~ ' '.. _ -~ .-. . -.. ~ ..- . March lO, 1999 Mr. Dennis H. Carrington Senior Planner CITY OF DUBLIN lOO Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: All Aboard Mini Storage General Plan Amendment Dear Dennis: The purpose of this letter is to outline for the City Council some of the realities of the marketplace pertaining to the potential development of the Omemik, Wright, and Union Pacific parcels on Dougherty Road for either residential, campus office, or industrial uses. Please include this lener in your Staff Report package. As discussed in my Planning Commission testimony, 1 am a commercial broker with 19+ years of experience selling industrial and residential land in the Tri Valley. 1 have had an ongoing business relationship with Mr. Omemik since 1986 regarding his property. He has had numerous offers from industrial developers and has rejected those because they lack the value he needs to relocate his plant. The industrial market today in Dublin and Pleasanton is virtually non-existent with respect to new product, simply because developers cannot make the land values near the 1-580/680 interchange work for traditional industrial product. Land values today are approaching $20.00 per square foot, whereas industrial land in East Livermore has land values of $5.00 per square foot. Rents that for years hovered in the $0.30 - $0.45 range, are today ranging between $0.60 - $ 1 .00 per square foot depending upon product size and level of improvements. Thus even if this area were zoned industrial, 1 do not believe the city would see a traditional industrial park developed here because of the exorbitant land values that are now pervasive throughout the Dublin area. With respect to campus office, this site, while having some potential, is bisected by a power line which cannot be economically moved and thus would preclude some of this property from being developed for multi story office. Campus office in this area needs to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 45% - 50% to pay today's land values. While the staff report suggests an FAR of75%, that density has never been developed in the Valley, as it creates problems with respect to traffic and parking. Thus 50% FAR is more reasonable and typically consists of four or five story office buildings. The Union Pacific site is bisected from the other two sites by a power line and by itself is too long and narrow to efficiently layout such a building. The Wright property is not for sale. Mr. Wright is retired and receives a very attractive income off of that property, thus its incorporation into such a development plan is questionable. Thus, we are left with the Omemik property which nets 6 acres after road dedications and might accommodate 130,000 square feet. Colliers Parrish International, Inc. A Member of Colliers International with Commercial Real Estate OfIjces throughout the AmeriC3SA \TAt fifVje~T \ D . . . . . . Mr. Dennis H. Carrington CITY OF DUBLIN March 10, 1999 Page 2 /9' 05 SD There has also been some discussion relative to displacing the small industrial tenants with this proposed land use change. As mentioned the Wright building which houses those tenants is not for sale. Secondly, it is important to look at the trends which have happened in this valley. Land prices .and corresponding rents have increased dramatically on the west side of the Tri Valley. Pure industrial users have migrated eastward to Livermore and in some cases out to the Central Valley because of the cost for space and labor. This is an ongoing trend throughout the Bay Area and can be seen on a macro level with companies moving off the Peninsula and out of the South Bay, and into the East Bay and Central Valley. for precisely the same reasons. Real estate development works off of the concept of "highest and best use". Clearly industrial is not the highest and best use in Dublin. While campus office may be a possible use, the layout of the site will not allow a decent density. The proximity of a four or five story, Class "A", steel frame office building next to warehouses and automotive is not as compatible as that of a high density residential community. Witness the recent approval and development of the Shea project on the west side of Dougherty Road immediately across the street. Thus I feel from a market prospective, high density residential is the best use of this site and is more compatible with the shape and restrictions imposed on the site by nearby roads, power lines, etc. I would urge the City Council to seriously consider the residential alternative when making their decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, COLLIERS 11l\TERNA TJONAL ~ ~........ ~.l}~~ Jdhn S. Steinbuch S~nior Vice President JSS(ltcar309)lar/vlm dO '06 :3D Mr. Paynter stated two, one for the townhomes, and one for the patio homes. . Cm. Johnson asked about enforcement of parking on the street and driveways. Mr. Paynter stated his experience was that they are using the garages for cars, not storage. The parking requirements and guest parking issues were discussed at length. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any comments. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Porto stated that the project would have 18 foot driveways, and that was a benefit that supports parking cars in the garage. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR P A 98-063 TOLL BROTHERS (TRACT NO. 7084) RESOLUTION NO. 99-05 . RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR P A 98-063, TOLL BROTHERS - EMERALD GLEN #4 8.3 P A 98-024: All Aboard Mini-Storage General Plan Amendment Study The City is proposing a General Plan Amendment Study for property located East of Dougherty Road, Southwest of the northeast boundary of the Union Pacific right-of-way, and North of Houston Place. The study will analyze General Plan land use alternatives and determine the most appropriate General Plan Designation. Staffwill recommend a general plan amendment to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may recommend a general plan amendment to the City Council. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. He gave a briefhistoI)' of the project. He stated staff just received a letter stating All Aboard has withdrawn their interest for a mini-storage. The property is not up for sale. He stated one option would be a commercial use. This would have a tax advantage for the City. Also, a commercial development would provide jobs within the City. The disadvantage would be competition with existing businesses in Dublin and it would become another strip commercial center. A . second option would be an industrial park/office campus use. It could be one or two stories, with 370,000 square feet of office space. An advantage would be it could be flexible. It could provide some high value Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 February 9, 1999 ATTACHMENT , f . . . . . ~I at E,d) start up space, which is currently in high demand. It could set the tone for redevelopment in the entire area. A disadvantage would be it could keep vacancy rates for this type of use high for a while, thus delaying the leasing of similar uses on Dougherty Road. Another option could be residential use. Some advantages for residential use would be convenient to BART, and could provide needed medium-high density units. Some disadvantages for residential could be noise from Camp Parks and adjacent van and storage operations. Also, the surrounding area is not inviting for pedestrian environment. The last option could be commerciaVresidential use. Some advantages ofthat use would be this type could have a synergistic compatibility where each benefit justifies the other. There are several disadvantage-s of this mixed use including this type might l?e better suited in downtown Dublin. He stated staff recommends approval of the resolution amending the General Plan. Cm. Hughes asked how many units could the property have. Mr. Carrington said up to 360 on the entire site. Cm. Hughes asked about the industrial park use. Mr. Peabody stated industrial areas change all the time. Cm. Hughes stated by putting an industrial park there, the City is continuing the area as it is now, which is not very attractive. At least residential would bring some color and variety to the area. He felt this area is the worse looking area in the City. Mr. Carrington stated whatever goes there, it is important that it be well designed. Cm. Musser stated he felt this was a gateway to Dublin and was concerned about what went there. He would rather see high density residential than open storage yards near a BART station. Cm. Johnson asked the time frame for Dougherty Road to go to 6 lanes. Mr. Carrington stated when Dougherty Valley was built. Cm. Musser said the Specific Plan allows for residentiaVcampus office uses now. Mr. Carrington stated the General Plan is very general, the option before the Commission is to adopt some general land uses. Mr. Ridley, Sr. Manager of Union Pacific railroad, stated the joint partnership with All Aboard has terminated and the property is up for sale. There have been preliminary discussions with other buyers and brokers, but nothing has come of that at this time. He hope that in the coming months, they could find an appropriate buyer to participate in the planning process. Sharam Tegarcy, stated the Omernick site was under contract with a proposed 177 upscale apartment complex. Since this is not a PD hearing, he did not get into the details. He addressed staffs concern on placing residential uses on that property. He handed out a paper outlining the reasons he felt residential was a good use on the site. He asked the Planning Commission to recommend residential to the City Council as a desirable land use. Cm. Jennings asked about the proposal of widening Dublin Blvd. Mr. Tagarcy stated a part of the property will be dedicated to the City. Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7 February 9, 1999 c?< j. ~ 30 Gary Wilson, 6287 Dougherty Rd. stated Dublin lacks the small commercial warehouse space for start up shops for industrial uses. He felt a small business would be good tax revenue for the City. He stated there was toxic waste in the area and it was not an attractive area to walk along. He asked for the City to consider having shops for the smaller business users. He asked what the difference is between campus office use and flex office use. . Mr. Carrington explained the differences. The City is trying to provide some flexibility in what can go in there. He said the general plan categories are vague. It will provide office space in a campus like setting. that would allow for light industrial similar to the area on Sierra Court. Mr. Wilson agreed with Mr. Carrington. He stated that residential use has a strain on City services such as sewer, water, Police services, etc., and felt that this area was a poor site for apartments. John Steinbusch, 5050 Hopyard Road, stated he is a commercial real-estate company. He is working with Mr. Omernick, regarding the sale of his property. He stated Mr. Omernick has looked at a number of different opportunities for this property, He stated that residential use is one of the more favorable uses for that property. He said the market could dictate residential uses for that property. He feels that industrial product does not work in Dublin any more. He said the property values are approaching $1,000,000 per acre and an industrial building will not be economical. Denny Kahler, 6170 Houston Place, stated that he bought the property in late 80's and has heard many promises from the City about widening the road; and he is still waiting, He encouraged the City to do whatever it takes to make the area look attractive, and do it as soon as possible, . Mr. Wahlgran, European Auto Service, felt the area should remain commercial. He stated that it is hard to find space to expand and cannot find a space to expand in to. Dublin has enough housing and to add more housing will cause the traffic to get worse. Bruce Morgan, stated that he is one of the first 75 families to move into Dublin. He is wondering how Dublin keeps growing without water and sewage. Mr. Peabody stated DSRSD supplies our water and sewerage and has a long range plan to supply double the Dublin population. The infrastructure is there in order to accommodate growth. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes stated Mr. Wilson had some interesting points. The primary issue is whether it will remain commercial or become residential. He stated that this area is the northern extreme end of an industrial area. He said we have a chance to continue what is already there, which is less desirable or go forward and make a change for the positive. He felt the Iron Horse Trail is a great place to walk and residents would probably prefer to walk along residential rather than industrial. He felt this was an opportunity to beautify the area. There may be a need for more body shops but this is not the area to do that. He stated that having 177 units in an area close to BART is much more advantageous to the City than having more commercial in this particular area. Cm. Jennings spoke against the residential use. She believes that there is some confusion with campus office/commercial use. She read the definition for the record an industrial park/campus office land use . characterized by campus like settingfor non-retail office uses and light industrial uses which do not generate nuisances related to emissions, odors or glare. This type of development combines the desirable traits of industrial park and campus office into a flex use that meets the needs of businesses with both -..----...----------------..--------...--..------...........----------------------.........------------...---...-------..----..-...----------...-------......-- Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8 February 9, 1999 . . . ;< J; qf 3D industrial and office components. She stated that she envisioned small start up buildings a need for industriaI/commerciaI. She stated that she could not see another 177 units gong into that area. She urged yes on the industrial/campus office use. Cm. Musser stated he would like to voice his support and agreed with Cm. Hughes. He feels that this is an opportunity to get some good residential use in the area. He felt the whole area has uses that don't really belong there. With the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the BART Station, the City has to look at office and residential uses for the area. There is a need for commercial uses, but those uses need to be relocated elsewhere in a more appropriate area. The campus/industrial designation in the Specific Plan provides for residential use and does not have a problem designating it campus/office with the provision that this apartment complex be permitted under that use. He would like to see the City take a look at the whole area for campus/office type use to permit and encourage higher density residential and office uses in there; this is a gateway to the City and needs to be dressed up. The character of the area is not a good one and he would like to see it changed. The General Plan has a bike trail running up Dougherty Ave. along the Camp Parks side and that path will intersect with the Iron Horse Trail path at this property site. Cm. Jennings said an industrial/campus area could be a quality product. She asked ifthe fact that it is zoned for industrial would make it less than quality. Cm. Musser said there is distinction, under the existing General Plan it is not designated campus/industrial. The industrial park designation under the existing General Plan has a statement that encourages what is in the area today which is inappropriate. The real issue is whether a higher density residential use is appropriate in this location near the BART station; the specific plan states that the campus industrial land use designation permits residential. Cm. Jennings asked staff the numbers of apartments approved and are in the process of completion in Eastern Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated approximately 1,283 apartments. Cm. Jennings stated that this proposal will add another 177 units and she still speaks against the project. Cm. Johnson stated that the entire land is used for residential it could go up to 600 units. Mr. Carrington stated approximately 300. Cm. Hughes asked if a study has been done on how many new jobs are coming to East Dublin. Mr. Peabody responded yes, there are statistics for the area. Cm. Hughes said most of the new homes are out of the price range for most people and apartments are more affordable. There are more jobs coming in than there are housing units available. Cm. Musser stated that according to the Specific Plan, build out of the planning area will generate approximately 27,551 new residents, 12,356 new dwelling units and the number of jobs is 26,257. He commented that the number of jobs is twice as much as the number of housing units. Cm. Hughes stated that if the number of people moving into the area and subtract the number of children, there is a high percentage of people who will be working in this community with no place to live in this community. -...........-----..----........--------------.........------....-..----..----.............................-......-..........-------.......-----......---...........-------..-----...-............----------.. Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 9, 1999 9 ;it! ~'E6 Cm. Jennings stated that there are fewer homes that are affordable and the chances are the people working . in this community will not be living in this community. Cm. Hughes stated that the question is if Dublin wants to encourage people to live in the community or will Dublin be a commercial community that will drive out residential use. There are few buildings in this area that are attractive and too much commercial traffic congestion. Cm. Jennings stated that the existing buildings and traffic is not going to change. Putting in more apartments will have traffic. The word "flex" in the zoning does not mean it is going to stay that way forever. Cm. Hughes stated that to compare needs, does the City need more residential or more commercial. There was one speaker that stated this property is worth a million dollars an acre and over 7 million dollars for the property. Residential use may be the only viable use because of the value of the property. Does the City want to have a piece of property that will sit for 1 0 ~ 15 years. Cm. Jennings asked staff how could industrial park/campus use become residential also. Mr. Carrington stated you could have industrial uses on the ground floor, and residential uses on the upper floors. Or, high density on one part of the property and industrial on another part of the property but would not work well on this property. Cm. Johnson asked if they could recommend to the City that the area should be campus office or residential, whatever the market decides. Mr. Peabody stated yes; but there are fundamental choices such as office and residential or leave it all commercial. . Cm. Johnson stated one speaker already said financially a one story concrete tilt up could not work there. If residential or an upscale office building will do it, then let the market decide what will go in there. Cm. Jennings asked if the only type of building that can be built be a one story tilt up. Mr. Peabody stated no, one, two or three or four story. Cm. Johnson said whatever fits the financial needs of the land, the market will determine that not the Planning Commission. He asked if a 7-10 story office building could be put on the property. Mr. Peabody stated the City has a 45 foot height limit in most areas. Cm Johnson stated he is in favor of wording it in such a way as to whatever the market brings in. Cm. Hughes stated that the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council the area can be campus office or residential.. Gary Moore, asked when Dougherty Road was proposed to be 6 lanes. Mr. Peabody stated as soon as the City finds the funds. Mr. Moore asked who would loose property for the six lanes. . --------------.........--...-......-----------...---...-----.............--------.._--_............_-------_..........-.....------------------------------.............--....--...-.. Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10 February 9, 1999 . . . ~5 qf 3D Mr. Carrington said there was a 1 I O-foot right of way, there will be dedications along some of the properties. Mr. Moore stated that some of those properties will loose property or parking. He said there is no where in Dublin to go. Residential will take the little guy and push them out. He asked what will happen with the traffic. Cm. Hughes said part of the City is demanding Dougherty Road be Widened and some people will have to give up property, so there is no way to please everyone. Mr. Tagarcy said one option was to recommend to Council a new designation that was office/residential. Or ask the City Council to pick residential or office. Cm. Jennings asked if it was appropriate to have two designations on a property and then end it with whatever the market will permit. Mr. Peabody said no, either campus office, or medium-high residential. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with a vote of 4-1-0, Cm. Jennings was opposed, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending City Council amend the Dublin General Plan to apply the campus office land use designations as described in the Eastern Dublin General Planning area of the Dublin General Plan to the primary Planning area and change the transportation corridor and business park/industrial outdoor storage designation in the study area to either Campus Office or Medium High Density Residential. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 06 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF P A 98-024 THE ALL ABOARD MINI STORAGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Wilson asked for the City to plan on building a small warehouse businesses elsewhere in the City. Cm. Jennings stated it would not be appropriate to add to these two motions but made a suggestion to the City Council. Cm. Johnson asked if the City has hired a consultant to make some recommendations on land use. Mr. Peabody stated the City is looking at several areas on the feasibility related to redevelopment. Cm. Hughes stated there are areas in Dublin properly zoned for warehouse businesses. Mr. Peabody stated the end of Golden Gate Ave. there are areas similar in nature but the vacancy rates are zero. Cm. Hughes stated that because ofthe economics it would stay zero. Cm. Musser stated that it is an issue a lot like affordable housing because of the cost implications of the land. Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 9, 1,999 11 d-.b of 3p Cm. Musser made a recommendation to the City Council to conduct a study of the area south of Dublin Blvd., between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Court as a possible area for land use changes. . The other Commissioners agreed with Cm. Musser's recommendation. ADOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director . . ----------------------------------------------------------...------------------...-------------------..---------...------...------.....---- Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12 February 9, 1999 d I) ~ 3D RESOLUTION NO. - 99 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ........................................................................................... ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TO FOR PA 98-024 ALL ABOARD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY WHEREAS, the All Aboard Mini Storage Company has submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment Study to amend the General Plan to allow the construction of a mini storage facility with a maximum size of 73,355 square feet in the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way east of Dougherty Road and north of the eventual extension of Houston Place; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for potential environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study attached to this Resolution and incorporated by reference, was conducted for this project with the finding that with the incorporation of mitigation measures into the proposed project, there would be no significant effects on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration reflecting the independent judgement of the City Council has been prepared for this application and is on file in the City of Dublin Department of Community Development; and . WHEREAS, whereas the Dublin City Council did review and by Resolution No. -99 consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public hearing held on March 16, 1999; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for this project and is attached to this Resolution and incorporated by reference; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin city Council does hereby find that: A. The All Aboard General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment with the application of identified mitigation measures, based on a review of the Initial Study and public testimony. B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline regulations. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for P A 98-024, All Aboard General .an Amendment Study. ATTACHMENT 12, ;2'3'7136 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: . Mayor G:98024/mndreso City Clerk . . RESOLUTION NO. -99 ~ '1 crf -:};O . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR P A 98-024, ALL ABOARD MINI STORAGE WHEREAS, All Aboard Mini Storage, has originally requested approval of a General Plan Amendment from the Transportation Corridor designation of the Dublin General Plan to the Business ParklIndustrial: Outdoor Storage designation of the Dublin General Plan to allows a mini storage facility on former railroad right-of-way owned by the Union Pacific Railroad Company located east of Dougherty (APN 941~0550-022-05); and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 5, 1998, initiated a General Plan Amendment Study to analyze General Plan land use alternatives for the railroad property and for properties owned by Edwin and Judith Wright (APN 941- 0550-007-01) and Edwin and Irene Omernick (APN 941-0550-005-01) lying east of Dougherty Road between the railroad property and Houston Place which are designated Business ParklIndustrial: Outdoor Storage; and WHEREAS, the City Council on November 17, 1998, directed that a residential land use be considered as one of the alternatives in the General Plan Amendment Study; and WHEREAS, Staff has prepared a General Plan Amendment Study and analyzed four alternative land use designations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing Guidelines, an .Initial Study has been prepared to assess the proposed project. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared with the finding that with the implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study, there will be no significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on said application on February 9, 1999, and with a 4 - 1 vote did recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan to apply the Campus Office designation as defined in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment dated January 7, 1994, to the Primary Planning Area and to amend the General Plan to apply either the Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 - 25.0 dulac) or the Campus Office designation to the study area; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it amend the General Plan to apply the Industrial Park and Campus Office designations as defined in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment dated January 7, 1994, to the Primary Planning Area and that it amend the General Plan to apply a combination Industrial Park and Campus Office designation to the study area; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March 16, 1999; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted containing the Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council amend the General Plan; and . WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. ATfACHMENT 13 ;30 q) SO NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations with regard to the proposed General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed Amendment is in the public interest and is consistent with the goals, policies and . implementing programs of the Dublin General Plan and all of the Elements comprising the General Plan. 2. The proposed Amendment is appropriate for the subject property in terms of land use compatibility, will not overburden public services; and will provide a comprehensive plan for development of the site. 3. The proposed amendment will provide new development opportunities which would not be available und~r the current General Plan Land Use designations of Business ParklIndustrial: Outdoor Storage and Transportation Corridor. 4. The Amendment will not have a substantial adverse effect on public health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, to be injurious to property or public improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve an Amendment to the Dublin General Plan, changing the land use designation of the Wright and Omemick properties from Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage to and ofthe Union Pacific Railroad Company property from Transportation Corridor to for P A 98.024, All Aboard General Plan Amendment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1999. AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: Mayor City Clerk g:\98024\ccgpareso . . MeR:h 10.1999 CITY OF DUBUN 100 Civic Plaza OlIJIn, CA 94556 Re: Project,. S:B-024 subject: Re-zoning Dousjlerty Road <SouIh c:I ~ Parb> TO \I\IHOM lHIS MAY CONCERN: 1lis IeIter is to oppose the Plamilg Commission's decision made on February 9, 1999. The .. south c:I Camp Parks is not suitable for apartments. We do not need more residential areas on Dousjlerty Road. TraIric is bad nrNI, and even after Dousjlerty Road is widened, it wi not be ~ for 301 ntWI apartmerds. We know there 818 1100 homes pIamed for Dousjlerty Valley, whose C7Nn8rS wiD also be tnNeIi1g on 0c:MJglerty Road. This nLmber is not COlI1ti1g the 3CD apartments aJrrentIy beiI11 bUt on the West . Side cI Dougherty Road. If we add more residences, the traftic wiI be miserable. W&do need the services that Dublin smaI businesses provide. Dubin residents need business and service aIIBrnatiwls. The properties SouIh d Camp Parks are an Ideal location for small busi1essos. Realtors "Sf'ITing you,. CUlll.'lllUllt."\' h()n.t~st!."\' s;n{'c J!-Ih'6' '53 East Lewelling Boulevard ,n, San Lorenzo, California 94580 <~ INC Off. (510) 357-8243 Fax (510) 357-8257 ~~;'~ii~:~;~~~;~-; ;1 ~ 0.1-1 Merd110,1(;& CITY OF DUBUN 100 Civic Plaza 0lmIn, CA 94568 Re: Project.. ea.o24 Subject Rworing Dousjlerty Road <SouIh c:I Carq) Parks> TO WHOM TIiIS MAY CONCERN: This IeIIer is to oppose the Plaming Commission's decision made on February 9, 1999. The area south c:I Camp Parks is not suiIabIe for apartments. We do not need more I~ dial areas on Dousjlerty Road. TraIIIc is bad now, and even after Dousjlerty Road is widened. it wi not be ~ for 301 new apartments. We know there 818 1100 homes pIamed for Dousjlerty Valley, whose CPM18rS will also be trawmg on ~ Road. This nc.mber is not COlI1ftlg the 3CIJ apartments QJrrentIy being bliIt on Ile West Side c:I Dougherty Road. If we add I1lOf8 residences. the trBIIic wi be II ~. We do need the services that DubIn smaI businesseS provide. Dublin residents need btAiteSS and seNice alternatives. The properties SouIh d Camp ParIes 818 an ideal location for small busi1esJOS. f~<L<~ Sincerely. ~ [Jill] 151 Callan Avenue Suite 214 San Leandro, California 94577 Main (510) 347-4550 Fax (510) 347-4570 MOlSON INVESTMENT COMPANY Fredrick L. Iden, CCIM Senior Vice President March 10,1999 aTY a= DUBUN 100 Civic Plaza DUJln, CA 94568 Re: Project" E8-024 SUbject: Re-zoring eouprty Road <South cI ~ Parks> TO V\IHOM lHS MAY CONCERN: This letter is to oppose the Plaming Commission's decision made on February 9, 1999. The area south d ~ Parks is not suiIabIe for apartments. We do not need more residential areas on eouprty Road. Traftic is bad 1'1C1N, and even after [)cqjlerty Road is widened, it wII not be enotVl for 301 new apartmenIs. We know there are 1100 homes pIamed for Dcujlerty Valley, whose 0'Ml8rS will also be tnMlIi1g on [)cqjlerty Road. This nc.mber is not COU1Ii1g the 300 apartments aJI'I'entIy beir\1 btiI on the west . Side d Dougherty Road. If we add more residences, the tJaIIic wiI be miserable. We do need the services that Dublin smaI businesses provide. Dublin residents need business and 58IVice aItBmatives. The properties SouIh d Camp Parks are an ideal kx;ation for smaA businesses. SltaIFly, c7 d ;J. -4~ Broker n~~& A \",,.;:l~,.,," rAN ~ II ~ SS'ot [~:';,:';::;: , REA L EST ATE San Ramon Valley John D. Lane Business (925) 806-8770 Pager (925) 806-3036 MeR:h 10,1999 . CITY a= DUBUN 100 Civic Plaza DltJIn, CA 94568 Re: Project.. 88-024 Suqect Re-ming ~ Road <South d~ Parks> TOV\lHOM THIS MAY CONCERN: Ttis IeIIer is to oppose the Plamilg Commission's decision made on February 9, 1999. The area south cI Camp Parks is not suitable for apartments. We do not need more residential areas on 00c.Iglerty Road. Tratnc is bad ncNI, and even after 00lVlertY Road is widened, it wi not be ~ for '36l rtfNI apartments. We know there are 1100 homes pIamed for Oouglerty Valley, whose 0'M18rS wiD also be trBveIilg on lJot.V1erty Road. This mmber is not COlI1tilg the 300 apartments aJJTerdIy being bliI on the west . Side d Dougherty Road. .. we acid more residences, the traftic wi be niserabIe. We do need the services that Dublin smaI businesses provide. DubIn residents need bu&i I8S$ and service aIIematives. The properties SouIh eX Camp ParD 818 an ideal location for small busilesses. Sincerely, c)h aMv onD-~ ~ w.. WECOST fI}J " AS T _, ",d r"~lm"t I~ Mario Mapoy Realtor/Owner 699 Lewelling Blvd. Suite 280 San Leandro, CA 94579 Ph: 510-895-2979 Pgr: 510~678~9879 Fax: 510-483-5182 !.-' I oppose the re-zonlng of the properties South of Camp Parks. (Project # PA 98-024). Dublin does not need 367 High-density aparbnents and the traffic they will bring. Please print name and address and sign name below. 7 q 2-- P/-lct5q n+ -+l/1L) I- t ~ VVVI 011:. ~~ M~< 03.~ ~ ~t~~/fj1I. ~~T;;P ~-:hZ 04. . ~-SO /~wft.vll{l.. /J.. T~T c4 7~J;>>" RoB..8il1iley . 05. . _. _ v?97 l/U?l'iv IfUl~ fU'htiA1 (j4. :li-fW 1~fY.1utL~Nr~ O~. ,t.--C 1../7J- . {-/, - -- -~ ,..2. { J;L (~t tl-t fA,{ A~l \ 1/0-,. ,'~ }J /y s:J ), Ll ~l,~ T1 !t;c 'l(J · :zJJu ~f lv, C4 ( it'tt( /:J.ti U~ /"al2>t:\/ YaI7:!QfYY}tf.1;,fifJ?l ~ ;;(1k; 08. 7C!t~.~ ,q;I.o~ . €-~-~a.. rCtus~FA~tt~ ~ . 09. ./J~ /~L-<: i <;6 3:, ;AI .."",~.; I'}:;:;.) 3cj.,.J /..(.dIM)/\ v elf 9'n '7<l; . 10. ~f - ~c 32q/~5 1.PtLf)>.It.~~6a-.q'l-S83 11'~~~~ ct (, '1.-' I, ", :' ../ 12. ThJ€'4 .-. 4~ ~~, tf~/CQ Cf4Yeb ~~~ ' 13. ~ '* "U..S' S ..e-,rt::., 1-vl. Pl./~ tvrttW1_ 'J ltSb'?' 1~~~ j\~ /jt:ttl- Cc;L?- ~~ -PLin""~ OZ-~bC. ~ ''is. -#J-L 4.::t./f - 2.37 L1u'f~'<SI- 4~~rc... C'f; 9flJr--..:;J 16. ~~'SI-ft r-I~~ ?'?:I.s~13--'~C/t s'7- H4rJ",-,~ c:'~9~ / 17. ~ 79'3.5 ~ 4IA1/'Cf Ak'~ 4- 9if7f, " 18. C- - e,fl1;aJ1J~ ;5'" ~ ~';/w-f; CJ..A- ~'1Sl'b . 19. EF'"~f1IL~ S.o2..f> HL1NHI~~'12.O eo. ~~~ .' ~(o~/ 20.(J7~{J..t.t/--;:1.lliS;1i!rZ_ p;.(f,(;,4-r.~..;'>-':' !f~-<-' . ~f e/f""/~"~j (f. /.f.:;6::-':'-- 21.~ C' cLK't2u.4 Irr,cs i7<tJXtJ Ref. J.-t'c/t?le.Iv\~tZE- . 22. . gp VPe~ m~1i\.1. .'vL(U, \ ?j;WutLft=rCi(. L'{~f1Y10Le.C4 23.' ~ \ 6 /-.., ~'E-~-n- - q'LLt :QL "\,IS'I PI 'N'If i:),f't N'-"L'-':,. Cp". - ",:Y s~;:- i- . ~ r",'",'..L-_ 24. '"'Of\t..G l.f\Q.,SE:f\J y~?:) c.,l.i:""f.:'I"~,(.S w~ ,~r-:.;"""" c~. q--6 ~ i . 2S:?(UL(e:ff~.~$'!~,J 7~/ s"f.t:t lJ~-f4L ~(e...... w~ll1rr (I If- 9'tf!)O~__,. xn .. 26. ~OIA..AJtlfJ~ ~if~ tq~~ --V" ~ ~~CA-4~J- U - .~ 27. UH\.-l.( TCZ '1 ~ '10 :3 7Yj }I U~.\,t,~ U.ih~l1 )~j) _-fi,,- ~'" .01 ~A 'vli:3 I 28. ~ 5 ,- l@..-K'~~ ~ C1-ft~ ~~C e,..f;.r(l ~:~~ 5W~:"-t~~cfr>jt6i;;w~ 'Qfr/j/~L 31.~j\--::rOd~ Tf1/{ .sqi-.,rr21~C,~t L,t. JJvhfrl'l 9-4 q'1!:~ j' ~ :,; 32. >..C-\i"\>'l\..\.-'l~V. l~l.. ,'"Cctiv'~' ft\bJ/-rLr 5:rJ l~tn}1v.1/ C,C}. 9''isGJ~ ~ 33. ~.fg t .) IC/(OW /.2.~r A~JEIv~,j)A SEl''iL-'-~ ":20 12:*AI,zT /'b?::%Ctf qi_i-1:r- E~~~j~A~'d(./r v.z~~.:/;:::;::, ~~~.:.;~~~ t::;:~\).WJ.- 37. '- I oppose the re-zonlng of the properties South of Camp Parks. (Project # ~~ 98:024).u. publln does not need 367 Hlgh-denslty apartments and the traffic they will bring. Please print name and address and sign name below. 01. /(,j.06 e1'-Io S /J )I/yo.. '/ 02. AJ~ ~ 03. j11Jm'c I 0 ~& 04.2~~ . A ,Il 05. :;i4~-^-jJ . . d' . ., 2J.A/1 /J /. ." - 2 ~7 f iJ,t'reSrA C-t .Cm'1.t-f) '-h4-jl:6'~-{IrA- 06V.~.u-:<L 1'11'/~ q I r (p -(~) :~ /~' '7!--"'::~3} ~-,~-),-Jc.:",(.J '.:;/f..,-:....i _;~/::~"c~.-:_ c.94 07 - " /; ~-:;. / ~ a-....r I oJ J- J I . .... ~ , . . . t- (.. v 08.-~ ~.~~, FAL-~N(r1J}'1f') L{v~(l'\oeG 09. \l~\\.\e,~ ~v~se.-l\ . <0 10;r;}-1i( ~~ 77<fr/~/(J~LC;~ Ln13.L i;i:c~7L, ~.~vcL 11. /<ed i r1- ....) ~hrl!:>o;'1./ :3 1:/76 .5/.7;'()kerRe.~ L (;-:?7/'71 c..-v' S p/e-f,5+A/0:v' [/I 7Y~6 L / (p.P.:t -ry-.;.;vv" t.. ~ # H/JYO!h9/e-~ C ~ 12. ~ e. '17~ 13. R ,c..I, a ,.d ffcf) f'f tC q] (J Do ." <],. k I 11 T e I^ll. &~ '" " +LDcxr l .-? - .A // J -; 14. _ ';.- Z:;2/-v'ZrP. ~'7~ 2- 2. -;;<-(-'::;;.-CU7/A.. C (.:t.(cz..Tl,yc::..~ eLL i--..--....1-2-d':::e.... 15. -Lo'-Ue. \j ~"l1e-V\ez...--..: IlnL.7 ll4\ \''Vtl'r-r-rh..~~ C-r~ LLc-rt..-rop 16. yr.....:e.. \~v'~J.-(',,\<'C l/f4/y----- 17. L-\9f'~&QVvlVV ~ 'VUV!<; 9t~/ ~~ 18. - ~oh c::::::- d"\'):- 37975._ \ ckJ."U 1\1.;",,,,,[, 19.