Loading...
03-11-2014 - Agenda PacketPlanning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin March 11, 2014 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – February 25, 2014 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PLPA-2014-00006 Development Agreement extension for the AMB/Prologis mixed-use office/residential project at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Downtown Dublin. 8.2 PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review for a 1,186 square foot building addition, a 10,282 square foot carport/canopy, a 1,760 square foot carport/canopy, facade modifications, and related site improvements to the Dublin Toyota sales and service buildings at 4321 Toyota Drive. 8.3 PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Addendum to increase the number of residential units permitted and decrease the amount of non-residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability -related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Depart ment. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) L~��OF DU�� i'i('4 sz STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION O�LIFOR��� DATE: March 11, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2014-00006 Development Agreement extension for the AMB/Prologis mixed-use office/residential project at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Downtown Dublin Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting an extension to the existing Development Agreement that has vested the Site Development Review and Tentative Map entitlements since their original approval in 2004. The Development Agreement will expire on June 3, 2014 unless extended before that time. The Developer has requested to extend the Development Agreement, and Staff recommends an additional eighteen months. In order to remedy an error on the public notice that was mailed out, Staff recommends that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 2014. The Public Hearing will be re-noticed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Continue the item to March 25, 2014. s ��c . Submitted By Revived By Principal Planner Asst. Community Development Director COPY TO: File I ITEM NO.: c?*. Page 1 of 1 G:1PA#120141PLPA-2014-00006 ProLogis DA extension103.11.14 PC hearinglPCSR 03.11.2014 Continuation.docx Or Dp���� //A��ii✓� STAFF REPORT '� c�'%82 PLANNING COMMISSION ,IFO�'�l� DATE: March 11, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review Report prepared by Seth Adams, Assistant Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested Site Development Review approval to make modifications to the building and site at the existing Dublin Toyota Automotive Dealership. Modifications include a 1,186 square foot single-story addition and a new 10,282 square foot open carport/canopy to the north elevation of the sales building; the addition of an entry portal feature on the south elevation of the sales building; a 1,760 square foot open carport/canopy addition to the southeast corner of the service building; facade modifications to the west elevation of the sales building; and minor site modifications for automobile circulation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving Site Development Review for a 1,186 square foot building addition, a 10,282 square foot sales building carport/canopy, a 1,760 square foot service building carport/canopy, facade modifications, and related site improvements at the Dublin Toyota auto dealership at 4321 Toyota Drive. Submitted By Revievyed By Assistant Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 6 GAPA#120131PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota SDR-Phase/APC 3.11.141PCSR Toyota SDR 3 11 14.docx DESCRIPTION: Figure 1: Project Site The project site is located at 4321 Toyota Drive. Adjacent properties are the Hacienda Crossings retail center to orini the west, Tassajara Creek and the GM � m Auto Mall to the east, and the Dublin Corners retail center to the north. The e d � * southern edge of the property borders Interstate 580. The site is 19.15- 3 acres. The project site has a General a Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan , rle Land Use Designation of General VWW AIMI Commercial and is zoned Planned .° .. Development (PD). The site has two existing buildings. the service building on the northern portion of the site and �� a sales building immediately to the south. Access to the site is provided �{n5FV1OODoa from driveways on Toyota Drive which intersects with Dublin Boulevard to the north. The project site is depicted in Figure 1. The project site is within the larger Santa Rita Commercial Center Planned Development Zoning District, which was approved by the City Council in January 1995. Other properties within the PD include the Hacienda Crossings and Dublin Corners shopping centers. Automobile Sales are a conditionally permitted use in the PD, and in 1997 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile sales lot with ancillary service uses (Resolution 97- 05), with the City Council subsequently approving the Site Development Review (SDR) for the sales and service buildings (Resolution 16-97). Photos of the existing sales and services buildings are included as Attachment 1. In July 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit application for a 3,724 square foot addition to the sales building, along with facade modifications to both the sales and service buildings that included an internally illuminated entry portal feature on the south elevation of the sales building. Due to increased construction cost estimates and operational changes in the way the dealership wishes to interact with its customers, the Applicant decided not to move forward with the plans approved in 2012. The Applicant is now requesting approval of a new Site Development Review Permit that includes some of the facade modifications approved in 2012, as well as new additions and fagade modifications to the sales and service buildings. (See Attachment 2) The current project includes the following modifications to the sales building: a 1,186 square foot single-story addition on the north elevation; a new 10,282 square foot open carport/canopy along the north elevation; the addition of an entry portal feature on the south elevation; and fagade modifications to the west elevation. The application also includes a 1,760 square foot open carport/canopy addition to the southeast corner of the service building, and minor site modifications for automobile circulation. The Project Plans are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. 2of6 ANALYSIS: Sales Buildingq South Elevation (Sheet A-201.0 of Project Plans) The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing fabric canopy from the south elevation of the sales building in order to build an approximately 63-foot wide, internally illuminated entrance portal constructed with translucent glass (Attachment 2, Exhibit A). This is the same entry portal feature that was approved in 2012. The entrance portal will extend to a height of approximately 42 feet, which is 10 feet above the existing building parapet. The glass portal wall will be built approximately 23 feet out from the existing building facade, and is framed on both sides by columns that support a new roof structure which connects to the existing building wall. These new columns and roof will be clad in silver colored aluminum composite material (ACM) paneling with a red ACM header panel, and the existing sections of the south elevation wall will also be covered in silver ACM. North Elevation (Sheet A-201.1 of Project Plans) At the north end of the sales building the Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,186 square foot addition to the building that will be the new write-up station for customers bringing their cars in for service. Connected to this addition will be a new 10,282 square foot canopy under which the customers bringing their cars in for service will park and then proceed into the write-up station to complete their paperwork. The customers' cars will then be taken over to the service building according to the dealership's work flow for repairs. The exterior wall of the write-up station addition will be constructed of aluminum frame windows and concrete columns. The north elevation of the canopy will be enclosed and will feature six evenly spaced bays of aluminum frame tinted windows to match those on the existing building. Silver ACM paneling will wrap around from the west elevation to cover the north westernmost corner of the canopy and existing building, with the remainder of the canopy finished in plaster painted to match the adjacent existing building wall. West Elevation (Sheet A-201.1 of Project Plans) The existing west elevation of the sales building will be covered in the ACM paneling used on the south elevation and portions of the new north elevation. At the north end of the west elevation will be the vehicle entrance side of the new service canopy, which will also be covered with ACM. East Elevation (Sheet A-201.2 of Project Plans) The east elevation of the sales building will largely remain as-is with the exception of the new canopy addition at its north end. The east elevation of the new canopy will be finished in plaster that is painted to match the existing east elevation, and the existing fabric canopy will remain in place. Service Building (Sheet A-201.3 of Project Plans) The Applicant is also proposing to add a 1,760 square foot open canopy at the southeast corner of the service building, under which new cars will be parked for final delivery to customers. The south elevation of the canopy will be covered in the same silver ACM paneling used on the 3of6 sales building, and its east elevation will be finished in plaster that is painted to match the adjacent existing building wall. The west end of the canopy will connect to the rear of the existing service building. Site Improvements (Sheet A-001.1 of Project Plans) In order to accommodate the new sales building and service building canopies and provide vehicle access to them, the Applicant is proposing to remove portions of the existing landscaping and walkways at the north end of the sales building and south end of the service building, as well as remove 11 parking spaces at the south end of the service building. While 11 existing parking spaces will be removed from the site as part of the project, in constructing the two new canopies the project will effectively provide new parking/staging areas for between 20- 30 vehicles. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. The project site is a component of a larger project ("the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project") that the City previously approved on January 31, 1995. The Santa Rita Commercial Center Project was within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, for which a Program EIR was previously certified (SCH No. 91103064). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 94113020) was previously approved for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project, which together with the Program EIR adequately describes this project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends that the project be found to be within the scope of the Program EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration and therefore, no further environmental analysis is necessary. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The project site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project site is located in a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District. The project is consistent with the Development Regulations for the PD and with the existing Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Sales. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300-feet of the proposed project. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no comments from surrounding property owners regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant. 4 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1) Photos of Existing Sales and Service buildings 2) Resolution approving Site Development Review for a 1,186 square foot building addition, a 10,282 square foot sales building carport/canopy, a 1,760 square foot service building carport/canopy, facade modifications, and related site improvements at the Dublin Toyota auto dealership at 4321 Toyota Drive, with the project plans attached as Exhibit A. 5 of 6 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/: Jeremy Deng, AAI, 4301 Hacienda Drive, Suite 480, Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: HAMCOR, Inc., dba Dublin Toyota, 4321 Toyota Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 4321 Toyota Drive ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 986-0016-024-00 GENERALPLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Retail/Office Commercial/Shopping Center & Hotel South N/A N/A Interstate 580 East PD Retail/Office Tassajara Creek & GM Auto Mall West PD Retail/Office Commercial/Shopping Center 6of6 Photos of Existing Buildings tom!' Sales Building: North Elevation (facing Service Building) — location of proposed 1,186 s.f. building addition and 10,282 s.f. canopy Sales Buildin g: West Elevation (facing Hacienda Crossings) — proposed to be covered with silver ACM paneling ATTACHMENT 1 .4 Sales Building: South Elevation (facing Interstate 580) — location of proposed new entry portal PF' .. Sales Building: East Elevation (facing Tassajara Creek) — proposed 10, 282 square foot canopy will extend out from the north end of this elevation (right side of photo) a r Service Building: Southeast corner— location of proposed 1,760 square foot new car delivery canopy RESOLUTION NO. 14 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 1,186 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION, A 10,282 SQUARE FOOT SALES BUILDING CARPORT/CANOPY, A 1,760 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BUILDING CARPORT/CANOPY, FACADE MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DUBLIN TOYOTA AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 4321 TOYOTA DRIVE (APN 986-0016-024-00) PLPA-2013-00059 WHEREAS, Jeremy Deng of AAI Design (Applicant) and HAMCOR, Inc., DBA Dublin Toyota (Property Owner), have requested Site Development Review approval of a 1,186 square foot building addition and a 10,282 square foot sales building carport/canopy to the existing sales building; a 1,760 square foot carport/canopy to the existing service building, fapade modifications, and related site improvements to the property at 4321 Toyota Drive (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is located in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, which has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial, and which conditionally permits automobile sales and service uses; and WHEREAS, the Project has an existing Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales and service that was approved by the Planning Commission in 1997 (Resolution 97-05) and a Site Development Review Permit that was approved by the City Council (Resolution 16-97); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the project site is a component of a larger project ("the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project") that the City previously approved on January 31, 1995. The Santa Rita Commercial Center Project was within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, for which a Program EIR was previously certified (SCH No. 91103064). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 94113020) was previously approved for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project, which together with the Program EIR adequately describes this project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is within the scope of the Program EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration and therefore, no further environmental analysis is necessary; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending Site Development Review approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 11, 2014; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review), with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and Design Guidelines in that: 1) automobile sales and service is a conditionally permitted use; 2) there is an existing Conditional Use Permit for the dealership; 3) the proposed project will modernize and enhance the architectural appearance of the buildings; 4) the proposed project is well designed and compatible with the existing buildings and surrounding area; and 5) automobile sales and service uses are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the zoning for the site is PD, Planned Development, and the proposed dealership is a conditionally permitted use type; 2) a Conditional Use Permit has previously been approved and remains in effect to allow an automobile dealership to operate at this location; 3) the dealership, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding uses; 4) the overall design of the Project is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located; and 5) the project is consistent with development standards of the PD zoning district. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the project site is located in an urbanized area that is currently developed with a variety of building types and uses; 2) adequate access to the site is provided from Toyota Drive; 3) the site is currently developed with an automobile dealership, which is compatible with the adjacent uses; and 4) operation of the use is subject to compliance with the existing Conditional Use Permit. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development in that: 1) the site has been designed for automobile sales and service uses; 2) access to the site is provided from Toyota Drive, which is an existing roadway; and 3) the proposed building addition, canopies, and facade and site modifications constitute a negligible expansion of an existing use. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that. the project is located on a fully developed site that is generally flat. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity in that: 1) the project has been well designed to complement the surrounding area; 2) the materials used in the building addition and facade modifications are of a high quality, including aluminum composite paneling and illuminated translucent glass; and 3) 2of13 the proposed architectural modifications enhance the site by introducing new materials to the existing buildings. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in that: 1) there is no new landscaping proposed for this project. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) access to the site is currently provided from two driveways along Toyota Drive; and 2) the project consists of site improvements that include accessible walkways and paths of travel along and between both the sales building and the service building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Site Development Review for the Dublin Toyota project at 4321 Toyota Drive as shown on the Project Plans date-stamped "Received by Dublin Planning on December 27, 2013", included as Exhibit A to this Resolution, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public Works; [ADM] Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Zone 7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services. Agency When Source NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: GENERAL 1. Approval. This Site Development Review PL On-going Planning approval is for the Dublin Toyota building additions, fagade modifications, and related site improvements at 4321 Toyota Drive (PLPA-2013- 00059). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by AAI Architects dated received by Dublin Planning on December 27, 2013, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this approval, stamped approved and on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified by the following Conditions of Approval. 2. Effective Date. This Site Development Review PL On-going DMC Permit approval becomes effective 10 days after 8.96.020.H 3of13 action by the Planning Commission (10 days after and 8.136 the date of this Resolution) unless appealed before that time in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL 1 year from DMC commence within one (1) year of Permit approval approval 8.96.020.D or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. 4. Time Extension. The original approving PL 1 year from DMC decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's written approval 8.96.020.E request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by the particular Permit. 5. Modifications. The Community Development PL On-going DMC Director may consider modifications or changes 8.104 to this Permit approval if the modifications or changes proposed comply with applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Revocation of Permit. The Permit approval PL On-going DMC shall be revocable for cause in accordance with 8.96.020.1 Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance of Various Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable building City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin permits or Public Works Department, Dublin Building installation of Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda improvements County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 4of13 8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all Various Issuance of Various applicable fees in effect, including, but not limited building to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact permits Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees (per agreement between Developer and School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 9. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM On-going Admin/City indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin Attorney and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 10. Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. PL On-going Planning In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Community Development Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant without going to a public hearing. The Community Development Director also has the authority to make minor modifications to these Conditions of Approval without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. 11. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer PL Through Planning shall control all activities on the project site so as construction not to create a nuisance to existing/surrounding and on-going businesses and/or residences. 5of13 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Through Planning responsible for clean-up and disposal of project construction related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter- free site. 13. Property Maintenance. The PL On-going DMC Applicant/Developer and property owner shall be 5.64.050 responsible for maintaining the site in a clean and litter free condition during construction and through completion. Per the City of Dublin Non- Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance, DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property Owner shall maintain the building, site and all signage in good condition and shall keep the site clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. 14. Construction Trailers, Storage Containers and PL Through Planning Equipment/Materials Storage Yard. Prior to the Completion placement of any construction trailer, storage container or equipment/ materials storage yard related to construction activities, a Temporary Use Permit shall be applied for and approved. PLANNING DIVISION — GENERAL 15. Temporary Promotional Signs. Temporary PL On-going DMC Promotional Signs, including but not limited to, 8.84 banner signs and balloons, are subject to compliance with Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and require a Zoning Clearance from the Planning Division prior to installation. 16. Prohibited Signage. The use of any A-Frame, PL Ongoing DMC portable or sandwich board signs on-site or within 8.84 the publ ic right-of-way is prohibited. 17. Equipment Screening. All electrical and/or PL Issuance of Planning mechanical equipment shall be screened from building public view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall permits be completely screened from view by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Community Development Director. PLANNING DIVISION — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18. Exterior Maintenance and Repair. All buildings, PL On-going Planning exterior furniture, and finishes on-site shall be regularly maintained and any damages repaired on an on-going basis. Buildings which have faded, cracked, chipped or peeling exterior paint shall be repainted and maintained in good 6of13 condition at all times. Exterior paint colors are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 8.104. 19. Landscaping. All landscaping shall be PL On-going Planning maintained in good condition at all times. Irrigation shall be provided and utilized as needed to maintain healthy and viable plant material. Dead, decayed, diseased or other vegetation constituting an unsightly appearance shall be removed and replaced with viable plant material of the same or comparable type. 20. Occupancy Permits. Final inspection or PL, B Occupancy Planning & occupancy permits will not be granted until all Building construction is complete in accordance with approved plans and the conditions required by the City. 21. Non-Residential Security Requirements. The PL On-going Planning property owner and/or their designee shall comply with the City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements. BUILDING 22. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes Completion and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 23. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Building Applicant/ Developer shall submit five (5) sets of Building construction plans, to the Building Division for Permits plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non- City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. 24. Construction Drawings. Construction plans B Issuance of Building shall be fully dimensioned (including building Building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all Permits existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. Provide a complete building analysis that shows the new 7of13 addition is within the allowable area and all occupancy separations per the CBC Section 508. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. 25. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record B Frame Building shall be retained to provide observation services Inspection for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building addition, including nailing, holddowns, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. PUBLIC WORKS 26. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. PW Prior to Public In the event that there needs to be clarification to Approval of Works these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Improvement Community Development and Public Works Plans have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works and placed in the project file. The Directors also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. 27. Standard Public Works Conditions of PW Prior to Public Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply Approval of Works with all applicable City of Dublin Public Works Improvement Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event Plans of a conflict between the Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. 28. Improvement and Grading Plans. All PW Prior to Public improvement and grading plans submitted to the Issuance of Works Public Works Department for review/approval Grading/Site- shall be prepared in accordance with the work Permit approved preliminary plan, these Conditions of Approval, and the City of Dublin Municipal Code including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). All printing and lettering shall be 1/8" minimum height and such shape and weight as to be readily legible on prints and microfilm reproductions. For on-site improvements, the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the City's On-site Checklist (eight 8-1/2" x 11" pages). All of these reference documents are available from 8 of 13 the Public Works Department (call telephone 925-833-6630) for more information. Pollution Control Plan shall be included with the improvement plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. 29. Grading/Demolition/Sitework Permit. The PW Prior to Public Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Issuance of Works Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Grading/Site- Department for all site improvement or grading work Permit work. The Grading/Sitework Permit will be based on the final set of civil plans and will not be issued until all of plan check comments have been resolved. A copy of Grading/Sitework Permit application may be found on the City's website at: https://ca- dublin.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=340 The current cost of the permit is $102.00 and is due at the time of permit issuance. The Applicant will also be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount or additional fees for inspection of the work. 30. Site Plan. On-site improvements shall be PW Prior to Public designed in accordance with the site plan entitled Issuance of Works "Preliminary Improvement Plan Phase II" Grading/Site- prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated work Permit December 26, 2013 and these Condition of Approval. 31. Vehicle Parking. Prior to obtaining PW Prior to Public grading/sitework permit, applicant shall submit a Occupancy Works parking layout plan for the proposed parking lot revisions. Applicant should repair any distressed areas of pavement within the proposed area of work. The parking spaces striping that is in poor condition shall be re-striped. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4" white lines set approximately 2 feet apart according to City standards and §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Dublin Municipal Code. All compact-sized parking spaces shall have the word "COMPACT" stenciled on the pavement within each space. 12"-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abut a landscaped area or planter. 9of13 All customer and employee stalls shall be clearly identified with signs and/or pavement markings. The proposed parking shall not impede required exit paths or encroach into pedestrian pathways. 32. Parking Prohibitions/Restrictions. Vehicle PW On-going and Public parking shall be prohibited or restricted at Addressed Works locations deemed reasonably necessary by the Prior to Final City Engineer during final design and/or construction. 33. Site Accessibility Requirements. All parking PW Prior to Public spaces for the disabled and other physical site Occupancy Works improvements shall comply with current UBC Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin Standards for accessibility. 34. ADA Access. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to Public upgrade facilities to comply with current ADA Issuance of Works standards. Building Permit a) Install Accessibility signs at Disabled Access Parking spaces per CBC Section 1129B.4. b) Upgrade curb ramps with ramps conforming to current standards for grade and tactile elements (truncated domes). c) Upgrade accessible path of travel to conform to the current standards for grades — cross slope not exceeding 2% and longitudinal slopes not exceeding 8.33% with hand rails or 5% without hand rails. d) Proposed improvements associated with the new Car Delivery facility indicates removal of existing accessible path from the accessible van parking stall located east of the Parts/Service building. Provide accessible path from the accessible van parking stall to the existing Customer Lounge area within the Parts/Service building. e) Display vehicles shall not block required paths of travel. 35. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to PW Prior to Public issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the physical Occupancy Works condition of the project site shall meet minimum health and safety standards including, but not limited to the following: a. Lighting for the building and parking lot shall be adequate for safety and security. 10 of 13 Exterior lighting shall be provided for building entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police. b. All construction equipment, materials, or on-going work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing, barricades, caution ribbon, or other means reasonably approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. c. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) for the building shall be installed and fully functional. 36. Stormwater Runoff Calculations. PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall provide the stormwater Issuance of Works runoff, conveyance and treatment details. The Grading/Site- calculations shall demonstrate adequate capacity work Permit in the existing or proposed storm drainage system. 37. Stormwater Management. The preliminary PW Prior to Public Stormwater Treatment Plan submitted with this Issuance of Works SDR application is approved in concept only. Grading/Site- The final Stormwater Management Plan is work Permit subject to City Engineer's approval prior to the issuance of Grading/Sitework Permit. Approval is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the standards established by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The Applicant shall install "No Dumping Drains To Creek" storm drain markers on all existing catch basins on site per City Standard Plan CD- 704. 38. Storm Water Treatment Measures PW Final Public Maintenance Agreement. Applicant/Developer Works shall enter into an agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009- 0074. Said permit requires the City to provide 11 of 13 verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. 39. Erosion Control During Construction. PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion Issuance of Works and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and Grading/Site- Improvement plans for review and approval by work Permit the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said and During plan shall be designed, implemented, and Construction continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October Vt and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed by the City En ineer/Public Works Director. 40. Construction Hours. Construction and grading PW During Public operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday Construction Works through Friday) and non-City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request permission to work on Saturdays and/or holidays between the hours of 8:30 am and 5:00 pm by submitting a request form to the City Engineer no later than 5:00 pm the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all Saturday and/or holiday work. 41. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction PW During Public fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all Construction Works work under construction to separate the and construction operation from the public. All Occupancy construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of- way unless approved in advance by the City Engine r/Public Works Director. 42. Construction Noise Management Plan. PW During Public Developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Construction Works Management Plan, to be approved by the City and Grading Engineer and Community Development Director, Activities that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The Plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and specifications. 12 of 13 43. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to Public be responsible for the repair of any damaged Occupancy Works pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting from construction activities associated with the development of the project. 44. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to Public prepare a photometric plan to the satisfaction of Occupancy Works the City Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. A minimum of one foot-candle of light shall be provided and maintained across the surface of the parking lot. Any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties, businesses or vehicular traffic so as not to cause any gla re. 45. Geotechnical Report & Recommendations. PW Prior to Public The Applicant/Developer shall provide a site Issuance of Works specific geotechnical report prepared by a Building reputable geotechnical engineer. The Permit Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the project design conforms to the report recommendations prior to issuance of a Grading/Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All report recommendations shall be followed during the course of grading and construction. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPAM20131PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota SDR-Phase 11 PC 3.11.141PC Reso SDR 3.11.14.doc 13 of 13 N � z _ w z �a ■ _ z a- o o ° _ J z m w J 0 U aq L O m C*m C W CL ,4 E- E O o o U U zz z y LJJ J g!� 8* U —O O �{ m z z¢p M iWty sJi Ilti C RJ Jill m LUamo. o�c°� 9 rw1 �l } z o a a3 M W J•'..��Y Sti~ 1HILHIR J LU V m " ° Q U O J iie ......• �� y g " oY O > pNj o of B°s8ig w V a cy E +d E 3 O w w x m W m �Z Z tlO VYNYSStll F zU z ,,z N. iwa �cs U _ z mLL,Q 02.96 8Y MH q a z ,j�ac7 mini .�� f y -9�9 z9 G € o • O. a �9 ywNN $ tlanowi 0 � wu� m ow 0000 & VY �� g E an.o.a as 29Z z o J m L ? Q w 8808 $ 99999w REM 3 Z tl v°rvai u m y Z y�11 ♦0� w W � °� Q C ANN U ~ �92 O �RQ°mi 0-- a g 9 w Y - s LL u _ § w $ gaY m ew U € a m w F LLz y J saw'"`-g ggN i w (L' Sa s flp �<dR3 z ° 8&�a oAa� eg'�� 8 d sc- �g �� m gZ�z$ O w=s?� S' a s °� d< gw� s."< V H H81H, (� g � Haig a 050 U & 1z �a 3& 8 cn C) ow t LLnLL LL gLL kl 9_do oR °9 S� m - HoR ;+g _ ; H V! �a g 8 �. w° w mb 3 F 4 4 m mb _ °W p w- ¢K' H ° € � 4� H two 8 io. zp i.1; MAP Rii " . 2 H6 bE ° 55 I R > a� m NMI— o� � ¢� �� 1�� '°Y �I a g a�y a8� ��' � R� R�� R�$ w; 71e m�w q w �z wg »»> N x gg°'� w g �" g w g e ¢a bF �a �° e �Qb _ g� a - w O was° go F"m F� a�qo p gW 83 mg %w -6 5� Mw w � wa �g q g Y�8 8 n F ° ° -gw a m $ z =�aR €$ �w° g � a x fig= °9 E— w a��asa � LL q ° �� ' X66 8 9 81 w a RN a kY` mx �a 3 4 3.w a 64 __ aw sa= �° aa of € _ 98a �€ w� �€ aw= T�- a _ W --zzz- w w c q � z $° $$ oa goa � � k=°g FmW a3 a4 a sue; a8mi �� £3 T. 3g 66 66 H s 8N o -R;, �a d �8 RR$$$R8 ° 0 8 ee W 6W < z HM M- a LL � oz b o S ai � lao o d °b�s �° N ao� RW° Pik < ���u z �' ° ° ue a$ ss'- yy y e� o� z d06.196"a UiF dr §2 R °, � § �� 'YBYs> ¢� 8'�a ROW, oLL $ €1�ogo,.s � �Y, ¢° °$ 8 LS °aa� kSJ�$ aaasi €i '4€z oog5d dffG od�'�' c �kl�8�'�m G �k'k'c S'>si �Y Yo N bo °-g � s 9.2 Rj w g= > # e z w a ff w � Q �2 o �e> aY � �Oz L 8 „a �y H� oq cn � g��;3° °.o �F 8 ° b ° gFF� °LLy 3 "� �F� g o_°��sg1•ga� 3 ° �_ Y;$ �6YgYYW =° ga$ Q Q €6ik' `� a� -8 <z �€gowo �o$U J � �g9 �3iLL�°gam°ow�ck'¢k'msaw� FS�ac:a 'uSLS°�, owWW�c-s�>� $� g � -w � a° O Q w �° a° ��w�a� g� oo wY��o YYY g�a= �_ a ¢Y 3Y� r��5° �� j �� smmmo ° $ U= �' a wwwww� � LLLL� On �$a���°�_I__ w � � �3 H ?-Hpe Wk?a s s � $ m 1 m W o �$ u 3 $ oE�o uaS3Y "o o�>34a $ 0 x ' U Q a Q J o F � W ti' t it a, Y >z I t; pp ityyiE a Q ❑p t'of�s II�Pii j Z z J � o Z Q J a LLI.CC) O w � o Z o I—z C) ' ° co a W O ° cN j13If� a a 4 12 a 4 qpw O- m g �- � � L� w°as CID _ vii wP, C7 3w J m3n" az � ° W I g h o qqo¢ s N S � JllJl3H �gz Q I Y Q CL o s "F 8w Fojo � W z wd ` u� W I I . W 3 mm goo o ol = n U<o � �533�„3g�s ao� o z z �. ��' ISog u az x;< 2gw H �e1 o wz w ¢ d FFiV 0000a a zM j u i Cy) r __________________ C7 O Z U' Z Q E\ a E\E` \ \ a ---� a w w U >- f O O N CL N ///////////////� ❑ W (.1 0 H010VdW00 y HS" ? O v z O Z LLI I ` 6 I ' I 1 I I I I I � I 5 I 1 I I � I h `._______I I______ Z tlr� o �> Qa am a o i r I I I � i U 1 I i 1 i 1 I I I I 1\I 1 e 1 I ,111 I I 1 1 J I 111, 2AISO VJOAOl I I V z Q � a Q W � o N .a C y U O O Lij � w p� E w _m \ /p Lu zz ` > o J � z 4 CD 0.2 o o Q Z z e Z 2 2 + OU° O O W � C C y N n d o' U G I•— m w 4a�l�i;� c L) p . p c \ dlp6i uJ O /� o o a g8 o u oo 3 O w co E v w a C/� a m —.naE 3 !^ �J l ED ti g z 21H 8§85 V El 13 bgggg b — 0 El LLJ w a € se a s. a s° e s as filC �t Y o00o a o0 000a 0000a000 -------------------------------- xs�a'vrssvl $ ssavet un ---- 63aYdS(e) --- asovasm�) s a C7 s 2 Z d8 it — Y C � W W ssa/ds BU O1ptldW0p; — W e Y HStlNl 7 MT a b W u a 3 N, . O . 0 0 0 0 be El Q Q < °JNIHaYd Atl IdS10 DNI)4dVd AtgdS10 11 '� Z 4 ( Q Macs J 11 a Z W 2 W 0 EL EL W§ EN za- o s z R � CD m' E J m 71 4y[ V�!o YN O Efi �F C LLJ ED 00 0 w g Ec° Nca o — � t+ li�a V �� o 0 0— — p v a b� ,�s....._�,, a g�lij > z z y 0 0 w 0 U- Q W U ¢ Z z ,;o p C f Bii w O c o- ao (`fll U Z ZY d't .s 3 ! til U� J_ + m o a o V° v O m 3 5¢¢ "'��/..',.'n�v �:��c° i{ $ �r \ f'— L V 0c ei O O J '�r..w.•° � [�e w C12 O o 0 / m d O p O N O N p c N �' Ljj co U o 00 �°p O O ; O W w a :i{�iSit a v J it PH �°"�W" wx; s `� � >o a a H. �+ g o � a' LL$ 8 8gw o� U a 4 sg gh HQ Sit H, IV€ o € $ $ a �$Yaa a Leo g Y " 5 z n 06 � Y ; F H. gig ° �3mq ° ol I . $»�; � u! s o G w Z a� � LLw� " gas Ww -g 1. w �s H 'p",� zg w a she �a M4 ���g _ y z �� H ° e"", Sys g To H $ a _� €ffi� ° 3 ° w ° Z 8gg M °law ¢y.LLw° ° ° � °' � ° e� w � ° °R= i°� ~ € O g `�` 7 eg $' LL-k_1 9RI! 1a; 3 ��¢y X a °�� RY' S ya # Z 'F ¢ww digs e Z � � m8 _°_ � d~ eog $ �" �° �' fr =o Am�� «� � S� g Aa 3 �i�3 H_ g sw gG F b � ° B g ° 8� S goo �¢ �" Q W O � 5°e � s'- g9"� 8� �3 ggg -�6 §.$" xp E " V a 8`c a 88>��$ Y W r1 bB ?g �5 �° & S3«~ �8$ Yx �s $ H W8 $ y z U) ° 8 s� s; § ¢e P=� N 1. �m ° � 1� ° j��a ��_� $s�� w v F it 4mff� " ;W ¢; �� ¢= w° �e �� � � z - i www '—` w w §21 >�� a8Ws � eY 4 a2 ° W 3 1,g H v V. ssaMin w 4 4 w 4 w � s �Y jz a �° € C BE � o �sa� fax F% d0. a tl �Jifi8 8 s d cs CL . a LU U I� 0 p 'I i, �i i I I I o o I ' I I _ � ❑I I I 1�1I I 1 l `/yJy�h—-_ --�I / I I - CIS I `~>E------- - >`\ 1 ' V Z Z � � I W `cvJ m co U w � � Z g 5 a z a. 'FL , �� ZO O O J p D II � N wgoreoco�r/wi eo,.�..+w ea•.A. aw nu se :are/axr z E CL N UNso v`^ O LU O n m O MM ! L Lij H O cr Lo rr yU o O o x C .__O n m W U 1 I ' V i �D o ay Y g E m Q U O o w < Z O co} r cci m o 1 o j o �ij,;s,EE ee O J 03 <U c c O E o w ¢is '-E a 3 g w a :ii'+iS4 i m a ; 41 sal gs !11 lid s F101 LL a a ocHEIR 0 C I I II II I it I I I it 'g I I 1 I --------1I----------------------=*---+—� o o co ----------------------------- --- .♦`.11 2-S ALS 8s A< Ll[-.S I I r°d I I I � — I I A -- I/ I I I I 17 I I am®63pY1 arre+r°'�m ors I y I � I I s I - I\ W Ll PB ALLY1 1 LIOM .Ll<-Sti \ � 1 I W cc / d o f W I w Z I z x x x I --A � I ZI — I I a I m I w I I CO 2 L7 I I LL3 3 3 I Z 3 °LL I m O J LL r OMO'83NlYli.IOtV-I1SL M1.PN11S< O•pxp�gLY.t OHf191EI c o,e^ Vim+ E F6� yi o J �' p I z ypn dP u ! m L\U CMD = a c?m St lilt r Eom vii Zvi c D / 7i i6etyj LO � <° o 00 LL LQL �R ¢ U ' ]i��F�i m r� + *Um oUo v O t.J Q w g ``1�7v i:t�'� yflj{}j�a s O u O N t v c — w c Q O z ° a a ..{y �6B°a . O W y p O u L c) G J g r .Ui o o o C. o f N s o � IiF�iy w + x°a 3 O a °y o , d o ; O w/� s Q aii3 � : lC E +a E 3 � n vJ m I I I � I f C I I I I I I I � I 1 ' I I I I I I D oo I . U II I o , ro- a Ix I I , II I I � I I --------------- ----------------L it� I �a 'I I � � Z a r � I I I I I I � I I I 1 , O W V 7Fif z W cc �Y� Z W O ca Li I L------i CL g cr O O J LL r I 4 O /� LLI ` V LLJ m _ U m w > CZ Z �It > Z p O o c a E o- ao 0 K n t a_ y +;p.N.4.....,, F w co C <O O Q O 1 1 C) I„U Q Q 4A ¢ _ W Iyrt•°j13eS O LL C/)� — V N aG4 j1}$ cc } OP OUon -° O W Z ¢p ':I�' 'N' 11��d pfd LL O �W r• W/ Q � O �d63:l�Fi fQ1 O V_ Q V H J W n n Z4FlA9�� U J > g W m° N ` � ,?��' LLJ a cr Y =E P 3 O (�"� O G N g ii`` ` o y o Y v`0 3 O w m a �i1�i3i z U) ¢ i N E o_E 3 ''^) ¢ a m VJ � s W ao ` c ae z J of a e w oQ m Q LL O 3 0 I I .ffdi I ILL 1\"J/ O Poo o Mod4 ae- I i 61 Z i ---= I - \\\ rod- 0 CL U> cr I I � � I I ' M • • • w N w w cr- Q Q rZ V Z 0 J_ m � W U cr w Z g cr 0 0 LL oxa3oweffuerwn-list p•O�mlKt B+a•e?"•�+roust uu�nnt Y, 07 4q Z T a } �F O u U Ewr .Nom w :D o °- o`- v U ° z zx o;s g it} LU + °oa °Uo v O w Q �_ Z w S 5 �"'�h, �� 1if� g Q U O Um y y v .� ._ O o a a ..*S tit _ S C o °°c.i ° T ~C\j 1 � LL =°N w a O w M i L o C C O C d' > �C'Ei• W _E —E 3 l^ VJ UETAL 0 y m FFFM Z CD Wpa O �of 6� W O O O W O O U O J Z O w .. ° z w cc w LL w cr O » w 0 Z `1% W C7 Z J_ m W U cc w Z a cr- O O LL C Ors �mY E LL Tm O a co it 7 m m P P P d U '—• 1\\1 1 CO < U N �� � ` li /`/\I >o x .— W Q <o o _—° LL 0 E— U W 1 iillill��t Cc + m U m o U°n v O w Q O g i1�t� a3 m T� y ,.' m L a v Cc ` V G O m + - a'1 S �0111af�l+ie!j - Z P S C Y O Q O O N N NU C O Y O O N P y >¢ a wd 1ili�1�ii ia (I J O 11m Q LU U LLJ E E 3 V^ g w d m I— ¢ 0000aoo i O 4 T - m li I I�j I —————— T—————————————————————-- ro I ¢o , I I I I I V\� I Wr � ladnva ioaai 4 I ' a3nava � I I I I x I I -- z 0 Z o I � � z 11" 13M11'/d r d01 I Q J I o W � a----_= 6� aid is g I I a o ----- --------------------- ———— `N(83N8'JOOVLmIV'lKL e'W'9�IK! �'V'Mw83W1051 Yl�a9afl z z ■ __ _ °�^ °o�°° E m o o A o �� z g N _aK ° w c Q m d u CD a N w � � z a � t � LO 0kmw /"�♦ pp6ici3 J_ l.L C\I +U N Ll-N G d C°U«�a -0 U LLJ 1k"ll Q O m i3Il IS o j C7 0 o g }, i a U o °m o 3 LU 3 w W ali'si3 C/) w a m w° a O !^ N E a E W zw z in Ys � Sb o LL 8 O O 8a s8 'a €m a' ❑ REl P _ 4 e NO3dOE �NO3dOR i A l3 wz 13dYWd dw �s i II i NO3dOB 'NO3dQN ICI 13dYHYd tlOd01 n 4 \ �1a Q Z O Z O o I � w z O 0 Z O J D m co w U w Z CL LL O O cc T flN°3�1ntl3A-fOOtlYmlMlesl tlw0�iest 8vyveauesaesglbs( S3W d3tlY N E m uj m _ z Q N g ui E p o D > _ Lo p w yiiFb N L.L.. � a i:'N� o q LL y Q OO 0O W Q �O V'30 p[(y 6 0 d CD.� LUNm n o oo i p Q O O WJv L \ Z J ^\\1 Cl) o ad aa3366 W ��E aaE 3 O U) ¢ vJ 4 i I I F � i i i --7 I z _ o 4_ a J W 2 O 81 j IIII I j,jti`j !j 68' co AIM 4 m J a j r pp mNap �m� E J m o o1E Ll O aNm [� W � l� Z Z m u LLJ c0 , _ m E - PY W Q Utz 2� E m ct CD _o, O po m O U w z zg a '•,c.y b ;,, Bpsg�'� g m j m tVm CU V O 'I ' (n W \ V rLL�J O .._,,.�..,� b 5 J ou U m o c,i O \ N a o �g Egq Q W Att LLJ M N E YaE 3 tR LEI e 5 � I E � g OTC®0®® ® ®(g®® ® ----- . - 3 \ \ 1lnf, Lo LU i „ I w n I — j F C ti LIJ p •c: :x e: :x p a I F p p Z � J i I = I � z oI �I E $IH $IH�H � Q T a- w anm a P o J LU PP m w > � zz r E o m ci w o m c Ur Lo o N m31a a1p4IIg O O`°a ; w of d o �`1fS•"�T�* as O N b � �i (( O <22 0 o LL W Q Q z i ila N U N O U U Z 2 Y O: 1.B i j -- Q + a um °oU° O w Q` >- Z w 5 5� �yi+�rO i� i � a U) � F "N o+ o U G Q m W a a 3 J J t =o O o i� aiFQ � m w am Ww E E 3 O V/ 9'n c e ' i 41 - 6 �J Q I II 1 II II II ■ 1 ■ —T—�I I — —7 ■ 1 1 II� ® — 1 1 II ■ i_ ® I II II � _ I � I i II I II II II I I , 1 1 I I I I O I I Q I I I w I I I w CD I I I 0: w I I z j it 1 1 � I z J ' rj �� yj j (I i m � I m CD CD cn o b ! LL N V^ED YN^ O M m ��p�•�� V N 00 O C r <LSEo AC UOpN P M G oN x c. oN>cm m U P•Co•Y C�°."Y o 1•' O°O W _ J ~a W y a U�m a w IJ(2�/�+,yo`G�s*....�i�,C �Il.#e e�E li•jY(p'}��ciI�j�;4 F'�F` VO^W ag\ LO p O o x Q z z0• O .L Z 21 e¢, I'g m N OZ. 0. U a w `' U 1 O LJI CO Q 9 L _c o c V 2[6aa•a� 'p Cl) - E Y a E 3 CO ,�•••- 9 I —!Zzu I o i — ; ,—r-- - C f \ H 0 - i O II � ffl _ — r II I I I - LI U-\ _ C J I� g r - -4 ; r m__ I � I I 1 4---+— — � II 1 I � Q I II . � I b §1 i HM—M a s e ti oa0000 - Z z o❑a -- I z j I IL $ o _ W � I j uj £ ' \ I w i W W F- v = g F- � H a \� I — 1 CO 1. ,1 - Z i y z to Lu i � J O 3 P � ii �IH m m o s g Z u g 3 0 i ig I 41Ipiti01p W } H H 8 Y H B & 8i# H 8 �'N �'N N , W �� �. 8p 8' SR �e�a W I i CO LLB C Oro^ �aoa L.L > o z w vP v ?} z o E N > cr LO ¢ iI1€1!s F 8[ s p7i'l8=a+i i J m w O `P CJ/) LLI( 0 � 22 O 0 z O w w Q a _ s m r O I V O J $9 W co $ $ Q OLU o c c w E E 3 O UJ zza i $6� LL II l I ' iI I ` It I I II a I i � I II I II i - II t ` I i ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ II � ■ � ■ � I ■ 711 I ■ z 0 _ c) .................. w U) a. _ LU z0 . — a: _ w I I III ui J I I III 0 w ! F- 0 0 J m m U) J Q Q fn N T LD co LLJ 00 z 0 ad d N a U U o z � °x a 1 O <o o I Q Z n O + O (� w z}[= 111g�A J Q g CID -C> M 0 ° ° EIS;{g' C� J w N E a E 3 1 27 N 21 § - IIJ I, ii ill � G I � � I � �e I .III II ' Z II 0 i I ' lo, ---- g j — c— i I I - Z -1— p — - o LU gi I U I —{ — O --- ---- - w III W O - + -1- 4-1 D m m cn _' --_ 11.....1.... c r N LLI a E ° °� _ > cr 'n 0 w =g`=6sy J Z r O Czl a m as W o ?N ze°O LL C) (.D Z. �Q O O o U + o z W N 30 ass Q U 0 ` 8 J LLI L 0 3 Fy W �E o n.E 3 O W a a :&➢'s .aE s m Vi q II II � II II II II II 1M II _ _— Vii~ �b °I I LLI I l I a I I � _ I z I I i ., O U Z W 9 W LL W cr- cc O LL ci W I � Z H Z -- O - j `' _ o i 3 Q Z - W o � a > W --- — Z J J O Q W H H cr U) CL W Q Z U) 0 W U) 0 Z VIII z i mm 0 J J gL ,q m m W U U W w w cn co cn c+� C— N IN �Ml ill .ON� YYn ° co Wa$ Y$3 Z P P P f U v w m W > � z < �i �j�g 0 C/J E oac w�vi > — CC Lo o K ad z O V JW T* $ O o cY c N P a x O ._ � _ 0 .ate u,:'ON v � �s O a <OO ?•_o Q Q m z � �W p '':$ �jp' $i m C— ^OI ms;+ mom OU°n m 0 0 w g g¢ ?��v . '� lFj�g$3= LJJ > ` V ,{ p `,. d1 tUm 0 .�°.� •- W Q Q z o a a3 ...}S� �d)P3 ? U WI ' Q — — w w g m W co H t c'c o°5 3 >_ LL V i l..spgt a N O E 'a.E 3 O W ¢ a aii:s$88 a m H Po� 4 IT HI�I 4 ii Iw_ I n L LV_ -� low II ' - —.1 -- z I� IR �IR a H H nJ -- - . i I \ � i , — Lr— � II I i h O w Lu LLI LL w 1-1 T;fl �' � u Q cc 0 Lu Lu _ o Z) a F 4 � z z F_. O H Ia _- z I _1 - z w O w z ., Q �—-- — O ' � I�' •— 'i ' ' I � W ' Y H HW II- cr o it r w 9 t4 1 0- �_IF o III I J o r m 11° w N a $ V V U � w � II 7 ui Z � :g � W W € Y �❑ !_. � co cn L- -- r N M C p d d m< E N W LLe P P P U 00 n h ? Jr Lo Cn O p y a i �3 . ° EL �_ O LLJ Q Q 1 � LL C) _? O z¢ g� Cc o� (r\"U° 'p O w Q 47 In Lj O H fill J x p w ; O M O °— — eH4�➢ W w w �<< op� 3 > N sn'n o oN p Y d p W W a zs° ig (/� ¢ m N — E a E 3 O F $ 8 i II it i i p ' kT fp TE7 t.JF._ 6 _b P4_ H IL 2 Ifl I p I E __. w z T Z €�—I O O W - W 9 z z LU W w LU w w IF 0 z O O LL O sq w j D f U - - Z 7 j h h Z - - z FT W O O —A ) � U Li — - - W J J -_ CC r Q z Z In Z O O O F= _ I W � I �I � ems._ _ W w I H - m O P M W W r Z _.4z - -{ . 3r t Q) 0 cD N _.. Tr x u w w z z II z m m m cn W c w CO CIO r N c o'O- oma E Z 0— ° ry.� 9. d _a a LJJ W > � Z Q ` °jF ° Eom yon � _ � O o`°a Ec W Q F �w ,iFf1T*�� i�I 4 Q 1 1 1 _ _ : t i 0 O U (� (�NW .. 000 O N 2Z 23Y2 gI¢g2}121 0 LUW �Um W Q �-- Z WO dp ..��. Stiff 71�[�d C C`1 V ~aN V OO O V L O m F O > N Q c S �[, AEiI w M CY w W _-E —E 3 OL !^ ¢ a➢i� � 2 a Ym 1 V) LL P € J cc $ W Ly =3 Z CC � i LL1 Q cc W W a a 3 w w a Q a a U � U T— N EwaNOU�errw«aruu �nw Of DUe�� X82 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: March 11, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to increase the number of residential units permitted and decrease the amount of non-residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, and an Addendum to the DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment for changes proposed to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and an Addendum to the DDSP EIR. The proposed changes include increasing the number of residential units permitted in the Downtown by 1,200 units and decreasing the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, creating minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, and restricting residential development on the west side of San Ramon Road in the Retail District. Other minor amendments are also included. No specific development is proposed as a part of this project, and Site Development Review approval will be required before any new construction could commence. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared that concludes that all potential environmental effects were adequately addressed in the original EIR. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution Recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin; and b) Resolution Recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP by 1,200 units and to decrease the amount of non- residential square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, and restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District. Submitted By a iewed By Principal Planner Asst. Community Development Director COPY TO: File CIA ITEM NO.: 0 Page 1 of 8 G:IPA#U0131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential IncreaselPC Mtg 03.11.20141PCSR 03.11.2014.doc DESCRIPTION: Background On February 1, 2011, the City Council adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) (City Council Resolution 9-11) and certified the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (City Council Resolution 8-11). The Specific Plan was developed with the intent to incentivize residential and commercial development in Downtown Dublin and represents a vision of the future development for the Downtown area that provides flexibility to respond to market conditions. A map of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is shown in Figure 1 below and Attachment 1. The DDSP established three distinct Figure 1: DDSP Districts districts (shown in Figure 1), each including its own set of development standards tailored to the envisioned uses. The Transit-Oriented District , embraces the recent opening of the West Dublin BART station and is the ` district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Downtown Village Parkway Dublin is envisioned to take place. The District Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and Retail District revitalization of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor with an aim to reutilize and re-tenant existing Transit Oriented buildings with more intense uses such District as restaurants, service retail, and other local-serving businesses. Since the adoption of the DDSP in 2011, Downtown has seen several new development projects come to fruition and more that have been approved, but not yet built. New businesses have opened in existing buildings such as Sports Authority, Savers, Sprouts Farmer's Market, new buildings have been constructed for new commercial tenants such as REI, Freebirds, Habit Burger, new residential projects have opened (Connolly Station), and other residential projects have been approved, although construction has not yet started (former Crown Chevy site, Veteran's Housing project). Capital improvements have also been made (Golden Gate Streetscape Enhancement Project) and Downtown Dublin continues to enjoy a successful resurgence. When the DDSP was written, the development potential envisioned was a maximum of 1,300 residential units in the three districts (in addition to the 53 units already existing at Wicklow Square at the Dublin Senior Center) and over 3 million square feet of potential commercial development that could include retail, office, and other non-residential uses. The development potential currently allowed in the DDSP is as follows: 2of8 Table 1: Development Potential in the DDSP Non-Residential (SF Residential (Units) Retail District 737,100 100 Transit-Oriented District 2,202,710 1,100 (plus 150 hotel rooms) Village Parkway District 20,730 100 3,035,540 Total (includes hotel room square footage) 1,300 Since the adoption of the DDSP, there has been continued interest in the development of additional residential units in Downtown — particularly in the Transit-Oriented District, where 1,003 of the available 1,100 residential units are already entitled. These units are accounted for in the completed Connolly Station apartment project (309 units), the AMB/Prologis/Corovan warehouse site (308 units), the former Crown Chevrolet site (314 units), and the Veteran's Housing site (72 units). In 2011, the City engaged the Urban Land Institute Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to review the DDSP and provide an assessment on priorities for implementation, which were contained in a final report (Attachment 2). The report contained several suggestions on incentivizing development in Downtown, one of which was to remove the residential unit cap to let the market dictate how much housing in Downtown Dublin could be accommodated. Although City Staff is not recommending to remove the cap altogether, given the high demand for residential units in Downtown and, in particular, near the West Dublin BART station, the City is proposing to raise the limit for residential development from the current 1,300 units to 2,500 units throughout the three districts. To offset potential impacts resulting from an increase in residential development Downtown, the proposal also includes reducing the non-residential (commercial) development potential from 3,035,540 SF to 2,262,540 SF, also throughout the three districts. The proposed amendment will allow the area to capture market demand for housing Downtown (which is one of the guiding principles of the DDSP to create a vibrant downtown) and it will also provide opportunities for the City to meet the obligations of the Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that have been assigned to Dublin by the State of California. There are two RHNA-related challenges that the City is facing: 1) Meeting the current Housing Element RHNA obligation; and 2) Meeting the future Housing Element RHNA obligation for 2014-2022. Recently-initiated General Plan Amendment studies for the East Dublin Transit Center Site A-1, SummerHill/DiManto Parcels 3 and 4, and the Frederich/Vargas properties have the potential to impact the Housing Element and the City's ability to meet its current RHNA obligation. All of these projects, in addition to other projects that are moving forward but do not require General Plan Amendments, such as Wallis Ranch, are proposing to decrease the development densities on each site. If these projects to reduce densities are to be considered, the units that are being "lost" need to be accounted for elsewhere in the City to satisfy the current Housing Element cycle. 3 of 8 After taking all of the City's potential development sites into account, the City is expecting to still have a deficit of 1,075 below market rate housing units to meet the future Housing Element RHNA obligation for 2014-2022. This issue was discussed by the City Council at the meeting on July 16, 2013 and by consensus, the City Council directed Staff to study an increase in the residential development capacity in the DDSP, which City Staff has identified as an area that could accommodate residential development. The Planning Commission also discussed the Housing Element and RHNA obligations at the meeting on February 25, 2014 where the concept of increasing the development potential in the DDSP was considered. ANALYSIS: It would not be in the City's best long-term interests to convert future job-producing sites (such as future office development properties in the Transit Center or the remaining commercially- designated areas in Eastern Dublin) to residential uses. However, increasing the residential development capacity within the DDSP area is considered a viable option. Interest in residential development opportunities in Downtown has proven to be strong, and it is recognized that having more residents in Downtown will create more opportunities for restaurant, entertainment, and other commercial uses. Even with the potential increase in residential units in the DDSP and the corresponding decrease in commercial square footage, there remains over 2 million square feet of commercial development potential available for future non-residential projects. Allowing additional residential development in Downtown could compensate for reducing the development potential on several project sites in Eastern Dublin for the current Housing Element cycle, could accommodate any future requests to reduce project densities on other project sites for the next Housing Element cycle, and could provide opportunities for additional economic development in Downtown. In addition to increasing the overall number of units permitted in the DDSP, two other proposed amendments focus on ensuring that future residential development is focused in the key areas of Downtown and that future residential development enables the number of units hoped for to the Downtown. These proposed changes are described in more detail in the following sections. 1. Increase residential development potential in the DDSP In order to accommodate the additional residential growth without creating new impacts, the proposal is to increase the residential development potential of the area while reducing the commercial development potential. All other development standards and design guidelines currently in the DDSP that affect development (such as maximum FAR, building height, setbacks, etc.) are proposed to remain unchanged unless specifically noted. The main impact of adding residential units to Downtown would be to the transportation and circulation system. An analysis completed by RBF Consulting (the group that prepared the original DDSP Environmental Impact Report) assessed how much commercial development potential would need to be removed from the DDSP to ensure that the impacts of adding 1,200 residential units could be negated. The results of the analysis indicated that the equivalent commercial reduction should be 773,000 square feet to ensure that the impacts to the circulation system and traffic flow in Downtown (and throughout the City) would be no greater than what was already anticipated in the DDSP EIR. 4of8 The proposed changes to the development potential in the DDSP are as follows: Table 2: Net New Development Potential in the DDSP Existing Difference Non- Residential • Residentia Residential (SF) (Units)_ • Retail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) +300 Transit- 2,202,710 1,622,960 (+150 hotel 1,100 (+150 hotel 1,900 +800 Oriented rooms) rooms) Village 20,730 100 20,730 200 +100 Parkway 3,035,540 2,262,540 Total (includes150 1,300 (includes150 2,500 (773,000) +1,200 hotel rooms) hotel rooms) Table 3-4 (Net New Development) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to increase the total residential units to 2,500 and decrease the Non-Residential square footage by 773,000 square feet and Table 6-1 (Development Pool) is proposed to be amended to make the same changes as noted above. 2. Establish minimum residential densities in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts Currently, the DDSP does not specifically indentify a minimum density for any of the districts, although the DDSP notes that Medium to High Density development is appropriate. The proposed amendment provides more specificity and certainty for future developers and will allow the City to comply with our RHNA obligations by establishing a minimum density for residential development in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts. Due to the urban nature of these two districts and their close proximity to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, the ULI panel recommended, and Staff concurs with, ensuring that development of a certain minimum residential density occurs. The proposed minimum density in the Retail District is 22 units per net acre and the proposed minimum density in the Transit-Oriented District is 30 units per net acre. Table 3-4 (Net New Development) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to identify minimum residential densities in both districts. 3 Allow residential development in the Retail District core area only Residential development is currently allowed throughout the Retail District. Staff is recommending focusing future residential development and mixed use projects in those areas that are closest to the BART station. The proposed amendment would allow residential development in the Retail District only in the core area east of San Ramon Road. There are a finite number of units allocated to the Retail District. The intent of this amendment is to focus the limited residential development in the optimal location to achieve the goals of creating a vibrant, walkable downtown that is accessible to the BART station and that preserves the viability of existing commercial uses on the perimeter of the Retail District. Those properties in 5 of 8 the Retail District west of San Ramon Road would remain available for all types of non- residential uses currently permitted in the DDSP, but new residential development would be prohibited. Figure 2 illustrates those properties in the Retail District that will be affected by this change. Figure 2: Affected Retail District Properties Table 3-1 (Land Uses) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to allow residential units in the core of the Retail District only. Additionally, Table 3-1 will be modified to 1'wv allow Live/Work units in the Retail District of j the DDSP. Currently, the DDSP allows Live/Work in the Transit-Oriented District but not the Retail District. This modification ^� would allow them in both districts. r 73 y` The exact amendments to Table 3-1, Table di 3-4, Table 6-1, and the text sections of the DDSP are detailed in the Resolution 011 g ' recommending City Council adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, J��Po which is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: General Plan Table 2.1 (Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area) will need to be updated to reflect the increase in allowable residential units and also the decrease in maximum non-residential development potential. The exact amendments to Table 2.1 in the General Plan are detailed in the Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the General Plan Amendment, which is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address potential environmental impacts of the DDSP. The DDSP EIR (SCH# 2010022005) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was certified by the City Council on February 1, 2011. An Initial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of allowing an increase of 1,200 residential units in Downtown while decreasing the amount of commercial square footage by 773,000 square feet. All of the environmental impact sections were examined, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increases in the severity of previously-identified impacts were discovered. The Initial Study included a detailed analysis of the traffic impacts of additional residential units and determined that there would be no net impact if the amount of commercial development in the DDSP were reduced by enough to offset the increase of residential units. The analysis determined that the equivalent to 1,200 residential units is 773,000 square feet of non-residential (commercial) development potential, and therefore the Initial Study concluded that there were no new impacts to transportation and circulation in the DDSP area beyond those identified in the 2011 EIR. 6of8 To document the findings of the Initial Study, an Addendum was prepared, which concludes that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the prior EIR, notes the project changes, and notes their relation to the analysis in the prior EIR. The Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Addendum is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff Report. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff met with representatives from the Dublin Unified School District in September and December 2013 to review the proposed increase in residential units in the Downtown. Although the District initially expressed concerns about the potential impacts resulting from an increase in students generated by the additional units, the District did not provide any formal comments on the proposed DDSP amendments. A notice of this public hearing was published in the Valley Times and mailed to all property owners and tenants in the Specific Plan area, those within 300 feet of the existing Specific Plan boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings related to this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1) DDSP Boundary Map. 2) ULI Technical Advisory Panel report dated July 2011. 3) Resolution Recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP by 1,200 units and to decrease the amount of non-residential square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, and restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 4) Resolution Recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non- residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A and the Initial Study/Addendum included as Exhibit A-1. 7of8 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Dublin LOCATION: The DDSP (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specific Plan area. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: Various GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Downtown Dublin — Retail District Downtown Dublin — Transit-Oriented Dist. Downtown Dublin —Village Parkway Dist. SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Various 8 of 8 t '- �[�pi it�6 r �t a'ta r r t a 1r As rA � �y •� s d 4 6 ze ofl4 ryp® !• l MZ R 'e� �. � f 9�,� ��*8�\r;� �1'^'errmrw"���aA J S ,.��,'$"��r�r�:��.-xR a�''2',[♦ �.ee,� V �j i.. � r �.., ♦ a � 3� s. t ATTACHMENT 2 About ULI's Technical Assistance Panels ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel Program(known as"TAP")is an extension of the national Urban Land Institute(ULI)Advisory Services Panel Program. About ULI's Advisory Services Panels provide strategic advice to clients(public agencies and nonprofit organizations)on complex land use and real estate development issues. The program links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership. About Established in 1947,the Advisory Services Program has completed over 500 panels in 47 states,12 countries,and on 4 continents.The Advisory Services Program has Team Assignment and Piocess been successful due to its comprehensive,pragmatic approach to solving land use challenges. Site Context Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and screened to P�oposed New Development ensure their objectivity.ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems,A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience Vision chairs each panel. 3 Local San Francisco Bay Area TAPS are held over the course of two days in the Stakeholder Questions client's community.A detailed briefing book is given to each TAP participant prior to the day of the TAP.The TAP begins with a tour of the study area either by bus and + on foot,is followed by a briefing by the client and others,and then transitions into +++ private interviews and panel discussion regarding the client's issues and questions.and Threats At the end of the TAP,the panel provides a Power Point presentation to the client and SWOT Analysis invited guests summarizing the panel's observations and recommendations.Within ten weeks,a final written report is delivered to the client.The final report presents highlights of the panel's independent review and contains a diverse set of ideas and Recommendations suggestions that may or may not ultimately make sense for the community for which it was prepared. Relevant Case Studies Participants About ULI The Urban Land Institute's mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.Founded in 1936, the ULI is a non-profit organization of land-use professionals with 27,000 members in 95 countries(www.uli.org),including 1,800 in the greater San Francisco District Council(www.ulisf.org).ULI San Francisco serves the greater Bay Area with pragmatic land use expertise and education. Team Assignment and Process The City of Dublin,using their recently passed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan)as a guide,aims to improve the vitality of their downtown.The panel was asked how to prioritize the execution of the Specific Plan.The TAP process consisted of a day of site tours,stakeholder interviews,a panel discussion,and a r r presentation the following morning. bu institute ULI San Francisco Site Context The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is bounded generally by Village Parkway on the east,Amador Valley Boulevard on the north,San Ramon Road on the west, and Interstate 580 on the south.The Specific Plan is an aggregate of all or a major portion of five existing plans:San Ramon Road Specific Plan,Dublin Downtown Plan,Downtown Core Specific Plan,West Dublin BART Specific Plan,and the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Collectively,these plans are zoned for the additional development of nearly 3.2 million square feet of non-residential development,740 dwelling units,and 150 hotel rooms.Since 2000,when a majority of these plans were adopted,258,734 square feet of non-residential development and 54 residential units have been constructed. In addition,617 multi-family residential units have been entitled and 309 of the units are currently under construction. This Specific Plan focuses on strengthening the development standards and design guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses,creating three distinct districts in the Plan—Transit-Oriented District,Retail District and Village Parkway District.Most of the attention has been directed to the Transit-Oriented District south of Dublin Boulevard.Specifically,transit-oriented developments are encouraged within walking distance of the recently opened West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART)Station. 1 At present,Downtown Dublin largely functions as a regional retail area comprised of a number of large-format"power centers"with ancillary smaller specialty retail sales and services.These retailers(such as Target,Ross,and Marshalls) represent a unique niche in the regional marketplace and attract patrons from the entire Tri-Valley region which includes the cities of Dublin,Pleasanton,Livermore, San Ramon,and Danville.The Specific Plan encourages new development and improvements to existing developments to create a more walkable,urban environment and to enhance the City's tax base. Proposed New Development Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the Specific Plan Area.The most significant development is the opening of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.The station is located within the median of Interstate 580,with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the freeway.By 2013,the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day. Within the City of Dublin,a 713-space parking garage has been constructed at the southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters.As part of the BART I project,a joint development project with a 150-room hotel and 7.500 square feet of retail space has been planned(Stage i Development Plan),in addition to the 309 multi-family residential units(Essex)which are under construction we st of nt and west of the BART station project is an existing Golden Gate Drive.Adjacent to P 1 9 i 225,500 square feet one-story warehouse facility(the Prologis site,formerly AMB).This property has been entitled for development of 308 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square feet office building.Associated with these developments,St.Patrick Way will be extended,providing a vehicular and pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. Other various residential,office and mixed-use developments have been conceptually discussed with the City of Dublin,but no formal applications have been submitted. The Vision The goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is:Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping,services.dining,working,living and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts bath local and regional residents. + LE(WND n, SwdAc Pion Bwmda � (�~ t � GN limit line She of Porrel(lures) 0.01.025 0.26-0,50 1,01 2.01•5,00 5.01-10.50 b e, City of Pteosai�ton Parcel Size and Building Footprint—Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Stakeholder Interviews } 1 The immediate area has a number of institutional stakeholders and individual property owners.Due to the time constraints of this process,individual resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP, ,> but local retail experts and property owners were ,. interviewed.Stakeholders engaged by the TAP: • Councilmember Don Biddle Mike Costa,Terranomics • John Eudy,Essex Development Mayor Tim Sbranti,City of Dublin • Michael Schafer,Burlington Coat Factory • Felicia Studstill,Mayfield Gentry,Dublin Place • Sandra Weck,Colliers TAP Issues to Be Explored The panel was asked a series of questions by the City of Dublin ,,.. during the process that helped to guide the analysis and final recommendations.The City posed four specific issues for the panel to address 1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in-lieu funds to attract business and customers. 2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant(attract business and retail)and pedestrian friendly. 3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the t; vitality of the downtown. 4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown n Dublin area(eg WiFi.apps.etc) 1. Identify ways to spend Community Benetit Program (CBP) in-lieu funds to attract business and customers. Currently,the CBP is structured to apply to development that is in excess of the permitted amount.The panel suggested the City consider application of the program to all development,including development in East Dublin.The funds could be best invested on catalytic projects preferably within the TOD subarea first.While a movie theater would be a good nighttime use,it is very expensive to construct,and the panel suggested that the funds could help incentivize a theater or other entertainment venue perhaps through the subsidy of development costs.Another good use of funds would be a downtown park or outdoor event space located on or adjacent to Golden Gate Drive as it leads to BART.Funds could also be Used to subsidize small tenant improvement through grants or loans.Lastly,CBP funds could help clean up store fronts and facade improvements �;_4�6' a TAP on Site � 1 1 • I t r 1 • ti / / 1 1 . IM � • f V The panel felt that developing additional retail on pads along Dublin Blvd .as well as other physical improvements - . • such as parallel parking to slow traffic,streetscape = • improvements and bicycle lanes are key to make Oublir. Blvd.more pedestrian friendly. The City should also undertake streetscape redesign c, Golden Gate Drive to reinforce the pedestrian connect between Dublin Blvd and BART As a pilot project for streetscape improvements on these mayor thoioughfares-the panel suggested partrir . restriping and lane change improvement on tillage Parkwa y,Further details on these physical impr and others are highlighted in the recommend: section that follo;^;s s 8-1' 3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown. The panel recognizes that the current big box retailers are valuable to the City.At the same time there are a lot of opportunities to create variety with regards to the size of retailers.Similar to what was done with the REI,Sprouts and Elephant Bar parcels, integration of large format and smaller scale retail would provide more variation.The panel recommends bringing in an economic firm or retail broker to conduct a detailed gap analysis or,at minimum,explore potential entertainment and dining uses. 4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc). The panel supports implementing free WiFi in the downtown.The panel also feels that the City should introduce a requirement that developers of new projects implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan(TDMP)reducing minimum parking requirements and traffic congestion.Aspects of the TDMP should include City Carshare or Zipcar(with development incentives or reduced parking requirements granted to projects incorporating such car-sharing programs),electronic vehicle preferred parking and charging stations,and potentially BART ticket and Clipper card validation at the point of sale at various local retailers. Mobile smart phone applications similar to"DashMob"or"Punchd"could also help drive traffic to local retailers.These mobile technologies will help supplement and could be synced with the existing upgraded electronic signage for Tri-Valley Transit bus and BART services that shows real time transit information Now �I I a }i��Iliid�;l I, tx. fir: e i F e° West OubiinlPieasanton BART Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Strengths Weaknesses The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific implementation issues that need to be tackled.The panel was Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different particularly encouraged by the fact that the City recognizes that motivations.Furthermore,the Specific Plan covers a large and accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise.A more diverse area than a traditional downtown,meaning a single willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area.The creation the vision of a vibrant downtown. of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character will be beneficial in the long run. The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately adjacent to the intersection of two major freeways,1-580 and While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the 1-680.The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly area,garnering city-wide buy-in to the notion of public investment built West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. as a catalyst may be challenging.The challenge of the Community Benefit Program is timing.If the program is relied on to fund The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from some of the key improvements that need to take place it may an income and education standpoint.Furthermore,the City's take too long or never happen because the money won't come budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of in until development is well underway.The challenge remains: existing tenants in the downtown area.The re-tenanting that has How can desired new development get underway without the come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has required infrastructure?If there is a sincere city-wide desire to retail strength.The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish. to get it going,including consideration of the appropriate use of debt to finance up-front infrastructure.Lastly,this is an infill area and how it is approached from a development standpoint is very different from the greenfield development that has occurred on the east side of Dublin. Opportunities Threats Opportunities abound in response to these challenges.The City The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self-sufficiency,requiring benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners a different approach to public finance,specifically one that and few buildings.While the abundance of parking is part of the includes upfront public investment and a closer look at some of retail area's success,some of this"sea of parking"has the potential the available tools including debt financing,which the City has for development into new structures(some of which may contain historically been averse too.The panel also believes that there is a parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan),Several opportunities need for more collaborative engagement with developers. for public-private partnerships with various principals are currently at play.The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin City-wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic BART Station has the most immediate potential for development,in given the perceived east and west division.Finally,real estate contrast to the rest of downtown,such as the Village Parkway area, capital markets are currently fragile.While there is financing for multifamily and other projects,that window of opportunity may close soon so there is an impetus to act now. Strengths Weaknesses nit tic. • iii_+ i, rill i' Opportunities Threats • Low density and surplus parking creates development uity's reluctance to issue debt for public Impi ovements opportunity sites can inhibit redevelopment—a revision to this policy may • Many public-private partnership opportunities be required to achieve the vision • Accelerate the potential for TOO District as a near tee r i ty wide buy in and financial support#e g.feQsi transit village with horizontal mixed-use :1.�required t,)ach i-lave do%'11nto;.r7:ision BART-oriented residential development • D vision bet;jean Fast ind :test Luhi�r f-�;i�ctp"! r,annang effort Interested oviners in district • tile,', to captuie currant miaiiket oppc u, • f agilit`r of COME-I ICTd•ti Or,S:'<zII EMV'<3ct d ,ejripn}ent opp;.)r€?.i wies ,av 3' Recommendations After the consideration of the stakeholder questions,SWOT analysis,site tour and interviews,the team identified what they felt were the most pressing issues and resulting recommendations.Many of the panel's ten recommendations focus on improvements needed in the transit-oriented district and uniting the City's vision with the property owners'. 1. Focus on TOD District, especially F_ The 4-5 key parcels as a catalyst prioritizing development link the BART The City should take a step further than specific planning and station to the Dublin Place shopping center located north actually bring together the property owners and interested of Dublin Along ' parties to try and generate a coordinated plan for key BART gar age. entitled Essex housing project. catalytic properties.These owners include Essex.BART, as potential for plazas ' Las P' ' on Chabot-Las Positas and Safeway.The City should playa both ' ' ` `at the intersection of proactive role in creating a unified design vision by funding ' `� Dublin the design plans for these blocks and by helping address i r ` the Dublin Place how financial implementation will occur.The City will need to + development,At panel suggests looking go beyond what is spelled out in the Specific Plan to create reinforcing at tire development of St,Patrick Way. gild successful projects that advance the vision for downtown. r crossing north-south The panel suggests the City sit down and have some design Drive becomes point exercises with the owners of the key parcels to try and TOD District paint a shared vision.As part of that,the City may have to think about public investment that goes along with private investment,as well as flexibility from a regulatory standpoint in order to stimulate the private sector's desire to invest. "� 2. Leverage current opportunities n r for Public-Private Partnerships The City should continue to work with BART to explore } alternative near term uses for the BART hotel/restaurant "' '"" ' — M If site as part of a shared vision.BART's focus on a hotel ) " for that site does not match near-term market potential;it P would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be _.."... developed sooner rather than later.The panel also suggests / discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage =s ��,,*,;;� Me- with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the .�,. upgraded Golden Gate Drive/St.Patrick Way TOD,for example a movie theater. TOD District Essentials 3. Simultaneously work on redevelopment of Dublin Place ? � The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and 1 i ! believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their 4---►� property.The City should simultaneously be talking with �«x them and offering the same type of collaborative planning �t effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District(see Recommendation#1). GR� TOD District Essentials T,!';pEsb�.nz rt'tnVR'.�s fe�istAt arc.crtra�;A1'�recsr,�;', �tra7nrrmri _` i 4. Explore opportunities for entertainment and civic center to animate public realm and activate night-time activity in TOD District The City should investigate future opportunities to activate the area with additional civic(City,County,other agencies, etc.)and entertainment options. Evaluate partnership W options with Chabot-Las Positas College District on the Crown Chevrolet site to create a public plaza/gathering space which could be jointly used.Additionally,it and when the City needs to expand its own footprint,it should consider a the downtown first. Downtown Dublin BART 5. Focus first on residential and horizontal mixed-use developments, then retail and office The City should focus on residential and horizontal mixed ," ` `. ..• >° use on Golden Gate Drive and St.Patrick Way to provide more residents to support diversified retail.Current limits on the allowable number of housing units within the TOD area should be removed.The Prologis(formerly AMB)site ` should be allowed to increase its residential count,with office development,given the surplus of office space along the 680 corridor,being optional or driven by market needs.In the panel's experience,vertical mixed use can be problematic, particularly in the early phases of transforming an area f ;R through TOD.Too often'A over 1"(4 levels of residential over ilU 1 level of retail or commercial)scenarios maintain their for lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years. Downtown Dublin r 6. Undertake streetscape redesign for Golden Gate Drive to enhance . ! the pedestrian experience and for ,J*4 calming traffic On Golden Gate Drive allow for one 12'travel lane and bike lanes in each direction,add on-street parallel parking and increase the 4'sidewalks to a 10'minimum.Village Parkway can serve as a pilot project by reducing travel lanes to one-way Entrance to Dublin Place , in each direction and simply re-striping to allow for diagonal parking. PrR ME 51 y 1. ..%[' .� i i 7. Assess downtown public 9. Dedicate staff to manage improvement financing strategies Capital Improvement Plan More public improvements and public investment are Redevelopment agencies often implement capital needed on the front end.To do so the City needs to identify improvements in a very efficient way by identifying and weave together a multiple range of funding sources. capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts a dedicated project manager to implement the various or Infrastructure Financing Districts,which may evolve capital improvements(CI's)within their individual project under California law to replace redevelopment project areas. area.Improvements include streetscape improvements, The City has had discussions in the past about Business undergrounding of utilities,extending trolley lines,building Improvement Districts but should also explore how to pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure,making restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are way for future development.The panel recommends the City more targeted into the downtown area,including potentially create a Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)for the Downtown capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources, into downtown. i.e.a project manager potentially housed within the Economic Development Department,to implement the CIP.Once a CIP is approved,this person would function independently from the 8. Further reduce fees for targeted uses, City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the especially restaurants, in downtown capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area. The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown area as an incentive,however even at reduced levels they 10. Exempt residential development can be too high and create an impediment for some uses from CBP payments especially restaurants and dining uses.The City should further reduce fees to attract restaurants. Exempting residential development downtown from the CBP payments could help further incentivize housing where it is needed most,thereby providing more retail customers within walking distance. 4 i � S � — to�-��..�i r�,e•3 �eu�R��l�roa hTZ {m t V 12' le E 4 ti Y t'a q�fl,., (►`±? s�� � creak� .�„ f . f X 12•-rw.�.�� Ew r„a�--tub }'°tearE lJt���a i �A` 11ChLN�7c X34 6+ 25 4 64 4' b tr T4 T.v t2' L' V ltt11,61,s, pkf•tYC,t�4Y s�t bb t ve 4�k` e.s . 1 x c2-m�rett" leA too' e.o-u. D emu.-.z,kffi-W�-vo,.s oE. 11c Y1 -v%ZINV-�.M 74 C'7+ to pC1W3 "�K3 t-3�1Y-.4 1s S*o�*tt M F.G3 • 1 X"t1'Fat;Lft"E e16-b�W,c1W + 4 -R'hl6 WGti.)..i t %,b! s-IrA't f*x eA s re Relevant Case Studies Milipitas Transit Area Specific Plan The City of Milipitas,CA's Transit Area Specific Plan,adopted The Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation in June 2008,is a 437-acre mixed-use plan area that calls for chapter that outlines every capital improvement,the department up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1.4M square responsible,the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits feet of commercial space built over four phases.Phasing will from the improvement.Studies were completed to identify all depend on residential market factors.The City staff and their road and utility improvements and public services.Detailed consultant worked extensively with property owners,public infrastructure plans for sewer,wastewater,storm-water,recycled agencies,community members and other stakeholders in the area water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed to develop a long-term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate market reality. impact fees.This implementation strategy ensures funding for capital improvements will be available and provides confidence Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully ascertain each owner's goals and constraints.Contentious issues, implemented. about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines, and the distribution of land uses and densities,were resolved Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even through ongoing discussions. before it was adopted,suggesting that they had enough confidence to submit project applications.Together,the City and project sponsors were able to identify issues and propose refinements to the Specific Plan. Applicability to Downtown Dublin Transit-Oriented Development • Property owner buy-in t F t I Piper7Mont tgue Subrsre�i mt F , ac.c w, AfrGiridless Drive Before and After—Milpitas Transit Area Specific Nan i Station Park Green, San Mateo Adjacent to the Hayward Park rail station,Station Park Green is a 12-acre transit-oriented development with open space,590 units,10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of commercial/retail. A pedestrian-friendly street grid connects the different uses, much the same way that the intersection of Golden Gate and St. Patrick's could be at the Dublin TOD district.Stakeholders worked closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through I public workshops and meetings,ensuring community consensus and timely approvals of the master plan. Applicability to Downtown Dublin - • Similiar area to site • Mixed-use"green"transit-oriented development MIMT HITT I I � a Panel Chair Ron Golem of SAE Urban Economics specializes in Patrick O'Keefe is the City Manager tot the City of Emeryville:and project management for complex assignments.including real 11 Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency.He estate transaction support_transit-oriented development,strategic is responsible for the oversight of eight departments including business planning and program development for public purposes- Police.Fite.Public Works.C0111111(inity Services.Economic Prior to joining BAE.Ron served as Real Estate Specialist tot the Development& Housing.Administrative Services.Planning& National Park Service,formulating strategies forpublic/privale Building and City Clerk,Prior to the 2006 appointment as City partnerships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden Manager.he served as the Director of the Emeryville Economic Gate National Recreation Area,Ron has also worked for private real Development and Housing Department since 1995-Mr-O'Keeffe estate development companies as an Asset Manager completing currently oversees a staff of 185 and a$64 4 million annual successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases.He has operating budget,including a 534A million annual Redevelopment managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital totaling in excess of two million square feet, Improvement Programs David Cropper Managing Director.joined TMG Partners in 2000, Gerry Tierney,Senior Associate with Perkins+Will, has 30 years He has 25 years of direct feat estate experience in finance of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on construction,and entitlements.He is responsible for TMG housing and other institutional projects that have requiied deep Partners'finance arid development activities in the greater Ball expertise in and understanding of regulatory processes and Atea and is a inetriber of the film's investment Committee, procedutes,as well as code and entitlement issues.His portfolio He most tocently directed The Grossing I S-31)BI UrIQ,an feature,,a range of projects that demonstrate innovative.client- award-winning$250 million dollar mixed-use transit-oriented focused solutions across varying project types.Gerry brings development.is well as 650 Townsend,TMG,s mixed-use office flexibility and experience to each new project,creating individual and retail project in San Francisco.He has financed over$1 designs tailored to the specific needs of the client user and site. billion of real estate including construction loans,permanent loans.CMBS facilities as well as tax-exempt bond and tax credit [man Novin.Assistant Project Manager/Sr.Project Analyst, Structured financings. joined BRIDGEiBUILD in 2007 and works on both investment and new construction projects conducting project due diligence David Johnson formed Christiani Johnson Architects%,vith and providing ongoing support for than redevelopment of the Richard D Christiani in 1994 and has been the lead designer for MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland,CA Prior to joining RURI) many of the firm's residential and mixed-use projects,including Iman assisted the Real Estate and Planning Divisions or GCDC Bridgeview.Oceanview Village,The Potrero.555 Bartlett.4th clovvritown San Diego's redevelopment aim.V�1111 M111101oll- ,ind U,Bryant Place and University Village for the University of redevelopment and atfordable housing protects_including ':alifornia,Berkeley.He has developed particular expertise in nianigement of CCOC s AicGIS operations. He also has pri vlotls planning high-density urban infril development featuring housing vsark experience v:sth Keyset !Marston Associates`Son Plo,lIo over I olail office.Iman holds a Bacheiot of SIcience degree in St!ucluial Enginee,ing,and a Bachelor of Af is degree i'l 0!tlan Studies,and Keri Lung.Senior Development Consultant iot klidpen Housing Planning tiom tine Unweislt% Captor nia Sin Plege Got potation.has over 20 years of experience it',the fields of affordable housing,economic development.and urban planning, � L I 'S a ra'[I C, S Keii has been responsible far strategic acquisitions and business development at TIjidPen Housing Corporation over the past five Michael Jameson :tears.initiating nine it ansit-or rented Lii ban infill ever Capita D r-, oa,- 800 units in construction in San Mateo Sunn,,,.�aie.San Jose South San Francisco and Alameda Count;-Ken° as in helping MidPen vain night.;competitive tax ci-eclots and rather U L al n a nic'I S C 0 scarce public funds resulting in record cno,,-,,th for klialper at i Xiomara Cisneros,Nectol time v.hen most developers are struggling. Kate White i-ecutive Oil eclo' RESOLUTION NO. 14-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY 773,000 SQUARE FEET, CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR THE TRANSIT- ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS, AND RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WEST OF SAN RAMON ROAD IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT PLPA-2013-00073 WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11 approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and ATTACHMENT 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx, dated March 11, 2014, recommending City Council adoption of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, approving amendments to the General Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amended Specific Plan will continue to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 3-Reso SPA and GPA.DOC 2 RESOLUTION NO. xx - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY 773,000 SQUARE FEET, CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS, AND RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WEST OF SAN RAMON ROAD IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT PLPA-2013-00073 WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11 approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses; and WHEREAS, In 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non- 1 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment , on at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above- referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following amendments to the General Plan: Table 2.1 shall be revised as follows: (Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is shown here. All other sections of Table 2.1 remain the same): Table 2.1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area Downtown Dublin Acres Dwelling Dwelling Persons/Dwelling population Specific Plan Unitslacre Units Unit Area Downtown 230.2 6.1-25.1+ 2,500 2.7 6,750 Dublin Downtown Maximum Maximum Dublin Acres Floor Area Potential Square Jobs Specific Plan Ratio (Gross) Square Feet4 Feet/employee Area Village Parkway 32.9 .35 501,593 200-450 1,115-2,508 District Retail District 113.1 .60 2,762,732 200-450 6,139-13,814 Transit- 84.2 1.2 3,821,552 200-450 8,492-19,108 2 Oriented District Total: 230.2 7,085,877 15,746-35,430 Maximum Development Potential in the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts were modified by the 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(City Council Resolution xx-xx) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan: Table 3-1 shall be revised as follows: Table 3-1: Land Uses ORIENTED RETAIL TRANSIT- VILLAGE BUILDING USES' DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT Regional Retail Allowed Prohibited 2 Prohibited Community Allowed Allowed Allowed Outdoor Dinin• Allowed a Allowed s Allowed s . and/or Entertainm�l Allowed Allowed Allowed • - Allowed Allowed Allowed •.• .'__ Prohibited Allowed Prohibited ��� • Allowed 6 Allowed CUP/PC 4 Multi-FamilyI�i�ii Residential _ Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed Mixed-Use Non-Residential Allowed Allowed Allowed Mixed-Use siddrtial Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed �•• Recreation ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA A. Service/Sales CUP/ZA CUP/PC CUP/ZA •I CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC Businesses Civic, Cultural, • Institutional CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC Temporary TUP TUP TUP Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director. 2 Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. 3 Assuming accessibility (ADA) standards can be met. 4 May be permitted with a CUP/PC in a mixed-use development. 5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of 1-580 or 1-680. 6 Allowed throughout the Retail District except on those properties west of San Ramon Road. CUP—Conditional Use Permit PC— Planning Commission TUP—Temporary Use Permit ZA—Zoning Administrator ZC—Zoning Clearance MUP — Minor Use Permit 3 Table 3-4 shall be revised as follows: Table 3-4: Net New Development NON-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM M� - I - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - _ 543,850 400 22 units/net acre Transit- 1,622,960 1,900 30 units/net acres Oriented (+150 hotel rooms) Village 20,730 200 No minimum Parkway 2,262,540 2,500 (includes 150 hotel rooms) Notes Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet constructed Table 6-1 shall be revised as follows: Table 6-1: Development Pool ° NON-RESIDENTIAL - OF ' SQUARE FOOTAGE 175,170 400 Transit-Oriented 1,145,050 1,900 (+150 hotel rooms) Village Parkway 0 200 Page 44, Section 3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential, shall be amended to read as follows: 3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential development is generally in the form of stacked flats (apartments or condominiums) and attached townhouses. Minimum residential density is 22 units per net acre in the Retail District and 30 units per net acre in the Transit-Oriented District. The Village Parkway District has no minimum density requirement. Higher density residential uses are appropriate and strongly encouraged, especially in the Transit- Oriented District near the BART station. Page 47, second and third paragraphs after Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District shall be amended to read as follows: This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units. Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500 square feet per hotel room), this represents 5.26 million square feet under this Specific Plan. 4 Page 57, Building Design Table (Retail District) Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to include the following (all other portions of Section 2 shall remain the same): Not permitted west of San Ramon Road. Residential Allowed at a minimum density of 22 units per net acre P Units ermitted within a residential development or mixed-use development if designed based on the following standards. Page 66, Building Design Table (Transit-Oriented District) Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to include the following (all other portions of Section 2 shall remain the same): Permitted within a residential development or a mixed-use development if Residential designed based on the following standards: Units The residential density shall be a minimum of 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed 85 units per acre. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPAM20131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncrease�PC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 3-Ex A-CC Reso SPA and GPA.docx 5 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN PLPA-2013-00073 WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11 approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A-1, to determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts were discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A-1, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and ATTACHMENT 4 WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Addendum and Initial Study, both dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit A-1). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) adopting an Addendum to the DDSP EIR, including the related Initial Study, for the 2014 DDSP Amendment project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 4-Reso Addendum.DOC RESOLUTION NO. xx - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN PLPA-2013-00073 WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11 approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, to determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts were discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and 1 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non- residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retails Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment , on at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above- referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum and Initial Study, both dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit A-1). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council adopts a Resolution adopting an Addendum to the DDSP EIR, including the related Initial Study, for the 2014 DDSP Amendment project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk GAPA#120131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential IncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 4-Ex A-CC Reso Addendum.docx 3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(2014) Addendum and Initial Study , t y rs i"S^ta e'�s $ e r . �i ", steiiF N! 3' x,. a' iG ,` u. nH,„ Amp i i� P ;fir"�`�"'s� � :� a' ��� t�. ���a44, a � �'�'`.�' �'r'`� �'�t"•"4'p,Vi�ff MEµry�Pp(k�' { , i �N Ik�.�.t I i r Prepared for: City of Dublin Prepared by: to. a. !— A z.- Company February 24, 2014 w E EXHIBIT A-1 TO ATTACHMENT 4 i Addendum and Initial Study Table of Contents Addendum 5 Initial Study » Attachments Attachment A: Source List I Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location f Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts List of Tables Table 1: DDSP Amended Net New Development I ICommunity Development Department 3 I i 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment 4 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Addendum i Community Development Department 15 i E 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment CEQA Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (certified February 1, 2011, City Council Resolution o8-11) February 24, 2014 PROJECT-DESCRIPTION AND PRIOR_CEQA ANALYSIS: On February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11, adopting the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution o8-11 certifying a Program Environmental Impact Report for the DDSP, hereinafter referred to as the DDSP EIR (SCH 20100022005). This Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses. The DDSP EIR identified the environmental impacts of implementing the DDSP and concluded that even with feasible mitigation measures, impacts to transportation and circulation were significant and unavoidable and could not be lessened to a level of less than significant. On February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council certified the DDSP EIR via Resolution o8-11. Certification of the DDSP EIR included the adoption of mitigation findings, findings regarding alternatives, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was also approved. In 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,2oo and decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retails Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or"the Project". The Prior Approvals (including the approved DDSP and the certified DDSP EIR) noted above are incorporated herein by reference and available for public review at Dublin City Hall during normal business hours. CURRENT CEQA_ANALYSIS_AND DETERMINATION THAT AN ADDENDUM I_S_APP_ROPRIAT_E FOR THIS PROJECT: In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present with the Project that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the DDSP EIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, determined that the potentially significant effects of the Project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR, and that no substantial changes have been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be 6 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study undertaken which require revisions of the previous EIR. This Addendum to the DDSP EIR has been prepared, which notes the difference in the 2014 DDSP Amendment and previously analyzed DDSP and their relation to the certified DDSP EIR. The 2014 DDSP Amendment varies from the original DDSP as follows: �j Proposed 2014 DDSP Difference Amendment • Residential Residential mom Residential 737,100 100 543,850 400 093,250) 300 2,202,710 1,1o0 1,622,96o 1,900 (579,750) 800 20,730 100 20,730 200 - 100 3,035,540 1,300 2,187,540 21500 (773,000) i;2oon The Initial Study determined that an additional examination of potential impacts to the traffic and circulation section of the SEIR should be completed to ensure that with the additional residential units (and corresponding decrease in commercial square footage), increasing the minimum development density in the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts, and restricting residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, no new significant environmental impacts could be identified and no increase in the severity of the previously-identified impacts would be discovered. SUPPLEMENTARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS: RBF Consulting completed a supplementary traffic analysis to analyze how the traffic impacts of the 2014 DDSP Amendment (with the additional residential units but a lesser amount of non-residential square footage) compared to the development potential of the original DDSP. The analysis concluded that the traffic impacts would not be substantially different. The traffic analysis is attached to this Addendum and Initial Study as Attachment B, and incorporated herein by reference. The highlights of the traffic analysis are included in the sections below. In assessing whether the 2014 DDSP Amendment creates significant impacts that were not present or that were substantially more severe than the original DDSP, the traffic analysis examined three main measurements: i Community Development Department ( 7 E F i 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment 1. Overall trip generation rates of the 2014 DDSP Amendment; 2. Revised trip assignments to the roadway network; and 3. A traffic queuing analysis for critical movements at the intersections of Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard , both of which were operating at Level of Service E. A new trip generation analysis was conducted to compare trip generation estimates for the 2014 DDSP Amendment to estimates for the original DDSP. As shown in Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in project trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. This analysis indicates that: • The proposed project is projected to result in a net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and 1,232 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the DDSP, the proposed project would generate six percent fewer daily trips, and 17 percent fewer PM peak hour trips. The reason for this reduction is that commercial development generates a greater number of trips than residential development when compared on a similar square footage basis. • The 2014 DDSP Amendment would generate a zero net increase in AM peak hour trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. Based on the project trip distribution prepared for the DDSP EIR, the proposed project trips were assigned to the roadway network and compared to the DDSP. The change in trip assignment between the DDSP and the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution. No significant increases resulted, and in many cases, the peak hour trips decreased. Traffic queues were also analyzed under proposed project conditions for critical movements at the intersections of Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard. These two intersections were analyzed because the City's threshold of significance is greater than 50 trips if the intersection is already operating at LOS E or lower, which applied only to these two intersections. The maximum left-turn queues for the southbound and westbound approaches would remain unchanged with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are shown in Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution. Forecast AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project would be equal to or less than the trip generation forecast for the DDSP and no additional traffic impacts were identified. Therefore, the traffic analysis concludes that no new or substantially more severe significant impacts will result from the 2014 DDSP Amendment, and no additional mitigation measures are required. 8 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study NO SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162_ Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken which require revisions of the DDSP EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and clarifications as outlined in this Addendum, the DDSP EIR will continue to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of the 2014 DDSP Amendment. CONCLUSION: The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the determination to adopt an Addendum. As provided in Section 15164, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the DDSP EIR before making a decision on the proposed project. The Initial Study (with the traffic analysis) is included below and the DDSP EIR is available for review in the Community Development Department at the City of Dublin, loo Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. Community Development Department 19 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment io ( City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study INITIAL STUDY Community Development Department I ii i pP i 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment 12 I City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study City of Dublin Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist Background & Project Description Project Title Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(2014) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Dublin loo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Person and Phone Number Kristi Bascom Principal Planner (925) 833-6610 Project Location The City of Dublin is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, approximately 27 miles east of the City of San Francisco; approximately 26 miles north of the City of San Jose; and approximately 15 miles south of the City of Walnut Creek. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 58o to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specific Plan area. See Figure 1: Project Location. i Community Development Department 113 4 fpP f[ 4 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Figure is Project Location a x . LEGEND n r v E V� �„ �..,+�,5�.rk�, � 'gyp .t'• '"e �, .' ', � ` s s � t - € 4 Aft zo �*' .♦ �y. M, pill �1 Project Applicant's/Sponsor's Name and Address City of Dublin loo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 General Plan Designations Downtown Dublin -Village Parkway District Downtown Dublin -Transit-Oriented District Downtown Dublin - Retail District Zoning DDZD - Downtown Dublin Zoning District 14 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Project Description Background and Intent The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) was adopted by the Dublin City Council in February of 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the Downtown area that would be more conducive to a more walkable, mixed development, and vibrant community. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village Parkway Districts), with separate development standards for each. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the DDSP in September 2010 to analyze environmental impacts of potential development associated with the DDSP in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Subsequent to the adoption of the DDSP and certification of the DDSP EIR in February 2011, the City decided to increase the total allowable net new residential dwelling units in the DDSP area. To accommodate these units without causing any new significant impacts, particularly as it relates to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, the total allowable net new non-residential development potential was proposed to be reduced commensurately. Proposed Project As shown in Figure z: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts, the DDSP is divided into three districts: Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village Parkway. Table 3-4: Net New Development of the DDSP defines specific land use development limits for each of these districts for both residential and non-residential development. The proposed project includes shifting some of the allowable development in each district from non-residential to residential uses. For residential development, the total allowable development in all three districts would increase from 1,30o dwelling units to 2,5oo dwelling units; a net increase of 1,200 units. Conversely, total non-residential development (retail, office, services, etc.) would decrease from 3,035,540 square feet (SF) to 2,262,540 SF, for a net decrease of 773,000 SF. Amended development limits for each district is shown in Table 1: DDSP Amended Net New Development. Community Development Department 115 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts I------- A LEGEND �I I I ;txdYc Plun Boundmr � } �ih GmB Line Specific Plan Districts R tail _ r '* k t I Y) r` i� I - I i r S - k s Al ,a r =ry c;f i Plewanton L Table 1: DDSP Amended Net New Development P �� €- r T € � EJC •TSi�g ll�$l� Difference - `- WT`u°, to � • AN- Residential �„Fetail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) 300 2 202 710 1,622,960 Transit- �� , , Oriented. (+1–motel 1,100 (±150-hotel 1,900 (579,750) 800 rooms) rooms) „Village Parkway 20,730 100 20,730 200 -- 100 3,035,540 2,262,540 Total" incL 1 o hotel 1,300 (Incl. hotel 2 500 (773 000) 1 200 (— 5- , , , ro ms room-5 16 City of Dublin C Addendum and Initial Study The proposed net increase in residential DUs and decrease in non-residential development is proposed to further enhance the City's on-going effort(and recent success) of encouraging more transit-oriented residential development in the vicinity of the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and to further incentivize a more vibrant and active downtown. Apart from this change in allowable development limits, three other minor amendments are proposed to the DDSP: allowing Live/Work units in the core of the Retail District(they are currently only allowed in the Transit-Oriented District), restricting the development of residential uses in the Retail District to the core area east of San Ramon Road, and establishing minimum residential density requirements in the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts (none currently exist). All other existing development standards that regulate building height, setback standards,floor area ratio, parking, etc. would remain unchanged. Similarly, all design guidelines that regulate the urban design and preferred aesthetic character would remain the same, as would mobility and infrastructure plans and administration and implementation requirements. The DDSP Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (SCH #2010022005)was certified by the Dublin City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011. This modification of the DDSP would require a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, both of which would have to be reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Dublin City Council. Proposed General Plan Amendment: The proposed text amendments to the General Plan consists of edits to Table 2-1 (Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area)with deletions shown in °+..�;t and additions shown as underline. Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is shown here: Table 2-1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area Downtown Dwelling, , � Dubin Speclflc Acres Dwelling Ur�t F# t Units/acre Ulf. Plan ATea is Mediurn Hig-h-, OF High De" 230.2 6.1-25.1+ 1,3ae 22500 2.7 3-,5}�6.750 Downtown Dublin Downtown Maximum Maximum Potent uarre Dublin Specific Acres Floor Area 30 f Square Plan Area Ratio(Gross) Feet Feetiemployee Wins) Village Parkway 32.9 35 5 0-1 � 200-450 X11-�� .15 District ?.508 Community Development Department 117 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Retail District 113.1 .60 2,9&2,762,7324 200-450 6'579ee 6,139-13,814 Transit- Oriented 84.2 1.2 4-.4-e 3,821,5524 200-450 9,779 22,eeo District 8'492-19'1°8 Total: 230.2 X86 7,085,87 17P467 39000 1_%746%15A3_0 4 Maximum Development Potential in the Retail and Trans it-Oriented Districts were modified by the 2014 Downtown_Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(City Council Resolution xx-xx) Proposed DDSP Amendments: The proposed text amendments to the DDSP include the following proposed modifications (with deletions shown in S+r�>keoui and additions shown as underline): Table 3-1: Land Uses I III BUILDING USES' L DISTRICT ORIENTED DISTRICT DISTRICT • Allowed Prohibited z Prohibited • Allowed Allowed Allowed ••; Allowed 3 Allowed 3 Allowed 3 e • • y Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed *•• I I Prohibited Allowed Prohibited • ' RF^" Allowed' Allowed CUP/PC4 •° Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed • ® +° Allowed Allowed Allowed • ®~ Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed ••• - • ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA ` • - III I CUP/ZA CUP/PC CUP/ZA CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC ►• TUP TUP TUP 18 ( City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director. z Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. 3 Assuming accessibility(ADA)standards can be met. 4 May be permitted with a CUP/PC in a mixed-use development. 5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of I-58o or I-680. 6 Allowed as paFt of a mixed use deyelopFnent.—ARQwedibrQughQutAhe Retail District except on those properties_west of San Ramon Road. CUP—Conditional Use Permit PC—Planning Commission TUP—Temporary Use Permit ZA—Zoning Administrator ZC—Zoning Clearance MUP—Minor Use Permit Table 3-4: Net New Development MINIMUM NON-RESIDENTIAL H (S F) RESIDENTIAL (DU) RESIDENTIAL 1, 737,199-543,850 +e0-400 22 unitsinet acre Transit- ' 8 iTaoo 30 units/net acres Oriented (±15o hotel rooms) Parkway Village 20,730 aee-= No minimum du o hl ote ) �9- � Notes Includes projects that have been approved,but not yet constructed Table 6-1: Development Pool NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE RESIDENTIAL • • DWELLINGS �iiri ■ 34 -175,170 100 4QQ Transit- 1',' 24;8@@ 1,145,050 1,10 -1• Oriented (±s,5o hotel rooms) 0 400-M Page 44, Section 3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential,shall be amended to read as follows: 3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential Medium to high deRSity Fesiden Multi-Family Residential development is generally in the form of stacked flats(apartments or condominiums)and attached townhouses. Minimum residential density is 22 units per net acre.in the Retail District and 30 units per net acre in the Community Development Department 119 I 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transit-Oriented District. The Village Parkway_District has no minimum density requirement. Residential densities in the General Plan are 6.i to 14.9 units per a e for Medium Density Residential, 14.1 to 25.0 units per i%re for Medium High Density Residential, and 25.0 1 for High density DesidentW Residential uses above 25 „nits/-, rn Higher_density_residential_uses are appropriate and strongly encouraged in the aewnt^,^en area, especially in the Transit-Oriented District near the BART station. Page 47, second and third paragraphs after Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District: This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 32.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 1,3ee 2,5oo residential dwelling units. Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500 square feet per hotel room), this represents 4­59 5.26 million square feet under this Specific Plan. Page 57, Building Design Table (Retail District): Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to add the following language: ImNot ermitted west of San Ramon Road. Allowed at a minimum_density_Of22_u_nit"er_net acre Permitted within a residential development or mixed-use development if designed based on the following standards: Page 66, Building Design Table (Transit-Oriented District): Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to add the following language (Underlined text is new): Permitted within a residential development or a mixed-use development if - - designed based on the following standards: The maximurn residential density shall be a minimum of 3o-units per net acre and shall-not exceed a density e#85 units per acre. The remaining language in the DDSP would remain unchanged. Other public agencies whose approval is required None. 20 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Ill. Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards&Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Materials Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Instructions 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see Attachment A: Source List). A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier Analysis maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other Community Development Department 121 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, the checklist entry will be "No New Impact" and a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 22 ( City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant /No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): t. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,rock X outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? Discussion (a) As described in the DDSP EIR,there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area, and therefore there would continue to be no impact. (b) The project area is fully developed and there are no natural or built features that are considered scenic resources. Portions of the project area are visible from Interstate-68o(an officially designated State Scenic Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate-580(a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route),and San Ramon Road(a locally designated scenic route). As described in the DDSP EIR,all proposed projects visible from Interstate-68o and Interstate-580 would be subject to design review per polices of the General Plan. Furthermore,specific projects would be required to comply with the development standards and be consistent with the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP,which remain substantively unchanged. Therefore,no new impacts have been identified. (c) The project area is located in an urban built-out area and is adjacent to two major interstate freeways. The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts to the existing visual character would be less than significant. The proposed project would not change the allowable building heights and all new development projects would be requirement to comply with the existing development standards and be consistent with the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP. Therefore,the proposed revisions would cause no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the existing visual character beyond those Community Development Department 1 23 k f 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant (No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): identified in the DDSP EIR. (d) The project area is located within an urban area that produces considerable light and glare. Newly proposed development projects would be required to comply with the DDSP which includes a number of specific design guidelines that address light and glare. The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts from light and glare would be less than significant. The proposed project would continue to require that all new projects comply with the design guidelines regarding light and glare and therefore the proposed revisions would cause no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to light and glare and no additional review is required beyond the DDSP EIR. z. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section X 4526)or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest uses? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which due to their location or X nature, could result in conversion of Farmland 24 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion (a-e) The project area is located in an urbanized setting where there are no agricultural or forestry resources,and therefore there would be no new impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality X standard(including releasing emissions,which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? Discussion (a-c) As described in the DDSP EIR, short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would be anticipated with future development projects; however, all development within the project area would be required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) control measures identified in the DDSP EIR. Additionally,the El R concluded that the DDSP is consistent with population growth assumptions in the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and it anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled due to the DDSP guiding principles to create a walkable,transit-oriented,and mixed-use community. As all future development projects under the proposed amendments would be required to comply with the design standards in the DDSP and the mitigations identified in the DDSP EIR,the project would not conflict with or obstruct the air quality plan,violate air quality standards,nor result in cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. The proposed amendments were designed to ensure that vehicle trips,and related emissions,would not exceed trips/emissions from Community Development Department 1 25 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant /No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): the existing allowed land uses. As discussed in the transportation section, both total trips and peak hour trips are considerably less under the proposed land uses than the existing allowed land uses. Similarly,related emissions will be reduced compared to the project analyzed in the DDSP EIR. As such,the proposed amendments will not cause any new or more severe significant air quality impacts than identified in the DDSP EIR and no additional review is required. (d) As described in the DDSP EIR,future development project which generate toxic air contaminants (TACs)are required to comply with BAAQMD rules, regulations and permitting requirements. All projects are also required to comply with the California Air Resources Board(CARB)and implement any applicable toxics control measures(ATCMs). As such,there is no new impact identified with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No additional review is required beyond the DDSP EIR (e) As described in the DDSP EIR,odors to be expected within the project area include construction and operational(e.g.odors from restaurants or waste receptacles). Construction odors would be temporary and are not generally considered offensive. Future uses would be required to comply with City regulations in the Municipal Code(Chapter 8.24: Commercial Zoning Districts,Chapter 8.64: Home Occupations Regulations,and Chapter 8.2o: Residential Zoning Districts)which minimize operational odors. Therefore,there is no new odor impact from the proposed amendments. No additional review is required beyond the DDSP EIR. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special-status species in local or X regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not X limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of X 26 ( City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree X preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other X approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion (a-f) The project area is located in an urbanized setting and is fully built out. As described in the DDSP EIR, biological resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an"effect found not to be significant." Therefore,there would continue to be no impact on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined X in CEQA Guidelines section 15o64.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to section 15o64.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion (a-d) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is located in an urban setting and has been disturbed through prior development. There are no identified historic resources within the project area and therefore there would continue to be no impact. While the likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low,measures identified within the DDSP EIR with respect to the discovery of potential cultural resources during construction would continue to apply,and therefore no new impacts have been identified. No additional review is Community Development Department 1 27 I I I 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): required beyond the DDSP EIR. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? d) Landslides? X e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil. f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in X on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Discussion (a-c) As described in the DDSP EIR,there are three faults within six miles of the project area and future development projects may be subject to liquefaction. Mitigation measures identified in the DDSP EIR with respect to ground shaking and liquefaction would continue to apply,reducing these impacts to less than significant levels. There are no new impacts identified. (d) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is relatively flat,lacks steep slopes,and is not within a seismic hazard zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake,and therefore there 28 1 City of Dublin k Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): would continue to be no impact. (e) As described in the DDSP EIR,future development could result in soil erosion or loss of top soil during construction. Mitigation measures identified within the DDSP EIR with respect to soil loss and erosion during construction would continue to mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels and no new impacts have been identified beyond those in the DDSP EIR. (f) As described in the DDSP EIR,soils within the project area do not exhibit characteristics of expansive soils;however site-specific soil evaluations and adherence to City and State building codes would be required as part of any proposed development. Thus,there are no new impacts identified. (g-h) As described in the DDSP EIR,soils within the project area do not exhibit characteristics of expansive soils and wastewater sewers would be available to the entire project area,and therefore there would be no impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion (a-b) As described in the DDSP EIR,California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases, emitting over 400 million tons of CO,a year and that it is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would include emissions from area sources and mobile sources associated with new projects. With the proposed increase in net new residential development and the decrease in non-residential development,the projected daily traffic volumes were analyzed and projected to decrease from volumes projected for DDSP buildout as analyzed in the DDSP EIR. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable Community Development Department 29 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances, or waste within X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(V.13) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport X or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent X to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion (a-b) As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects could involve the transport, use,disposal, and release of hazardous materials during construction and may result in the demolition and removal of structures which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paints. Mitigation measures within the DDSP EIR would continue to apply, requiring compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP). Additionally, prior to demolition of structures constructed prior to 1980(when asbestos and lead based paints were commonly used), a qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the buildings to determine presence of asbestos and/or lead based paints. If found to be present,subsequent permits and approvals would be required along with the appropriate disposal of the contaminated materials. With implementation of the mitigation 30 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant /No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): measures in the DDSP EIR,there will be no new impact. (c) As described in the DDSP EIR, Nielsen Elementary School(75oo Amarillo Drive, Dublin)is located within a quarter mile of the project area and new businesses that locate near residential areas or schools may expose these sensitive uses to greater risk of exposure to hazardous materials,wastes,or emissions. However,as further described in the EIR,all new projects would be required to comply with regulations established by federal,state and local regulatory agencies,and therefore there will no new impacts to sensitive uses. (d) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant Government Code Section 65962.5;however,there are seven sites within the project area that are currently being monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). Mitigation measures described in the DDSP El R would continue to apply to new projects and would require the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and subsequent testing. There will be no new impact. (e-f) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip,and therefore there would be no new impact. (g) As described in the DDSP EIR,the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,and therefore there would be no new impact. (h) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is located in an urbanized area and would not be subject to potential wildfire hazards,and therefore there would be no new impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level(for example, X the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area,including through I Community Development Department 31 s i 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant /No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner,which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which would result in flooding on-or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a loo-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a loo-yearflood-hazard area structures,which would impede or redirect X flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X Discussion (a) As described in the DDSP EIR, new project construction could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. However, mitigation measures described in the DDSP El R would continue to require compliance with the RWQCB and preparation of a SWPPP,and no new impacts would result. (b-f) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is largely developed and served by existing stormwater facilities. Per RWQCB requirements,new projects would include design features to increase percolation(thereby decreasing stormwater flows,impact to drainage systems,and groundwater degradation),and no new impacts would result. (g-h) As described in the DDSP EIR,several properties within the project area are within the Federal 32 I City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)1 oo-year floodplain;however,new projects would be required to comply with FEMA floodplain regulations,and no new impacts would result. (i-j) As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche and is not within a designated dam failure inundation area,and therefore there would be no impact. to. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local X coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community X Conservation Plan? Discussion (a) As described in the DDSP EIR,the DDSP would help ensure greater land use compatibility and would not physically divide a community,and therefore there would be no new impact. (b) The proposed project is a change in the allocation of residential and non-residential uses within the DDSP planning area and other minor modifications to focus development in key areas at minimum densities. For residential development,the total allowable development in all three districts would increase from 1,3oo dwelling units(DUs)to 2,5oo DUs,for a net increase of 1,2oo DUs. Consistency of the DDSP with applicable General Plan policies was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The proposed amendments are likewise consistent with policy direction to intensify the downtown,increase residential opportunities close to the BART station,and increase opportunities for alternative transportation modes near existing transit corridors and facilities. No new impacts would therefore result. (c) The project area is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan,and therefore there would be no new impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known X mineral resource that would be of value to the Community Development Department 133 P 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? Discussion (a-b) As described in the DDSP EIR,there are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or designated in the General Plan or other land use plan,and therefore there would be no new impact. tz. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the X X local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground X X borne noise levels? C) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X X existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X X above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport X or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? Discussion (a-d) As described in the DDSP EIR,compliance with DDSP design guidelines and development standards would ensure that new projects do not exceed long-tern stationary noise thresholds. However,new projects could result in short-term construction-related noise and vibrations that exceed noise 34 1 City of Dublin k Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant I No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): standards for nearby sensitive uses and increased long-term mobile noise sources(vehicular traffic), Mitigation measures described in the DDSP El R would continue to apply to new projects including the preparation of construction noise management plans(when applicable)and noise from transporting construction materials. Additionally,new projects located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways would be required to prepare acoustical analyses and incorporate site-specific mitigations. Based on these requirements,impacts would remain less than significant and no new impacts would result. (e-f) The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore there would be no new impact. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or X indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? P b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? Discussion (a-c) The DDSP EIR determined that the existing land use designations would not induce substantial growth. It also determined there was no potential for significant effect on population and housing. Assuming an average of 2.7 persons per household(Dublin General Plan,2013),the additional 1,200 dwelling units would increase the City's population by 3,240 persons. This population increase is relatively minor and is consistent with the DDSP policies to encourage residential development in the downtown. Additionally,the proposed project would not displace existing housing nor require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such,there would be no new impact on population and housing. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X Community Development Department 135 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Discussion (a-b) As stated in the DDSP EIR,new projects would be required to comply with applicable building,safety, and fire codes,fund on-and off-site improvements,and contribute to the City's public facilities fees, and therefore there would be no new impact. (c-e) The proposed project would increase the demand for schools, parks,libraries and other public facilities by increasing the allowable net new residential units(and therefore population). However,the incremental increase in population of 3,27-640 persons is consideYed ^^! ,�n consistent with the DDSP's policies to encourage residential development in the downtown. Dublin Unified School District fees,City public facilities fees,and the DDSP provision for community benefits-ke ,g-at4e4Rg-spac_es-) would continue to apply for new projects,and therefore impacts would remain less than significant. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities X such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational X facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion (a-b) The DDSP EIR reviewed the impacts on recreational facilities of the project,which were found to be less than significant. The proposed project would increase the demand for parks by increasing the allowable net new residential units,and therefore population. However,the incremental increase in population is consistent with DDSP's policies to encourage residential development in the Downtown. Each new development project would pay public facilities impact fees that will fund the acquisition of parkland and the development of future park facilities. Impacts to recreational facilities would remain less than significant. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance,or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, X taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of 36 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant /No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or X a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(for example,sharp curves or X dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (for example,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion (a-b) The DDSP EIR identified the project's effects due to transportation and circulation as significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be lessened to a level of less than significant. Therefore,approval of the Project included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Additionally,as part of the DDSP approval in 2011,the City amended the General Plan related to acceptable Levels of Service(LOS) standards within the City to require a LOS of D or better for all intersections except for intersections within the DDSP area. The objective of this action is to ensure a balance between vehicular and non- vehicular circulation and create a more pedestrian-friendly downtown. For the 2014 DDSP Amendment,a new trip generation analysis was conducted to compare trip generation estimates for the proposed project to estimates for the DDSP. As shown in Attachment B: Traffic Generation&Distribution,the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in project trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. This analysis indicates that: • The proposed project is projected to result in a net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and 1,232 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the DDSP,the proposed project would generate six percent Community Development Department 137 R 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant /No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): fewer daily,and 17 percent fewer PM peak hour trips. The reason for this reduction is due to fact that commercial development generates a greater number of trips than residential development when compared on a similar square footage basis. • The 2014 DDSP Amendment would generate a zero net increase in AM peak hour trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. Based on the project trip distribution prepared for the DDSP El R,the proposed project trips were assigned to the roadway network and compared to the DDSP. The change in trip assignment between the DDSP and the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Attachment B: Traffic Generation&Distribution. Traffic queues were also analyzed under proposed project conditions for critical movements at the intersections of Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard. These two intersections were analyzed because the City's threshold of significance is greater than 5o trips if the intersection is already operating at LOS E or lower,which applied only to these two intersections. The maximum left-turn queues for the southbound and westbound approaches would remain unchanged with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are shown in Attachment B: Traffic Generation&Distribution. The DDSP EIR identified significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on three MTS roadway segments. Forecast AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project would be equal to or less than the trip generation forecast for the DDSP. Therefore,the proposed project will not cause new or more severe impacts than were identified in the prior EIR and no new traffic impacts result. (c) The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore there would be no new impact. (d) Similar to the level of detail contained in the existing DDSP,the proposed project does not include specific development plans which would substantially increase hazards nor does it alter roadway design such that implementation of the proposed project would create sharp curves or dangerous intersections. This analysis is done at the site specific level and the DDSP El R contained mitigation measures requiring that these issues be examined at that time. This condition,and therefore there would be no new impact. (e) As described in the DDSP EIR,new projects would be required to comply with applicable building, safety,and fire codes to ensure proper design and each future development project would fund on- and off-site improvements and contribute to the City's public facilities fees to minimize impacts to fire and police services. In addition,the projected daily traffic volumes would decrease with the proposed project,and therefore there would be no new impact. (f) As described in the DDSP EIR,the DDSP includes several policies and design guidelines to support alternative transportation and to create a mixed-use community that encourages use of alternative 38 1 City of Dublin Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): transportation,including walking,bicycling,bus transit,and the nearby West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project further enhances these objectives by increasing residential development opportunities near the BART station. Therefore,there would be no new impact. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements X and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity X to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion (a-e) As described in the DDSP EIR,no new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required and there would be adequate capacity with existing infrastructure. Additionally,new projects would be required to pay impact fees to fund stormwater infrastructure. Because the proposed project would offset an increase in allowable net new residential development by decreasing the allowable net new non-residential development,there would be no appreciable difference in water and wastewater servers,and therefore no new impact would result. f-g) I Community Development Department 139 2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is served by the Altamont Landfill,which has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards and a remaining estimated capacity of 45,720,000 cubic yards(74 percent capacity). Future development would occur over an extended period of time and the Altamont Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional solid waste until ultimate buildout of the project area. The proposed project would increase the projected total solid waste generation by 6.37 tons/day(or 2,325 tons per year)which represented approximately o.o6 percent of the permitted maximum disposal rate of 11,500 tons per day. This is not a significant increase and no new or more severe significant impact would result. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant X or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects,which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? Discussion (a) The project area is located in an existing urban area. The project area contains buildings,parking lots, and streets and as such,there is no natural habitat for fish or wildlife species. Because the site is already developed,there would be no new impacts to sensitive plant and animal species,riparian habitat,and federally protected wetlands,and/or archaeological resources. The City would conduct site specific review of any individual future development projects to ensure that there would be no impact to biological and/or historic resources. Implementation of this review process would ensure that future development within the project area do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce habitat or eliminate habitat for fish and wildlife species below 40 1 City of Dublin *,BRFryA - IMrt __ Addendum and Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact Significant Mitigation Significant No New ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): self-sustaining levels,and/or eliminate important examples of California history or pre-history. (b) The project area is largely built-out. Any additional development in the project area will primarily be infill development that will occur incrementally over time. The City of Dublin General Plan,as well as the DDSP,provide a framework for orderly future development consistent with goals and policies as approved by the City Council. The proposed project is to amend the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to change the allowable net new development for residential and non-residential uses. No specific development project is proposed. The additional potential residential development within the project area would not be considered cumulatively considerable given the reductions in non-residential development and overall development potential within the City. No new or more severe significant impact will result. (c) As described throughout this environmental checklist,the proposed project would not result in substantial environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly and therefore there would be no new impacts. Community Development Department 141 Addendum and Initial Study Attachment A: Source List City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2010) City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report(2010) City of Dublin, Dublin General Plan (1984, as amended). Community Development Department I A-1 i r I I C Addendum and Initial Study Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution Community Development Department ( B-1 � [ / & / b -4 5 5 5� . / / \ /� \ 1 \ / /�\ ■ E � o \ \ % D m » w� a � o ? c 2 $ / / y. m % % 0 M . M ■ k 0 5- § 2 ® \ C a y / / \ /. { � E \ I \ /� 2 � � . 7 4-0 \ 0 < � c \ C ) « � ■ } \ rn co \ § / \ f ) / C 'k / & k \ / E 75 / o \ 2U / \ L \ U \ c E \ 0 4 3 IV 0 § U — 2 k # \ } \ ~ N e m & In 00 a n tt n cu LA W 1 'a nr5 T. 1• �, Pd _ - tti9 6 `� a�1 as�e° a a C4 ro � � rn � s d ' w 'a eat —+ cn t.o y . 1T1 . TT r cr ,� pH 1,lia48noq � Z N ,k nBP�exdoH s z ' ro ua�,onsn� �z a y — C W "< March 11 , 2014 /ft Gti�� Of DUe 4 19 —w—i 82 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Community Development Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public. This document is also available in the Community Development Department, the Dublin Library, and the City's Website. The attached document was received in the Community Development Department after distribution of the March 11 , 2014 Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. March 11, 2014 Item #8.3 Kristi Bascom From: Mark Pilarczyk <mpilarczyk @roemcorp.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: Kristi Bascom; Jeff Baker; Linda Smith Subject: Planning Commission - PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) Good evening Kristi,Jeff, and Linda, Due to a scheduling conflict I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight and therefore cannot express my concerns in person. In an effort to provide my opinion, I wanted to submit to you this email in writing and strongly urge you to reconsider a small portion of the language in the Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (DDSP). My concern is with the line that states: "and restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District." As you may know, I am a strong supporter of increasing the residential unit allocation and think redevelopment within the downtown area of Dublin is critical to longevity while reviving and improving the commercial experience and lifestyle in the City of Dublin. Below are items that indicate why this portion of the language should be removed, and why you should consider including the properties west of San Ramon Road for receiving the residential unit allocation and potential residential redevelopment in this specific area: • There are many sites located west of San Ramon Road that abut existing residential uses. The potential expansion of these residential uses makes additional residential development logical, while prohibiting it would actually isolate the existing older retail and make it more dysfunctional. • The potential for future redevelopment in the area west of San Ramon Road is more appropriately seen as its highest and best use with multifamily residential and possibly office providing an adequate basis of population (renters/owners/employees) to make the core retail in the area continue to thrive while also filling existing vacant commercial space in the center of the downtown core area/Retail District. San Ramon Road creates a natural barrier/buffer from the denser commercial uses and provides a transition from the downtown core retail area to the multifamily and single family residences that currently exist on the west side of San Ramon Road. I strongly urge staff, Planning Commission, and City Council to seriously reconsider including the language which restricts the potential of redevelopment with residential uses west of San Ramon Road. Sincerely, Mark Pilarczyk Acquisitions Manager I..LED Green Atisoritrtt' ROEM Development Corporation 1650 Lafayette Street Santa Clara,CA 95050 T 408.984.5600 x 30 F 408.984.3111 www.ROEMcorp.com Pit',Nt cee,tfit'r the e;tt'tr>>'tittti`rt i efi}f't*pi Ha Iltti muffl. 1 2 4) DUBLIN SCHOOL , rp:i n DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT T 7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599 • 925-828-2551 • www,dublin.k12.ca.us All Dublin Students will RECEIVED Become Lifelong Learners MAR 0 6 2014 March 4, 2014 Luke Sims, AICP DUBLIN PLANNING Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Re: Impact of Zone Changes Dear Mr. Sims, Thank you for your letter of February 7, 2014, and for seeking information from the Dublin Unified School District concerning the foreseeable impacts of proposed land use/General Plan Amendments, including but not limited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, on the District's ability to house students generated by new residential development. As we previously discussed, the District's facilities are severely impacted by the continuing,influx of additional students to the District resulting in virtually every school in the District being at or over capacity. This has required the addition of portable buildings each year to house the additional students. Last year, for instance, the District enrolled an additional 1000 new students requiring an additional 12 portable classrooms throughout the District. Anticipated Student Generation Overall, the project areas under consideration, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3, Fredericsenk, The Green at Park Place, The Groves Lot 3, Heritage Park, Schaefer Ranch Unit 3, and the Transit Center Site A-1, are proposed to generate a total of 975 students from 3,628 units, 400 more than the current densities for those areas would generate, These are the "high" generation rates which District enrollment has consistently exceeded. The District anticipates that the Downtown Area General Plan Amendment alone will generate an additional 442 students, 243 at the elementary level, 93 at the middle school level, and 106 at the high school level. The District does not have the capacity to house these additional students, nor does it have the resources to increase that capacity sufficiently to add enough classrooms to house these students. Current Capacity Looking just at the elementary level, Dublin Elementary School will be faced with 272 new students from these project areas, and it is already short forty seats, well over a full classroom. The District plans to add six portable and six permanent classrooms to this school to house growth anticipated WITHOUT these changes in density. Frederiksen Elementary School anticipates growth of 10 new students from the Transit Center Site A-1, Even without this growth, it has had to convert a computer laboratory to classroom space this year. Dougherty Elementary School will be faced with 69 additional students from these zone changes, particularly from The Green at Park Place. Dougherty has already needed six portables this year for additional growth without these density changes. Kolb School will require space for an additional 181 students from Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3 and The Groves, Lot 3. Even without this additional enrollment, it has no available space with enrollment of over 1000 students. District Lack of Resources to Meet Capacity Needs The lack of a state bond for school construction has placed tremendous pressure on the District to meet the challenges of continuing growth in residential population and resulting student enrollment. A major step in addressing Dublin's current challenges for housing students and maintaining the quality of education provided is a new state school bond. Ironically, the District has also been unable to assess development impact fees that would fully mitigate the cost of housing new students from these new projects. Under the Education Code provisions for development impact fees, these fees were supposed to increase from meeting 50% of the cost of school facilities (Level 2) to 100% of the cost of new school facilities (Level 3) when state bond funds were no longer available. That change has been forestalled, leaving impacted districts throughout the state, including Dublin, struggling to meet the cost of school facilities to house new students from new development without the state providing its 50% of the cost of those facilities. Another option would be to remove the artificial limits on development impact fees all together, returning the District, and other districts throughout the state, to the option of developers providing full mitigation of the impacts of new development on school capacity. Other options for mitigation of these impacts include the formation of a Mello Roos Community Facility District through which future residents can repay a bond measure issued by the CFD to pay for school facilities, funding through mitigation agreements with developers, or further impacting the education of all students by the District being forced to increase class sizes and decrease the learning resources at schools in order to house more students. Facilities do impact learning, and having adequate facilities is critical to the quality of learning in Dublin's schools. We thank you again for the opportunity to address this issue before action by the Planning Commission or City Council and look forward to working with the City on ways to maintain and improve the quality of education provided in the District's schools while addressing the need for additional housing within the City. Sincerely, B v y Heironimus Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Dublin Unified School District cc: Steve Henke Kim McNeely