HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-024 WDbBART/TrffcMtgt09-25-2001 AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 25, 2001
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
3.
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HHH Properties, PA# 01-024: Modification of Traffic
Mitigation Measures
Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ~
Draft Resolution recommending City Council approve the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan Amendment with the modification of traffic
mitigation measures
Summary of Transportation Methodologies Related to the Dublin
Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means dated September 5,2001
Planning Commission agenda report and minutes for June 26, 2001
Open public hearing and receive staff presentation.
Question staff.
Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment
to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on
the subject properties and other properties designated as Retail/Office
and Commercial B, and amend Traffic Mitigation Measures, Specific
Plan Table 5, and appropriate Maps as shown in attached Exhibits A
through G.
DESCRIPTION:
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending an amendment to the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan for the Crown Chevrolet and Enea/HHH Properties to the City Council for approval on June
26, 2001. The amendment is being brought back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration due to
the addition of a traffic mitigation measure related to the potential traffic generation of the increased Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) on the subject properties.
Background:
On June 26, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council
approve a Specific Plan Amendment to change the FAR to 1.00 for the Crown Chevrolet and EneaJHHH
Properties, revise the Land Use Concept map in the Plan to reflect the projected uses, and include the
Enea and office properties at the end of Amador Plaza Road within the planning area boundaries of the
Specific Plan. (Note: A full analysis of the requested amendment is contained in the Planning
Commission agenda report for June 26, 2001, Attachment 3.)
Following the Planning Commission's consideration of the project, it was determined that the traffic
analysis performed by Omni-Means for the amendment should have included the traffic generation rates
for the approved Schaefer Ranch development in evaluating the traffic impacts of the changes proposed
with the amendment, and appropriate traffic mitigation measures should be suggested accordingly. As a
Copies To: Property owners C'~
PA File
/
Senior Planner Item No..
result of this revised analysis, an additional traffic mitigation measure to include a third northbound left-
turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road is suggested by the traffic
consultant for inclusion in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to reduce any potential traffic impacts of
the increased FAR.
ANALYSIS:
In evaluating the amendment request, staff developed several land use scenarios at various intensities for
testing by the traffic consultant to determine the maximum development capacity for this portion of the
downtown area. With the increased square footage at the various development intensity levels, the
resulting traffic impacts on the downtown area increase proportionately. This is addressed in the Traffic
Analysis section below.
Traffic Analysis
The traffic analysis was utilized to determine the maximum development potential that could be supported
by the existing transportation system, programmed roadway improvements, introduction of the BART
station, and the traffic mitigation measures included in the Specific Plan, to ensure that major downtown
intersections continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. In the previous traffic analysis reviewed
by the Planning Commission, the Schaefer Ranch project's traffic generation trips were excluded.
Attachment 2 contains the results of the traffic consultant's revised analysis of the various development
scenarios that were tested for the amendment which includes the traffic projected from the Schaefer
Ranch development.
In determining the volume of traffic for the analysis, the traffic consultant projected the volume of trips
anticipated to be generated under the existing land use intensities of the Specific Plan and all proposed
and/or approved projects, and added those expected to be generated by the increased FAR for the subject
properties. The resulting analysis found that the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road
would operate at an unacceptable level-of-service (LOS) E during the PM peak hour in the low-intensity,
medium-intensity and high-intensity development scenarios analyzed in the study if no mitigation was
added to the Specific Plan program. As the development intensity increased, the LOS at this intersection
deteriorated proportionately. With the high-intensity development scenario, the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive also deteriorated to LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hour without
mitigation. The maximum level of intensity of development which could be allowed on both the Crown
and Enea and still maintain an acceptable level of service (LOS D) without mitigation at the intersection
of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road was determined by the traffic consultant to be a total FAR of
0.51.
After review of the traffic consultant's analysis, staff requested that the development alternative providing
all the properties in the study area with a FAR of 1.00 be evaluated to determine if an acceptable LOS
could be maintained while still providing the properties with a higher development potential. The
resulting analysis determined that the LOS at the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection would
operate at an unacceptable level LOS E (0.94) during both the PM peak hour, without mitigation, and
with a FAR of 1.00 for the properties. The traffic consultant has recommended that an additional
northbound lefi-tum lane be included in programmed improvements in the Specific Plan for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road to maintain an acceptable LOS. With this mitigation
measure, the intersection would improve to LOS D (0.85) during the PM peak hour. This mitigation
measure is included in the resolution in Attachment 1 recommended for adoption by the Planning
Commission.
2
With the increased development potential from a change in the FAR of .83 to 1.00 on the existing office
site at the end of Amador Plaza Road (an increase of approximately 47,000 square feet), as recommended
by staff, and adjustments in the FAR for other properties in the planning area shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the Specific Plan, traffic generation levels would increase slightly in the area. This
revision in the maximum development potential for these properties would allow development
opportunities for those properties similar to those provided by this amendment to the Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HHH properties. However, the slight increase in traffic associated with these modifications in
the Plan would still maintain an acceptable LOS for mitigated traffic operations in the downtown.
In testing the maximum level of intensity for development on the subject properties, and taking into
account the additional traffic mitigation measure suggested by the consultant, it was found that the two
subject properties could develop to a maximum FAR of 1.49 with the intersections in the downtown area
still operating at an acceptable level of service. However, traffic generation resulting from this level of
development would cause the intersection at Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive to approach maximum
capacity. Additionally, significant vehicle queuing problems would result in the westbound direction on
Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street, as there is inadequate stacking distance
for westbound vehicles in this roadway segment during the PM peak hour. Taking this factor into account
and the results of the revised traffic study, a FAR of 1.0 for the Crown and Enea properties would be the
maximum FAR that can be implemented for the properties without exceeding the storage capacity for the
westbound left-turn movement at this intersection during the PM peak hour.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments approved on December 19, 2000.
The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area. Additionally, a supplemental traffic analysis was prepared
for this amendment to assess the impacts of the increased FAR's on the transportation system in the
downtown area and a mitigation measure will be incorporated in the Specific Plan to alleviate any
potential impacts on the transportation system of the downtown area. No additional impacts of the project
have been identified at this time. Further amendments or changes in the Specific Plan may require
additional assessment, and specific development proposals on individual sites may require additional
analyses.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the economic and traffic analyses prepared for this amendment, a FAR of 1.00 for the subject
properties, as previously determined by the Planning Commission, should be recommended to the City
Council. In addition to this revision, changes to FAR's for other properties shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the planning area should be recommended to provide consistency in the Plan and
provide similar properties with the same development potential opportunities. As discussed in the traffic
analysis section of this report, with the addition of a third northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road, acceptable levels-of-service could still be maintained at major
intersections in the downtown area with the increased land use development intensity. These changes
would be in conformance with the intent of the Specific Plan to create a vital urban environment in close
proximity to public transit facilities and transportation corridors.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by Staff that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1) Open public hearing.
2) Receive presentation by Staff.
3) Close public hearing.
4) Consider analysis of amendment and testimony.
5) Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment to the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on the subject properties and other properties designated as
Retail/Office and Commercial B, amend Traffic Mitigation Measures, Specific Plan Table 5 and
appropriate Maps as shown in attached Exhibits A through G.
4
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Dublin
Crown Chevrolet Property:
Betty Woolverton et al.
148{ Emmons Canyon Dr.
Alamo, CA
Enea/l-IHH Properties:
Robert Enea
St. Michael Investments
6670 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
HHH Investment Co.
6665 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Aldo Guidotti Trust
104 Diablo View
Orinda, CA 94563
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
7544 Dublin Boulevard; 6401-6445 & 6707 Golden Gate
Drive; 6665-6680 & 7450-7498 Amador Plaza Road
941-1500-014-17, -015-07, -032-00, -038-01, -042-02, -048-
00, -049-2, -049-3, -051-02, -052-00, & -053-00; and various
other properties in the Specific Plan area.
PD Planned Development and C-2 General Commercial
Districts
Retail/Office
R/A Retail/Auto and [UO Retail/Office
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's in the planning
area were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan
Amendments approved on December 19, 2000. A
supplemental traffic analysis was prepared for this
amendment to assess the impacts of the increased FAR's on
the transportation system in the downtown area and a
mitigation measure will be incorporated in the Specific Plan,
as discussed in this report, to alleviate any potential impacts
on the transportation system of the downtown area. The
proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and
maximum FAR's provided for in the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 0l-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR PA 01-024
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City adopted the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on December 19, 2000 which
was prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at the request of property owners, the Planning Commission does find that it is
appropriate to amend the West Dubli'n BART Specific Plan to extend the planning area boundaries and
include properties consisting of approximately 14 acres to the east of the existing area as shown on
Exhibit B, Specific Plan Boundary, Exhibit 3 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find it appropriate to amend the land use category to
Retail/Office for approximately 6 acres of land located in the Specific Plan area at the southeast corner
of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive for the property known as the Crown Chevrolet site, and to
Commercial B for approximately 20 acres of land located to the west, east and south of Amador Plaza
Road known as the Enea/HHH properties, as shown on Exhibit G, Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9 of the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find that based on the economic and traffic studies
prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a modification in the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) to 1.00 for the subject properties, and for other properties to ensure consistency in the
Plan, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Maximum Development
Potential, as amended, is appropriate to create a vital urban environment in close proximity to public
transit facilities and transportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find that based on the economic and traffic studies
prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, an additional traffic mitigation
measure to add a third northbound left-turn lane should be included in programmed improvements in the
Specific Plan for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road to maintain an acceptable level
of service (LOS D) with the FAR increase to 1.00 for the subject properties; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of increased FAR's were addressed by the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan A~!I!5 ~approved on
December 19, 2000, and prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071 and on file in the
Dublin Planning Department. The Negative Declaration found that the implementation of the Specific
Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures were incorporated into the
Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area. No additional impacts of the project have been
identified at this time; and,
WHEREAS, the PlaIming Commission did hold public hearings on the amendment PA 01-024 to
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on June 26, 2001 and September 25, 2001 and received testimony
and comments from the public and property owners; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment PA 01-024 is consistent
with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin
General Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the
City Council to: (1) modify the Plan boundaries as shown in Exhibit B; (2) add a third northbound left-
turn lane to the programmed improvements in the Specific Plan for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard
/San Ramon Road; (3) revise Table 5 of the Plan to reflect an increase in the allowable FAR for certain
properties to 1.00 as shown in Exhibit A; (4) revise the land use category for the property known as the
Crown Chevrolet site to Retail/Office, and for the property known as the EneaJHHH properties to
Commercial B as shown in Exhibit G; and (5) revise the applicable West Dublin BART Specific Plan
Maps as shown in Exhibits C, D, E and F.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
G\DowntownSpecPIns\West BART~PC reso West BART Amend 9-25-01 .doc
2
EXHIBIT A
TO ATTACHMENT 1
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PA 01-020
Table 5. Maximum Economic Development Potential (Amended)
SP Land Use Category* Acres FAR Existing Dev, Max. Dev.
DU/AC (sq. ft.)** (sq. ft.)
Commercial A (Com A) 10.87 0.25 243,344 118,375
Commercial B (Corn B) 7.76 O. 48 ~ '~, ,v_~Q~
26. 69 1. O0 · 203, 714 1,162, 620
Lodging (L) 9.31 1.20 103,231 339,530
(246 rooms) (486 rooms)
Retail/Office (R/O) 12.28 av.w Q '~ 38, 325
] 8. 40 1. O0 801, 500
v ~+~:~/^,,+~, r~/^~ 4.76 0.18 38,325
Residential (R) 3.54 45 DU/ac -- 160 DU
Office (O) 6.98 1.00 242,385 304,050
Mixed Use (MU) 11.33 1.00 ,- 493,430+
331 DU
Parking (P) 2.46 ......
Right-of-Way 2.11 ......
Totals 70.799 -- 6/15, ! 0 g
91.69 831, 000 3,219,505~
0 DU 491 DU
*Note: Potential plazas areas 'ncluded in acreages
** ExiSting 2]0, 744 Industrial/Warehouse square footage not included
(rev. 6/26/0 lpc)
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT B
' TO ATTACHMENT
',2
'Area of boundao
Ill
LEGEND
mm · · m SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT ~
EXHIBIT C
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
I RETAIt/RESTAURANT
~ OFFICE/SERVICE COMMERCIAL
~ INDUSTRIAIJBUSINESS PARK
~ HOTE!JENTERTAINMENT
I I VACANT (V)
~ RETAIL/AUTO
EXISTING LAND USES
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S,
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT ~
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
~ RETAIL,/OFFtCE
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT I~
EXHIBI'I' E
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
~ 0-1: RETAIL OOMMEROIAL ZONIN(~ DISTRIOT
~ 0-2: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRIO?
~ M-I:IJGHTINDUSTRIALZONING BISTRIOT
EXISTING ZONING
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.8.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT ~L
EXHIBIT F
.TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
IIlIIIIII ARTERIAL STREET
i I I I CO~ECTOR STREET
~III~llIII PROPOSED STREET (ST, PATRIC~S WA~
II1~1111 PROPOSED BIKEWAY- CLASS II (~N~
I~DI BIKEWAY - CLASS I (PATH)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
JUNE2001
CITY
OF DUBLIN
EXHIBITt¢
EXHIBI'I hi .,~
x. TO ATTACHMENT 1
to be
(coM B)
(~
LEGEND
.... SPECIRC PLAN BOUNDARY
~lImmIm~ USE AS NOTED
POTENTIAL PLAZA LOCATiON
OPPORTUNITY SITE
(P) PARKING
(L) HOTEL
(COM B)
(o~
(n/o)
(R)
(R/A)
(COM A)
LAND USE PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N,T.S.
JUNE 2001
MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL B
OFFICE
RETAIL/OFFICE
RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL/AUTO
COMMERCIAL A
CITY OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT ff._f'
omni.means
ENGiNEERS.PLANNERS
September 5, 2001
Ms. Janet Harbin
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Summary of Transportation Methodologies Used To Determine the Minimum
and Maximum FAR for the Eneas and Crown Properties Related to the
Dublin Specific Plans
Dear Janet:
The following letter report summarizes our methodologies used for determining the minimum and
maximum floor-arm-ratios (FAR) for the Eneas and Crown properties in the City of Dublin.
This would include trip generation assumptions for existing uses on the properties, future trip
generation based on land uses provided by EPS, and the impacts to key intersections in the Plan
area.
1. Existing Land Uses/Trip Generation
Existing land uses for the Eneas and Crown properties were provided by information supplied
by Eddie Peabody and yourself (March 1, 2001 meeting) as well as information from EPS.
Specifically, the Eneas properties existing site plan was provided to us to determine existing
square footage of various retail and auto uses on the site (attached). For the Crown properties,
existing square footage for auto uses was derived from an EPS summary table for the Dublin
Downtown Development Program (Table S-2, attached). For the Eneas properties, it was
determined that there are 98,789 square feet of existing retail and 24,980 square feet of auto uses
generating trips to/from the property that could be redeveloped using various proposed densities.
Existing office uses are also present on the Eneas site. However, we were told that these uses
would remain intact and that only vehicle access would likely change to these rear parcels. For
the Crown property, it was determined that there are 32,880 square feet of auto uses on-site.
In order to evaluate the various development proposals for each property, we removed existing
vehicle trips from the street network that are being generated by the two sites based on the above
land uses. As shown in Table 4 for the Eneas and Crown properties (attached), this equated to
157 AM and 444 PM peak hour trips for the Eneas property and 73 AM and 98 PM peak hour
Af'TACHMENT
ROSSVILLE
2237 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 782 -8688
FAX (916) 782~8689
REDDIN6
434 Redcliff Drive, Suite D
Redding, CA 96002
(530) 223~6500
FAX (530) 223-9326
ViSALIA
720 W. Center Avenue, Suite C
Viselia, CA 93291
(559) 734-5895
FAX (559) 734-5899
WALNUT CREEK
1901 Olyrnpic Boulevard, Ste. 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2230
FAX (925) 935-2247
trips for the Crown properties. We then added in the low, medium, and high density
development scenarios for Eneas and Crown properties provided by EPS (please refer to April
19, 2001 letter report to Ms. Janet Harbin, Omni-Means, "Initial Findings Related to the
Proposed Eneas and Crown Properties Dublin Specific Plans Amendment for Proposed Low,
Medium, and High Density Alternatives," not attached). After this letter report was issued, the
City decided to proceed with a "hybrid" FAR scenario for the Eneas and Crown properties. This
hybrid scenario would be based on a 1.0 FAR for each development property.
2. Future Trip Generation
For a 1.0 FAR development scenario for each property, we went back to our original trip
generation tables developed for the low, medium, and high density EPS data (sec attached EPS
Development Scenario Tables). For the Eneas properties, this equated to the "medium density"
scenario and is shown in Table 2 (Medium Density Scenario, attached). These land uses included
retail, residential, restaurant, hotel, and office uses which would generate 499 AM and 819 PM
peak hour trips. For the Crown property, this equated to the "low density" scenario and is
shown in Table 3 (Low Density Scenario, attached). These land uses would consist of office and
retail uses which would generate 344 AM and 356 PM peak hour trips.
The above peak hour trips were distributed onto the strect network (after removing existing trips
from current development) to evaluate the traffic impacts of a total 1.0 FAR development
scenario for the Eneas and Crown properties.
After submitting preliminary results, the City requested that we determine the minimum and
maximum FAR scenarios that could be developed. This would be based on two premises; 1) no
additional intersection mitigation; and, 2) additional mitigation measures provided by City
Transportation staff. The focus of our impact analysis would be the Dublin/San Ramon
intersection since it would be functioning at LOS D (0.90) during the PM peak hour with
currently proposed cumulative Dublin Specific Plan traffic (no new Eneas and Crown
redevelopment).
3. Key Intersection Impacts
To determine the minimum and maximum FAR ratios that could be developed for the two subject
properties, we proportionately reduced or increased the peak hour vehicle trips generated by the
1.0 FAR development scenario at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection (and other key intersections
on Dublin Boulevard). These peak hour vehicle trips were then compared to overall trip
generation from the Eneas and Crown properties to calculate a representative FAR. The results
would be as follows (see attached LOS calculation sheets):
Minimum FAR Scenario:
With no additional intersection mitigation at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection, it was
2
found that the two properties could develop to a total FAR of 0.51, given the future land
use mix as outlined in the EPS data. Between the two properties, this would equal 599
PM peak hour trips being generated onto the adjacent street network. This FAR would
allow the PM peak hour operation to remain at LOS D (0.90) at the Dublin/San Ramon
intersection.
1.0 FAR Scenario (from EPS data):
With no additional intersection mitigation at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection, an FAR
development scenario of 1.0 would result in LOS E (0.94) operation at the Dublin/San
Ramon intersection. Between the two properties, this would equal 1,175 PM peak hour
trips being generated onto the adjacent street network. With recommended intersect/on
improvements of three northbound left-turn lanes on San Ramon Road, intersection
operation would improve to LOS D (0.85).
Maximum FAR Scenario:
With recommended intersection improvements of three northbound Ieft-turn lanes on San
Ramon Road, it was found that the two properties could develop to a total FAR of 1.49.
This would result in LOS D (0.89) operation at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection.
Between the two properties, this would equal 1,751 PM peak hour trips being generated
onto the adjacent street network. It should be noted that with the maximum FAR
development ratio for the Eneas and Crown properties, the Dublin/Golden Gate
intersection would be approaching capacity. This intersection would be operating at LOS
D (0.89) with an FAR development scenario of 1.49. In addition, a FAR of 1.49 would
cause significant vehicle queuing problems in the westbound direction on Dublin
Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street. There is limited storage
capacity on this segment due to lane configurations and travel distance.~ Given the
additional vehicle trips that would be generated by a 1.49 FAR, there would not be
adequate stacking distance for westbound vehicles between San Ramon Road and Regional
Street during the PM peak hour.
In summary, the minimum FAR for the Eneas and Crown properties which would allow the
Dublin/San Ramon intersection to operate at LOS D (0.90) during the PM peak hour with no
mitigation would be 0.51. The maximum allowable FAR for the two properties with
recommended northbound triple left-turn lanes at the Dublin San Ramon intersection would be
1.49. However, given the limited vehicle stacking distance between San Ramon Road and
Regional Street, there would be significant transportation impacts associated with a 1.49 FAR
during the PM peak hour.
3
We hope that this letter helps to clarify various development scenarios for the Eneas and Crown
properties and apologize for any confusion caused by previous analyses reflecting "net additional
FAR." Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Transportation Planner
attachments
Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Personal communication on August
13, 2001.
4
Table $-2
Summery of Land Uses by Acres or Building Sqft
Dublin Downtown Development Program
Exlsling 1 ~
Area/ Acres/ Current Mixed Use
Land Use Calego,'y Unit Unite Policy Inlens~flcat~on
Auto soles Iai acres 8.55 8.55 2 55
Aulo related bldg. sqft 0 0 0
Hotel Dido sqft. 0 0 0
Ir~dus!risl/Wareho us~ b!dg sqfl. 0 0
Office/~otol b~dg ~fl. 0 0
Office/refall b~g sq~t ¢ 0 341,117
O~ice bldg. sqfl ~ 3; 20 13,120
Recre~tien/ente dainment bldg. sqlI. ~9,752 59.752
Re~identlal bldg. s~t, 0 0 0
Re~idenlial/rel~iI bldg, s~t. 0 0
Resider~ti~Fr elail/off~e bldg sqfl 0 0 0
Resl~ur~nt bldg. sqlt. 0 0 0
Re~tnurant/r nt~il/offlce bldg sqfl. 0 0 0
R~ai~ big box bldg, sqfl 271,354 36~,484 340.552
Retml general bldg, ~qCt O 0 38,939
~elall/reslauranl bfdg. sqfl 129,293 129,293 18,808
Re~iffcestauranFenmmt bldg, sqfl 0 0 52,637
Senior hoti.~ng bi.g. sqft ~ 0 73,340
Total Auto Sal~ Acre~ 8 ~5 6,55
Total Bidg, $~ft. (e~cludlng =~o s~les) ~3.519 ~6,649 1,11 ~,570
BART
Auto .safes Iai dotes 4,90 4.90 4 76
Adln related btdg sqfL 32,8R0 32,R80 O
Hotel bldg, sqft 103,23t 223,23! 223 23~
Industrial/Warehouse bldg sqtt 210,744 2t0,744 L~
Offioo/homt bldg. sqtf 0 0 0
Off;ce/retail bldg. sqff. 0 3 74,908
OlfJce bldg, sqft, 242,385 2§8,3~5 280,026
RocrenfiorVenlc rt element bldg. ~qll 35,602 35,602 0
Residential bldg. sqft, 0 160000 ~60,~0
Residenbal/reta~ (!) bldg sql. 0 0 ~26,455
Residenfiallrotai~,/ofhce (2) bldg. sq~l, 0 0 366,97~
Rpstauranf bldg, sqft ~7,823 17,823 18,818
RestatJr anVretail/¢f f~ce bldg, sqft. 0 0 39B 589
- Refait big bo~ bldg. sqfL 0 0 O
Ret~ general bldg. sqfl 243,344 243,344 ~34,355
ReleiVrcst~ ~ant bldg. sqft. 0 0 0
R etail/rost a~ra nEentnmt bldg. sqfL 0 0 90,473
Senior hou~mg bldg sqff, O 0 0
Building on p~ ~tng lot bldg. sqfl 6, 120 6 120 0
Torsi Bldg. SQft. (sxcludtng auto
4.90 4.90 4,76
892,129 1,218. l?~J 1,870,~28
(1) Assumes relail comprises 33% of to,el building soft. See Appen,],x A, continued tar details.
TABLE 4 EXISTING ENEAS PROPERTIES
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Eneas Properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49-2: Retail -- 26,222
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Retail:
Dialy 25,222 42.92 1083
AM Peak 25,222 1.03 26
PM Peak 25,222 3.74 94
Parcel # 38-1: Retail = 46,421
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 46,421 42.92 1992
AM Peak 46,421 1.03 48
PM Peak 46,421 3.74 174
Parcel # 42-2: Chrysler Auto Dealership = 24,890
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Auto Dealership
Daily 24,890 37.5 933
AM Peak 24,890 2.21 55
PM Peak 24,890 2.97 74
Parcel # 49-3: Retail = 27,146
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 27,146 42.92 1165
AM Peak 27,146 1.03 28
PM Peak 27,146 3.74 102
Total Daily Trips: 5,173
Total AM Trips: 157
Total PM Trips: 444
JR
16
45
JR
29
83
JR
4O
3O
Jrt
17
49
102
2O7
Out
10
49
Out
19
90
Out
15
44
Out
11
53
55
237
TABLE 4 EXISTING CROWN PROPERTIES
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Crown Properties:
Parcel # 15-7: Auto Dealership = 32,880
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Auto Dealership
Daily 32,880 37.5 1233
AM Peak 32,880 2.21 73
PM Peak 32,880 2.97 98
Total Daily Trips: 1,233
Total AM Trips: 73
Total PM Trips: 98
In
53
40
53
40
Out
2O
58
20
58
~ HAR-19-2001 09:54 FROH ECONOHIC g PLANNING ~-,c~f_,. TO 19Z5935Z247'-09310 P.O~
Enea Properties
Development Soenario$
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
FAR Stories Aoree LOt SF nu;Idlng 8ultdlng Use SF Units Park{n9 Park~ng
SF Footprint Needed Met
H;qh Density
4{I eJtd 49°2
1.5 6 3,$6§ 155,4&6 233,000 39,000 Retail 39,000 0 lt?
Residential 195,000 195 293
234,000 195 4.10
49-3 2.8
38-1 1.5
3 5.410 104,980 292,$4-4 98,000 Par~ing
$ 3900 t69,884 2~S,000 43,000 Relait/Restaurant
Hole;
42-2 1.5 6 4.000 174,240 261,000
Medium Oe~?,~ity
46 and 4.9.2 t 0
4 3,569 155,466 155,000
49-3 1.0 2 2.410 t 04r980 10~.000
38-1 10 4 3.900 169,884 170,000
42-2 1,0
Low Density
48 and 49-2 0.5
49-3 0.5
4 4000 174,240 174.000
2 3569 I 6~,466 75,000
292,$44 0 0
4.3,000 0
2t§,ooo 400 430
259,000 430 669
44,000 Retai[ 44,000 0 132
Office 220,000 0 660
264,000 0 792
1,048,544 625 1,76t
39,000 Retail 39,000 0 117
Residential 117,000 117 176
156,000 117 293
0 Residential 34,000 34 51
Pa~ing 71,000 0 0
105,000 34 51
43.000 R~aiFRestaurant 43,000 0 129
Hotel 129,000 258 258
172,000 258 387
44,000 Parldng 44,000 0 0
Office 174,000 O 522
1 ?d,000 0 622
607,000 326 1,253
38.000 Retail 38,000 0 114
Residential 38,000 38 76
76,000 38 190
2,410 104,980 50,000 25,000 Residential SO,OeO 50 100
28~
836
314
322
t,761
2~
202
202
314
126
322
448
1,253
190
100
35-1 0.5 2
42-2 05 2
3.~)0 189,$84 82.000 41,000 Retail/Restaurant 41,000 0 123
Hotel 41,000 82 82
82,000 82 206
4.000 174,240 84,000 42,000 Office 84,000 0 2~2
84,000 0 252
292,000 170 747
205
252
?47
~' MAR-iD-2001 09:~S_.. FROH ECOHOMiC,:, ~ PLANNING z,~S. TO 19=~.5~47-0~10 p.l~5
Crown ProperUes
Development Scenarios
Dublin Specific Plnn Amendments
FAR Stories Acres Lot SF
High DensitY
15-7 2.50
32 7.85
Building Building
SF Footprint
Medium Density
15-7 1,75
32 4.68
12 4.905 213,651 534,000
9 1 211 52,750 413,000
Low Density
4.905 213,661 3'4,000
1.211 52,750 247,000
45,000
47,475
47,000
47,475
Office
Parl<ing
Office
ParKing
15-7 1.0 4 4905 213,651 214,000 $4,000 Office
32 1.0 3 1.211 $2,750 128,000 4~,000 Parking
Retail
Unite Parking Perking
Needed Met
534,000 0 1,602
534,OOO 0 1.602
413,000 0 0
413,000 0 0
94%000 0 1.602
374,000 0 1,122
374,000 0 1,122
247,000 0 0
247,1000 0 0
621,000 0 1,122
421
1,181
1,181
1,632
415
707
707
1,122
214,000 0 642
214,000 0 642 334
118.000 0 0 338
10,000 0 30
128,000 0 30 338
342,000 0 6T2 672
TABLE 2 MEDIUM DENSITY SCENARIO
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Eneas Properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49-2: Retail = 39,000 Residential = 117 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Dialy 39,000 42.92 1674
AM Peak 39,000 1.03 40
PM Peak 39,000 3.74 146
Residential:
Daily 117 6.63 776
AM Peak 117 0.51 60
PM Peak 117 0.62 73
Parcel # 38-1: Retail = 21,500 Restaurant = 21,500 Hotel = 129,000
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 21,500 42.92 923
AM Peak 21,500 1.03 22
PM Peak 21,500 3.74 80
Restaurant:
Daily 21,500 89.95 1934
AM Peak 21,500 0.81 17
PM Peak 21,500 7.49 161
Hotel:
Daily 129,000 8.23 1062
AM Peak 129,000 0.56 72
PM Peak 129,000 0.61 79
Parcel # 42-2: Office = 174,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Office
Daily 174,000 11.01 1916
AM Peak 174,000 1.56 271
PM Peak 174,000 1.49 259
Parcel # 49-3: Residential = 34 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Residential:
Daily 34 6.63 225
AM Peak 34 0.51 17
PM Peak 34 0.62 21
Total Daily Trips: 8,610
Total AM Trips: 499
Total PM Trips: 819
In
25
7O
10
49
in
14
39
12
108
44
42
239
31
In
3
14
341
353
Out
16
76
50
24
Out
9
42
8
53
28
37
Out
33
228
Out
15
7
159
467
//
TABLE 3 LOW DENSITY SCENARIO
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Crown Properties
Parcel # 15-7 Office = 214,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Pr~ect Trips
Office:
Daily 214,000 11.01 2356
AM Peak 214,000 1.56 334
PM Peak 214,000 1.49 319
Parcel # 32: Retail = 10,000
Size/Units
Trip Rate Project Trips
Retail:
Daily 10,000 42.92 429
AM Peak 10,000 1.03 10
PM Peak 10,000 3.74 37
Total Daily Trips: 2,785
Total AM Trips: 344
Total PM Trips: 356
In
294
38
In
6
18
300
56
Out
40
281
Out
4
19
44
300
iD-
CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: PM2010DSP w/ 0.51 Total FAR E&C' no mitigation 09/06/01
INTERSECTION 1 San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM OUMULATIVE Peak He, ur 5:00-6:00 PM
E:CTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
134 727 346
'~' I I ~ "~
~ <--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT 171 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 345 RIGHT
THRU 478 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 426 THRU
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608 --- 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 1437
I < -- - . ..... >
v I I I
N I I
W + E 838 1042 1536
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: San Ramon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1536 534 * 3000 0. 1780
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 3000 0.2793 0.2793
SB RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 0.1469 0.146'9
LEFT (L) 346 346 3000 O. 1153
EB RIGHT (R) 608 147 * 3000 0.0490
THRU (T) 478 478 3300 0.1448 0.1448
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 0.0570
WB RIGHT (R) 345 155 * 1650 0.0939
THRU (T) 426 426 1650 0.2582
LEFT (L) 1437 1437 4304 0.3339 0.333'9
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.90
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAF'=
CC:TALOS Software ver. 4.~ by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: PM2010DSP w/ 1.0 Total FAR E~C no mitigation 09/06/01
INTERSECTION 1 San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City c,f Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak. Hc, ur 5:00-6:00 PM
RIGHT THRU LEFT 134 727 347
· ~ I : I ....
I <--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT 171 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 378 RIGHT
THRU 493 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 458 THRU
CCTA METHOD
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608 --- 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 1566
I <--- ' ....... > ~
v I ~ ~ v
W + E 838 1042 1589
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: San Ramon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1589 497 * 3000 0.1657
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 3000 0.2793 0.2793
SB RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 0.1469 0.1469
LEFT (L) 347 347 3000 0.1157
EB RIGHT (R) 608 147 * 3000 0.0490
THRU (T) 493 493 3300 0.1494 0.1494
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 (I.0570
WB RIGHT (R) 378 187 * 1650 0.1133
THRU (T) 458 458 1650 0.2776
LEFT (L) 1566 1566 4304 0.3638 0.3638
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAF'ACITY RATIO: (I.94
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: E
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAP=
CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: PM2010DSP w/ 1.0 TotalFARE&C NBTripleLT MIT. 09/06/01
INTERSECTION i San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 8-PHASE SIGNAL
134 727 347
· ~ I I I ....
I <--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT 171 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 378 RIGHT
THRU 493 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 458 THRU
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608 --- 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 1566 LEFT
N ~ I ~ SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 838 1042 1589 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: San Ramon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C: CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1589 497 * 3000 0.1657
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 4304 0.1947 0.1'947
SB RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 0.1469 0.1469
LEFT (L) 347 347 3000 0.1157
EB RIGHT (R) 608 287 * 3000 0.0957
THRU (T) 4'93 493 3300 0.1494 0.1494
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 0.0570
WB RIGHT (R) 378 187 * 1650 0.1133
THRU (T) 458 458 1650 0.2776
LEFT (L) 1566 1566 4304 0.3638 0.3638
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.85
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
' * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAP=
CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: PM2010DSP w/ 1.49 TotalFAR E&C NBTripleLT MIT. 09/06/01
INTERSECTION 1 San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Cc, unt Date CUMULATIVE 2(110 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT
........... 134 727 349
I <--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT 17i 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 411 RIGHT
THRU 508 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 490 THRU
8-F'HASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608--- 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0--- 1695 LEFT
v I I I v
N I I I SIC WARRANTS:
W + E 838 1042 1642 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split'}' N
STREET NAME: San Ramon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1642 461 * 3000 0.1537
THRU (T) 1042 1(142 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 4304 0.1947 0.1947
SB RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 0.1469 0.146'9
LEFT (L) 349 349 3000 0. 1163
EB RIGHT (R) 608 287 * 3000 0. 0957
THRU (T) 508 508 3300 0.1539 0.1539
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 0.0570
WB RIGHT (R) 411 219 * 1650 0.1327
THRU (T) 490 490 1650 0.2970
LEFT (L) 1695 1695 4304 0.3938 0.3938
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.89
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAP=
CCTALOS Software vet. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: PM201ODSP w/ 1.49 Total FAR E&C: 09/06/01
INTERSECTION 2 Golden Gate/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 5-PHASE SIGNAL
271 74 56
~ <--- v ---> ; Split? N
LEFT 348 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 --- 70 RIGHT
THRU 1456 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 1097 THRU
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 389 --- 1.0 2.0 1.1 2.1 1.0 --- 218 LEFT
~ < ........ > ~
v ~ I ~ v
N ~ ~ I SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 716 208 537 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
STREET NAME: Golden Gate
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 537 319 * 3000 0.1063
THRU (T) 208 208 1650 0.1261
LEFT (L) 716 716 3000 0.2387 0.2387
T + R 527 3000 0.1757
SB RIGHT (R) 271 271 1650 0.1642
THRU (T) 74 74 1650 0.0448
LEFT (L) 56 56 1650 0.0339
T + R 345 1650 0.2091 0.2091
EB RIGHT (R) 389 0 * 1650 0.0000
THRU (T) 1456 1456 4950 0.2941
LEFT (L) 348 348 1650 0.2109 0.2109
WB RIGHT (R) 70 70 1650 0.0424
THRU (T) 1097 1097 4950 0.2216
LEFT (L) 218 218 1650 0.1321
T + R 1167 4950 0.2358 0.2358
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.89
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
· ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
'INT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAP=
/?
Default Scenario Fri Sep 7, 2001 11:09:47 Page 2-1
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM 35-2807-20, #355
Year 2010 (DSP with 1.0 FAR E &C) - PM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection Operations Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 San Ramon Rd./Dublin Blvd. (NO MITIGATION)
Cycle (sec): 122 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1,026
Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 70.8
Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: 0vl Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 20302 20301 20202 30101
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 838 1042 1589 347 727 134 171 493
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 838 1042 1589 347 727 134 171 493
User Adj: 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 838 1042 1589 347 727 134 171 493
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 838 1042 1589 347 727 134 171 493
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
~[LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 838 1042 1589 347 727 134 171 493
608 1566 458 378
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
608 1566 458 378
1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
608 1566 458 378
0 0 0 0
608 1566 458 378
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
608 1566 458 378
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.75 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.75 0.92 1.00 0.85
Lanes: 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 3502 5187 2842 3502 5187 1615 3502 3610 2842 5253 1900 1615
Capacity~-nalysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.20 0.56 0.10 0,14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.21 0.30 0.24 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 28.1 36.6 70.8 14.6 22.0 22,0 9.8 18.3 18.3 35.4 42.7 42.7
Volume/Cap: 1.04 0.67 0.96 0.83 0.78 0.46 0.61 0.91 1.43 1.03 0.69 0.67
Delay/Veh: 89.7 38.5 38.9 65.0 51.9 45.9 58.2 70.5 256.8 73.8 37.0 36.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 89.7 38.5 38.9 65.0 51.9 45.9 58.2 70.5 256.8 73.8 37.0 36.7
DesignQueue: 46 52 51 21 42 8 11 29 37 81 22 18
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to OMNI-MEANS, ROSEVILLE,CA
Default Scenario Fri Sep 7, 2001 11:09:47 Page 3-1
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADDE~rDUM 35-2807~20, #355
Year 2010 (DSP with 1.0 FAR E &C) - PM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection Operations Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection ~2 San Ramon Rd./Dublin Blvd. (WITH MITIGATION)
Cycle (sec): 110 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.020
Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 67.5
Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Ovt Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 30302 20301 20202 30101
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 838 1042
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 838 1042
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 838 1042
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Reduced Vol: 838 1042
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00
Final Vol,: 838 1042
1589 347 727 134 171 493 608 1566 458 378
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1589 347 727 134 171 493 608 1566 458 378
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1589 347 727 134 171 493 608 1566 458 378
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1589 347 727 134 171 493 608 1566 458 378
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1589 347 727 134 171 493 608 1566 458 378
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0,91 0.75 0.92 0.91 0,85 0.92 0.95 0.75 0.92 1.00 0.85
Lanes: 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 5253 5187 2842 3502 5187 1615 3502 3610 2842 5253 1900 1615
Capacity~nalysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.20 0.56 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.21 0.30 0.24 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.7 28.6 60.5 13.2 23.1 23.1 9.9 16.5 16.5 31.9 38.5 38.5
Volume/Cap: 0.94 0.77 1.02 0.83 0.67 0.40 0.54 0.91 1.43 1.03 0.69 0.67
Delay/Veh: 62.2 40,5 51.7 59.9 41.5 38.2 49.8 65.5 251.7 69.6 33.7 33.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 62.2 40.5 51,7 59.9 41.5 38,2 49.8 65.5 251.7 69.6 33.7 33.4
DesignQueue: 44 50 49 19 36 7 10 27 33 73 19 16
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to OMNI-MEANS, ROSEVILLE,CA
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 26, 2001
SUBJECT:
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HHH Properties, PA# 01-020
Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution recommending City Council approve the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan Amendment
2. Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) dated May
31, 2001
3. Initial Traffic Analysis prepared by Omni-Means dated April 19, 2001
4. Subsequent Traffic Calculations prepared by Omni-Means dated May
15, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4~
Open public hearing and receive staff presentation.
Receive testimony of property owners and the public.
Question staff, property owners and public.
Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment
to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on
the subject properties and other properties designated as Retail/Office
and Commercial B, and amend Specific Plan Table 5 and appropriate
Maps as shown in attached Exhibits A through G.
DESCRIPTION:
On December 19, 2000, in adopting the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the City Council directed staff
at the request of the property owner to analyze a change in the intensity of development and the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) for the property presently operating as Crown Chevrolet located in the Specific Plan
area at the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive. Additionally, the City Council
directed staff to analyze inclusion of approximately 20 acres of adjacent property known as the Enea
Plaza and adjacent office development within the Specific Plan area boundaries, along with a request by
the property owner to increase the FAR for that property. Staff has evaluated the requests based on
economic and traffic analyzes prepared by consultants, and recommends that a Specific Plan Amendment
be recommended for adoption by the City Council to change the FAR to 1.00 for both properties, revise
the Land Use Concept map in the Plan to reflect the projected uses, and include the Enea and office
properties at the end of Amador Plaza Road within the planning area boundaries.
Background
In a letter dated October 26, 2000, Robert Enea of St. Michael Investment expressed concern that the
properties on which the Enea Plaza shopping center, the Stoneridge Chrysler auto dealership and the
office buildings at the terminus of Amador Plaza Road are located were not included within the boundary
of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, and thereby would not receive the benefits of a higher FAR
Copies To: Property owners
PA File
AT'l'ACH~TlE[~'ilh~.y~nner Item No. ~, 3
as other properties near the BART Station would. In determining the extent of the boundaries of the
Specific Plan area, staff had considered the property for inclusion; however, since it had recently been
redeveloped, it was not anticipated that a change in use would occur over the five- to seven-year time life
envisioned by the Plan. Mr. Enea has requested that an FAR of 1.00 and a Commercial B use designation
be applied to the properties. Additionally, Mr. Enea has requested that the increased FAR and the
Commercial B use designation be applied to the adjacent property at the end of Amador Plaza Road
where office buildings are presently located, owned by HHI-I Investment Company and the Aldo Guidot-ti
Trust. In this report, the Enea, HHH Investment Company, and Guidotti properties will be referred to as
the Enea/HHH properties.
The City Council also received a letter dated November 16, 2000 from William Bums and another dated
December 14, 2000 from Mark Hirsch, both representing Betty Woolverton and Crown Chevrolet,
requesting a change in land use for approximately six acres located at the southeast comer of Dublin
Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive and at the southeast comer of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive
to permit construction of an office and retail building twelve or more stories in height and a FAR increase
to 2.50 for the site. In the existing Specific Plan, the property was assumed to remain as an auto
dealership with the existing FAR of .18. This assumption that the property would remain under the
existing use was made based on conversations with Crown Chevrolet during the development of the
Specific Plan. Since the Specific Plan analysis was essentially complete when the letter was received
from Mr. Bums indicating that the property owner was interested in a change in land use and intensity for
the site, the City Council directed staff to initiate an evaluation of the request and that of Mr. Enea
following adoption of the Plan.
ANALYSIS:
In the development of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan last year, an extensive economic analysis of
existing and projected market demands was prepared by a consulting land use economics firm, EPS, to
assist in determining potential land uses and FAR's, or intensity of use, for properties within the Plan
area. Based on the information compiled in the economic study, a thorough traffic and circulation
analysis was prepared by Omni-Means, the City's traffic consultant, to determine the maximum intensity
of development which could be supported by the existing transportation system, programmed roadway
improvements, the introduction of the BART station, and additional traffic mitigation measures to ensure
that major downtown intersections continue to operate at satisfactory levels nf service. To evaluate the
requested changes for the Enea/HHH Properties and the Crown Chevrolet site in this amendment,
additional economic and traffic analyzes were also prepared to evaluate various levels of land use
intensity and development for the properties and thereby determine the maximum development potential
possible for this portion of the Specific Plhn area.
Economic Analysis
The impetus for development in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is the future BART station at
the terminus of Golden Gate Drive, immediately north of the 1-580 freeway. The development of the
BART station, which is expected to be completed in 2004, is anticipated to result in a significant increase
in the demand for new office, commercial, high-density residential and similar uses because of improved
regional accessibility and the patronage of the new transit station. When the Specific Plan was prepared
and adopted, many of the land use types in this area were changed to uses consistent with more urbanized
development to reflect the economic projections of EPS's study. Additionally, the intensity of use,
expressed in floor area ratio (FAR), or the ratio of the square footage of the site to that of the structure on
the site, for many properties was increased from an average of .31 FAR to FAR's up to 1.00, dependent
on the property's location in proximity to the BART station and the projected land use.
The economic analysis prepared for the amendment to the Plan now being considered analyzed the Crown
Chevrolet property and the Enea/HHH properties to determine the appropriate land use type and
maximum development potential, reflected by the FAR, for those sites within the context of their
locations relative to the BART station. Various land use scenarios and FAR's consisting of low-,
medium~ and high- intensity development were tested by the economic consultant for each property to
illustrate possible development potential, and these are shown in Table 1 of the Memorandum from
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) dated May 31, 2001, Attachment 2. This information is briefly
summarized below. The economi~ analysis also projected the revenue impacts on the City of each land
use change in Table 2 of Attachment 2.
Crown Chevrolet Property: The Crown Chevrolet property is currently shown in the Land Use Plan,
Exhibit 9, of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan with a RetalI/Auto land use designation. The Crown
Chevrolet property contains an auto dealership which is planned to move to the East Dublin area to locate
With the other auto dealerships currently there. The existing FAR for the Crown Chevrolet site is
approximately. 18, with an existing 38,325 square feet of building space. The existing FAR and square
footage of the sm~ctures on the site are reflected in the Specific Plan in Table 5, Maximum Economic
Development Potential. The majority of the lot acreage is utilized as parking and storage of automobiles
and tracks. The property owner has requested a high-intensity FAR and development potential of 2.50 for
the site.
The location of the property at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive, which is less
than one-quarter mile from the future BART station, lends itself to potentially be developed as an office
type use. There is also a potential market in this area for ground-floor retail. Based on the square footage
that would result from developing the Crown Chevrolet site at a FAR of 1.00 (low-intensity), 1.75
(medium-intensity) or 2.50 (high-intensity), a parking structure at varying heights would be necessary on
the smaller 1.211 acre parcel south of St. Patrick Way to accommodate the parking needs of the
development. Because parking structures are not considered in the calculation of FAR, as they usually
contain little or no useable space, the building square footage associated with the acreage in the smaller
parcel has been added to the amount permitted on the office use parcel in the following table. The low-
intensity scenario includes a small amount (10,000 square feet) of ground-level retail in the parking
garage building.
Crown Chevrolet Property - Maximum Development Potential
Development FAR (Floor Projected Land Acreage Existing Potential Required
Intensity Area Ratio) Use Square Square Stories
Footage Footage
Low 1.00 Office 4.905 38,325 266,000 4
Parking/Retail 1.211 0 10,000 4
6.116 38,325 276,000 sqfl
Medium 1.75 Office 4.905 38,325 466,000 8
Parking 1.211 0 0 8
6.116 38,325 466,000 sqfl
High 2.50 Office 4.905 38,325 534,000 12
Parking 1.211 0 0 9
6.116 38,325 534,000 sq ft
As shown in the table above, a FAR of 1.00 applied to the Crown Chevrolet property could result in a
maximum of approximately 276,000 square feet of development, which is over seven times the mount of
building square footage on the property at the present time. At a FAR of 1.75, approximately 466,000
square feet of space could be developed, approximately 12 times greater in size than the existing building
area on the site. The highest intensity tested for the site, a FAR of 2.50 as requested by the property
owner, could create 534,000 square feet of building area, and would be approximately 14 times greater in
size than the existing building area presently on the site.
The low-intensity FAR evaluated is only considered "low" for the purposes of this study. A FAR of 1.00
for this portion of the Specific Plan would exceed the FAR of all existing development in the Plan area as
the average FAR for developed properties in the area is .23. As the FAR is increased for the property and
the square footage of the building size increases, the parking needs for the development would also
increase. Additionally, as the development of the site intensifies to an FAR of 1.75 or 2.50, the number of
stories in the office building and the parking structure increase. At the present time, eight stories is the
maximum height permitted in the Specific Plan area, wkich corresponds with the medium-intensity FAR
of 1.75 in the above table. With the increased square footage at the various development intensity levels,
the traffic impacts of the potential development on the downtown area increase proportionately. This is
addressed in the Traffic Analysis section below.
Enea/HttHProperties: Robert Enea is requesting that the boundaries of the Specific Plan be adjusted to
include his remaining approximately 14 acre property adjacent to th? existing Plan boundaries and extend
to the alignment 0fthe 1-580 and 1-680 freeways, and that the land use type for this area be shown as
Commemial B in the Plan with a permitted FAR of 1.00. The land is currently developed as a Planned
Development district containing the Enea Plaza, a retail shopping center, and the Stoneridge Chyrsler auto
and truck dealership. As this property was not included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, a
potential land use is not shown in this location on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9, of the Specific Plan.
Additionally, an approximately 6 acre portion of the property at the end of Amador Plaza Road, owned by
HHH Investment Co. and Aldo Guidotti, is currently within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan area and is included in Mr. Enea's request for the land use change. In the Specific Plan, this
property is shown as Retail/Office in the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9, with an increased FAR of .83. The
existing building square footage on the site, currently developed with three office buildings, is 61,812
square feet, and with the increased FAR shown in the current Specific Plan, it has a potential for
redevelopment at approximately 225,250 square feet. Mr. Enea has requested that this be increased to a
' FAR of 1.00 with.this amendment, and the Land Use Plan reflect a Commercial B type land use for
consistency with the Enea Plaza property.
In his request to the City Council, Mr. Enea expressed a desire for flexibility in the Commercial B land
use category on the properties to accommodate potential lodging or upper level apartment uses. The
property is currently zoned as a Planned Development district which allows commercial and retail uses
4
similar to a C-1 General Commercial zoning district. A motel or hotel facility is required to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission under the City's Zoning Ordinance in all
commercial zoning dislricts. In this instance, an amendment to the Planned Development district would
be necessary to permit a motel or hotel facility in this area. In regard to upper level apartment uses,
Objective 6.7 of the Specific Plan allows the City to consider a vertical mix of uses, such as residential
over retail use, and also live/work units in the planning area when reviewing a proposal.
In analyzing development intensities and land uses for the properties, the economic consultant considered
three potential FAR designations and land use mixes. The property is currently buik at a FAR of.21 on
the retail portion of the Enea/HHH properties, and at a FAR of .23 on the portion of the properties
developed as office uses. The low-intensity development scenario in the economic study assumed a FAR
of.50 with retail, office, residential and hotel uses onthe 14 acre retail portion of the properties. The
medium-intensity development scenario assumed a FAR of 1.00 with similar use types and a parking
garage. The highest intensity of development for the property considered in the analysis was at a FAR or
1.50. The portion of the properties containing the existing office uses was not analyzed in the economic
study as it is in the current Specific Plan at a FAR of.83, and only the medium- and high-intensity
development scenarios would increase the allowable square footage on the property. However, staff did
evaluate it for this amendment, and with a change from the existing FAR of .83 to 1.00 as requested, an
increase of approximately 47,000 square feet would result in the office use area. With a FAR of 1.50, an
increase of approximately 183,800 square feet would result. The resulting maximum development
potential and square footage projected for the entire EneaJHHH property area considered for change at
this time is summarized in the table below.
Enea/HHH Properties - Maximum Development Potential
Development FAR Projected Land Use Acreage Existing Potential Required
Intensity Square Square Stories
Footage Footage/Units
Low .50 Retail/Residential 3.569 46,421 75,000/38du 2
Residential 2.410 27,146 50,000/100du 2
Hotel/Restaurant 3.900 25,672 82,000 2
Office 4.000 24,840 84,000 2
Retail/Office 6.260 61,812 136,345 2
20.14 185,891 427,345 sq.ft.
138du
Medium 1.00 Retail/Residential 3.569 46,421 156,000/117du 4
Residential/Parking 2.410 27,146 132,000/34du 2
Hotel/Retail/Restaurant 3.900 25,672 170,000 4
Office/Parking 4.000 24,840 174,000 4
Retail/Office/Parking 6.260 61,812 272,690 4
20.14 185,891 904,690 sq.ft
151du
High 1.50 Retail/Residential 3.569 46,421 233,000/194du 6
Parking 2.410 27,146 315,000 3
5
Hotel/Retail/Re staurant 3.900 i 25,672 255,000 6
Office/Retail 4.000 24,840 261,000 6
Retail/Office/Parking 6.260 61,812 409,030 6
20.J4 185,891 1,473,030sq.ft.
194du
As summarized in the table above, a FAR of .50 would increase the potential square footage on the Enea
properties to 427,345 (over two times the existing square footage on the property), and could add 138
dwelling units to the site. At a medium-intensity FAR (1.00), as requested by the property owner, the
square footage could increase to 904,690 square feet (over 4 times the existing square footage on the
property), and provide 151 dwelling units. The highest intensity of developmant (1.50), could result in up
to 1,473,030 square feet of office and retail commercial development in this area, with 194 dwelling
un/ts. Development at this level of intensity would be almost eight times greater in square footage than
the existing development on the site. Ifa project were proposed containing a multi-family residential
component, as analyzed in the economic analysis, a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Amendment may be required. This is not being considered with this amendment as no actual
development project has yet been proposed for the property.
Traffic Analysis
Based on-the in_formation compiled in the economic study for the Crown Chevrolet site and the
EneaJHHH properties, a thorough traffic and circulation analysis was prepared by Omni-Means, to
evaluate the effects on the transportation system inthe downtown area of the various levels of
development intensities and the land use mixes in the land use scenarios. The traffic analysis was then
utilized t6 determine the maximum development potential that could be supported by the existing
transportation system, programmed roadway improvements, introduction of the BART station, and the
traffic mitigation measures included in the Specific Plan, to ensure that major downtown intersections
continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service.
The traffic analysis prepared by Omni-Means, Attachment 3, contains the results of the traffic
consultant's evaluation of the scenarios. The analysis found that the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road would operate at an unacceptable level-of-service (LOS) E during the PM peak hour
with the low-intensity, medium-intensity and high-intensity development scenarios. As the development
intensity increased, the LOS at this intersection deteriorated proportionately. With the high-intensity
development scenario, the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive also deteriorated to
LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hour.
After review of the traffic consultant's analysis, staff requested that another development alternative
providing all the properties in the study area with a FAR of 1.00 be evaluated to determine if an
acceptable LOS could be maintained while still providing the properties with a higher development
potential. The resulting analysis determined that the LOS at the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road
intersection would operate at an acceptable level (LOS D) during both the AM and PM peak hours (refer
to Attachment 4, Subsequent Traffic Calculations prepared by Omni-Means dated May 15, 2001).
Additionally, Public Works stafftested an increase in the FAR to 1.25 for both properties and found that
that level of development intensity was close to the threshold between LOS D and E. Staff determined
that the increased FAR for all the properties at 1.00 would be the best alternative relative to malmaining
an acceptable LOS at the major intersections in the downtown area.
Additionally, with the increased development potential from a change in the FAR of .83 to 1.00 on the
existing office site at the end of Amador Plaza Road (an increase of approximately 47,000 square feet),
and adjustments in the FAR for other properties in the planning area shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the Specific Plan. This revision in the maximum development potential for these
properties would allow development opportunities for those properties similar to those provided by this
amendment to the Crown Chevrolet and Enea/HHH properties (discussed below in the section on Land
Use Modifications), and traffic volumes would increase slightly. However, the slight increase in traffic
associated with these modifications in the Plan would still maintain an acceptable LOS for traffic
operations in the downtown.
Height Issues
The amendment request from the property owner of the Crown Chevrolet property suggests that an
increase in the limit for buildings be allowed for this particular site to permit buildings up to twelve
stories in height. The current height regulation in the Specific Plan allows construction of buildings up to
eight stories in height. When the City Council considered adoption of the Specific Plan in December
2000, an increase in height for buildings up to ten stories was considered. However, the Council
determined that the eight-story height limitation was most appropriate for the area, and an increase up to
ten stories might be considered if an outstanding building design was submitted for consideration on a
specific site in the future. At that future time, the City Council would then evaluate such a change in the
regulation.
Additiona!ly, the economic study prepared for the amendment evaluated the maximum height that would
be feasible given the potential FAR and parking needs based on building square footage and determined
that more than eight stories in this area would not be feasible. At the present time, the tallest building in
the downtown area is four stories. Staff recommends that the increase in the height limitation for this area
be considered when a specific development is proposed and a well-developed building design is
submitted.
Land Use Plan Modifications and Recommended FAR
With the possible move of Crown Chevrolet from the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area to the auto
dealership area in East Dublin, a change in the land use type in the Plan for this property is logical. Based
on the office use across Golden Gate Drive from the site, its proximity to the BART station, and the
potential for other office uses to develop on Golden Gate Drive toward the BART station, a Retail/Office
designation for the site in the Specific Plan, as requested by the property owner, is appropriate. This
would allow development of office and retail uses on the site in the future.
A Commercial B type land use on the Enea]HHH properties, as requested by Robert Enea, would allow
development of retail businesses including specialty retail, restaurants, offices, entertainment and other
pedestrian-oriented uses. The businesses within the existing Enea Plaza shopping center are similar to the
specialty retail and restaurant businesses permitted by this category. The existing office type uses on the
6 acre property at the end of Amador Plaza Road would also be permitted within this category of uses.
7
Because of the proximity of the future BART station, these pedestrian-oriented uses would be appropriate
for this area. Additionally, an extension of the boundaries ofthe Specific Plan area is necessary to
facilitate this change.
Based on the economic and traffic analyses prepared for this amendment, a FAR of 1.00 for the subject
properties is recommended. In addition to this revision, changes to FAR's for other properties shown as
Retail/Office and Commercial B in the planning area are recommended to provide consistency in the Plan
and provide similar properties with the same development potential opportunities. As discussed in the
traffic analysis section of this report, acceptable levels-of-service could still be maintained at major
intersections in the downtown area with this modification.
General Plan/Zoning Conformity
The existing General Plan designation for both the Crown Chevrolet site and the Enea/HHH properties is
Retail/Office. The modifications to the Land Use Concept in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
proposed with the amendment would not require a change in the General Plan land use designation for the
properties. The Specific Plan Retail/Office and Commercial B land use categories to be applied to the
properties are consistent with the G~neral Plan designation of Retail/Office as currently exists on the
properties.
The Crown Chevrolet site is presently zoned C-2 General Commercial Zoning District, which allows a
variety of office and commercial retail uses. The existing C-2 zoning district is consistent with the
proposed change in the Specific Plan land use category for the site and with the projected use as an office
and retail development. The Enea/I-IHH properties are zoned as Planned Development Zoning Districts
which permit a specific variety of office, retail and other commercial service type uses similar to the C-2
zoning district. In general, the Commercial B Specific Plan category as proposed in this amendment is
consistent with these uses. However, when an actual development project is proposed in the future for
redeveloping the properties, a review of the proposed uses on the site will be necessary to ensure
consistency with the Specific Plan and the zoning district. An amendment to the Planned Development
Districts' regulations or a rezoning may be required at that time.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments approved on December 19, 2000.
The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan and the Dublin General Plan for th/s area. Additionally, a supplemental traffic analysis was prepared
for this amendment to assess the impacts of the increased FAR's on the transportation system in the
downtown area. No additional impacts of the project have been identified at this time. Further
amendments or changes in the Specific Plan may require additional assessment, and specific development
proposals on individual sites may require additional analyses.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the studies prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a
modification in the FAR for the subject properties, revisions to the Land Use Concept, and a revision to
8
the Plan boundaries is appropriate at this time. These changes would be in conformance with the intent of
the Specific Plan to create a vital urban environment in close proximity to public transit facilities and
transportation corridors.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by Staffthat the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1) Open public hearing.
2) Receive presentation by Staff.
3) Receive public testimony.
4) Close public hearing.
5) Consider analysis of amendment and testimony.
6) Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendmem to the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on the subject properties and other properties designated as
Retail/Office and Commercial B, and amend Specific Plan Table 5 and appropriate Maps as shown in
attached Exhibits A through G.
9
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
City Of Dublin
Crown Chevrolet Property:
Betty Woolverton et al.
t484 Emmons Canyon Dr.
Alamo, CA
Enea/HHl-I Properties:
Robert Enea
St. Michael Investments
6670 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
HHH Investment Co.
6665 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Aldo Guidotti Trust
104 Diablo View
Ofmda, CA 94563
LOCATION:
AssEssoRs PARCEL NO.:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
7544 Dublin Boulevard; 6401-6445 & 6707 Golden Gate
Drive; 6665-6680 & 7450-7498 Amador Plaza Road
941-1500-014-17, -015-07, -032-00, -038-01, -042-02, -048-
00, -049-2, -049-3, -051-02, -052-00, & -053-00; and various
other properties in the Specific Plan area.
PD Planned Development and C-2 General Commercial
Districts
Retail/Office
R/A Retail/Auto and R/O Retail/Office
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's in the planning
area were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan
Amendments approved on December 19, 2000. The proposed
project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's provided
for in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan for this area.
10
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2001, in the
Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Musser, and Fasulkey; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development
Director; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner;
and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Jermings and Cm. Nassar
Mr. Peabody introduced Jeff Ram, Planning Manager.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
The minutes from the June 10, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING-
8.1
99-032 Summerhill/Silveria Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone and Development Plan.
The applicant is proposing to place 229 single-family homes on 103.1 acres located south and east
of the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. (Staff recommends continuing the public
hearing to the .July 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.)
Mr. Peabody asked the Commission to continue the public hearing to the July 10, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting.
41
Planning Commission June J~, 2001
P4gular Meeting ~ ,
Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone had any questions or comments; hearing
none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion to continue the public hearing to July 10, 2001.
On motion by Cm. Musser, and seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, through a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Jennings
and Nassar absent, the Planning Commission continued PA 99-032 Summerhill/Silveria Stage 1 Planned
Development Prezoning and Development Plan to the July 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
8.2
PA 01-004 Toll Brothers - Dublin Ranch Areas A-6 & A-7 Development Agreement. An
ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Toll Brothers for
areas A-6 and A-7 neighborhoods of Dublin Ranch.
Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report.
Mr. Porto presented the staffreport. He advised the Commission that a Development Agreement is
required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
This project is part of Dublin Ranch Area A comprised of 369+/- acres of mixed-use development
including Single Family Residential, Open Space / Golf Course with appurtenant structures, and a
Neighborhood Recreation Facility. The Planning Commission, on Apri124, 2001 approved a Site
Development Review for Areas A-6 and A-7. The Tentative Maps, (Tract 7141 -Neighborhood A-6 and
Tract 7142 - Neighborhood A-7) setting the lot patterns for these subdivisions were approved by the
Planning Commission on July 25, 2000 (Resolutions 00-42 and 00-43).
Dublin Ranch Areas A-6 and A-7 are located east of Fallon Road and somewhat southeasterly of the
existing L-5 subdivisions of Dublin Ranch Phase I~ The open lands of Jordan and Bankhead are to the
east. Proposed Holes 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Golf Course are directly adjacent to these subdivisions to
the north. The project area is entirely vacant with no structures. Grading has occurred to create the
proposed lots and streets. Upon completion of the Development Agreement process by the City Council,
building permits can be issued unless a "special" agreement is created.
The City Attorney drafted the proposed Development Agreement with input from City Staff, Toll
Brothers and their attomeys. The Development Agreement sets forth the agreements between the parties
in relation to many items, including, but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing, and the
payment of various required impact fees.
The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five years from the date it is recorded. The
Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights there under can be assigned. The main points
of the Development Agreement can be found in Exhibit A of Attachment 1, Development Agreement and
are highlighted below:
Cm. Fasulkey asked how the City ensures the deferment of areas does not cause a negative impact
elsewhere.
Mr. Porto explained that in order for Toll Brothers to move forward they are required to do improvement
plans for areas such as drainage easement, roads, etc. Toll Brothers will have to bond for those
42
~P[annint? Commission June J~, 2001
~l~gufar Meeting ~ ~
improvements before they can move forward. The process of design and bonding will assure the
improvements are constructed.
Cm. Musser stated there are traffic improvements that are left up to discretion of Public Works Director.
He asked for clarification from staff that if a deterioration on traffic improvements, the Public Works
Director will require the developer to put in those improvements.
Mr. Porto stated there are standard conditions from Public Works. At such times as it's warranted, and
determined by the Public Works Director through a level of service study for a particular intersection, the
director can call the bonds for those particular items and pay for the construction of that particular
intersection.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he opened the public hearing. He
asked if the applicant or the public wished to speak on the item; hearing none he closed the public hearing
and asked for a motion.
On motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. Musser, and through a vote of 3°0-2, with Cm. Jennings
and Nassar absent, the Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 12
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PA 01-004 TOLL BROTHERS - DUBLIN RANCH
AREAS A-6 & A-7
8.3
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for Crown Chevrolet and Enea/ItItH
Properties.
Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report.
Ms. Harbin advised the Planning Commission that the City Council asked staff to amend the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan for changes in the land use plan, floor area ratio (FAR) for Crown Chevrolet and
Enea/HHH Investment properties. The City Council directed staff to analyze inclusion of approximately
20 acres of adjacent property known as the Enea Plaza and adjacent office development within the
Specific Plan area boundaries along with the property owners request to increase the FAR for that
property. Crown requested FAR of 2.5 to construct a 10-12 story office building. Staff has evaluated the
requests based on economic and traffic analyzes prepared by consultants, and recommends that a Specific
Plan Amendment be recommended for adoption by the City Council to change the FAR to 1.00 for both
properties, revise the Land Use Concept map in the Plan to reflect the projected uses, and include the
Enea and office properties at the end of Amador Plaza Road within the planning area boundaries. Based
on the studies prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a modification in
the FAR for the subject properties, revisions to the Land Use Concept, and a revision to the Plan
boundaries is appropriate at this time. The proposed changes would be in conformance with the intent of
the Specific Plan to create a visual urban environment in close proximity to public transit facilities and
transportation corridors. Ms. Harbin asked the Commission if they had any questions.
43
Planning Commission June.l~,, 2001
P~gular Meeting ~
Cm. Johnson asked if the property owners indicated any plans for redevelopment.
Ms. Harbin responded that Crown Chevrolet plans to remove their building to construct an office and
retail structure. Mr. Enea may change to a different type of development in the future and HHH
Investments has not proposed any plans.
Cm. Johnson asked who owned the old Micro Dental site.
Ms. Harbin responded the owners are HHH Investments and Dougherty trust.
Cm. Johnson asked if a hotel is proposed for the area.
Ms~ Harbin stated the Phase I development plan includes a footprint of a hotel.
Cm. Johnson asked if the hotel will be the maximum height of 8-stories.
Ms~ Harbin stated yes.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions.
Cm. Fasulkey asked for clarification on FAR and the building height.
Ms. Harbin stated Crown Chevrolet has requested an FAR of 2.5 which could create 534,000 square feet
of building area and would be approximately 14 times greater in size than the existing building. The
maximum height for the area is 8 stories and staff is recommending a FAR of 1 to maintain the 8-story
height limit.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions from the Commission or the public.
Joma Jones, resident asked if a parking structure would be built for the project.
Ms. Harbin stated a parking structure is not proposed at this time.
C~n. Johnson asked for a motion.
On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm~ Fasulkey, and through a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Jennings
and Nassar absent, the Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 13
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
TItE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR PA 01-024
44
(Planning Commission .Tuned~, 2001
~llufar Meeting ~ ~
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr Peabody discussed the upcoming Planning Commission meeting schedule.
ADOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Community Development Director
45
(P[annintt Commission .Tuned-Z, 2001
~p~gu[ar 9ffeeting ~