Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 DubTransitCntr AgStCITY CLERK File # ❑��� -�� AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 00 -013 known as the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area submitted by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) to consider an Amendment to the General Plan; Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; Planned Development (PD) Rezone /Stage I Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area; and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Report prepared by: Michael Porto, Project Planner) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Exhibit A. Adopting Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Exhibit B. Adopting Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit C. Adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration Exhibit D. Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Plan 2. Resolution Adopting Amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Exhibit A. Land Use Summary Exhibit B. General Plan Map 1 -213 Exhibit C. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Map Figure 4.1 3. Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Zoning Ordinance 4. Draft EIR dated July 2001 and Final EIR dated September 2002 for the Dublin Transit Center (sent previously under separate cover) 5. Booklet: "Dublin Transit Center General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning" (sent previously under separate cover) 6. EPS Study entitled " Recommendations for Transit Center Financing, East Dublin FFIC Impact Fee Analysis EPS #12038 ", dated October 17, 2002 with attached OMNI Means Traffic Study, dated October 11, 2002 7. Planning Commission Staff Report 8. October 22, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -40 approving Tentative Parcel Map with Conditions of Approval RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation I�ZN� 2. Question Staff 3. Take testimony from the applicant and the public GAPA #\2000 \00 - 013 \CCSRI 1- 19- 02.DOC COPIES TO: In -House Distribution Applicant/Property Owner ITEM NO. le 4. Close public hearing and deliberate 5. Adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopting Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Findings Regarding Alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 1) • Resolution Approving Amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 2) 6. Waive the Reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3) approving the PD - Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan FINANCIAL IMPACT: See below l M1100113, The subject property of this Application is referred to as the Transit Village Center Planning Area. The Applicant is the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ( ACSPA), as the primary property owner, in cooperation with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Until several years ago, the area was owned by the U. S. Army as part of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA), but came under ownership of the ACSPA as a result of several land exchanges. Total area within the Transit Village Center boundaries is approximately 91 acres (actual 90.65 acres) with ownership divided as follows: a) ACSPA = approximately 61.5 acres, b) BART = 15 acres, c) public roads and right -of -way = approximately 14 acres This 90.65 -acre area generally is bounded on the north by Dublin Boulevard and the southerly portion of the Parks RFTA complex, on the south by I -580 and existing BART station, on the east by Arnold Road, and on the west by the Iron Horse Trail which is a recreational greenbelt along an abandoned railroad right -of -way. Other than the existing public streets, transit- related improvements, and associated parking lots, the area currently is undeveloped with a flat topography that gently slopes to the south and west. The Dublin Transit Village Center is not located within any of the City's Specific Plan areas, but is situated immediately to the west of the 3,300 -acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and east of the City's "Primary Planning Area." Due to its history as part of Parks RFTA, the area retains a General Plan Land Use designation as Public Lands. Portions of the area also are designated Business Park/Industrial and Business Park: Low Coverage. Aside from the transit related uses, the area currently is zoned for Agriculture. A planning study was conducted by ACSPA and concluded in September 2001. According to the Applicant, no other BART station has as much adjacent vacant land under one ownership with major streets and utilities in place. The proposed plan reflects the results of that study with consideration given to opportunities for planning and developing a mixed -use project from the ground up which provides convenient access to mass transit use as a primary means of transportation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General: The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area is proposed as a new neighborhood of mixed uses arranged around a village green, a series of open space corridors, and plazas connecting to the entrance of the East Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. The project is anticipated to include approximately 1,500 high- density residential units and approximately 2 million square feet of campus office ranging in height from 8 to 10 stories. Ground floors of both the residential and campus office developments are proposed to include ancillary retail for providing convenient goods and services to residents, workers, and rail commuters. Approximately 490,000 sf or up to 24% of this o� ' campus office space is "flex" space meaning that it may be replaced with up to 300 additional residential units or a combination of housing and hotel uses depending upon the market and developer interest. A key element of the proposed plan is the BART station and reconfiguration of the parking, which serves that station. The existing BART facility, which opened in 1995, is located in the median of the I -580 freeway on the south side and just outside of the Dublin Transit Village Center project area. Transit - related improvements on site include a traction station/access platform, a utility substation that supplies power to the BART station, a bus transfer station, and surface parking lot of approximately 1,326 spaces. Parking and access to this station also is provided in surface lots south of I -580 within the City of Pleasanton. The most significant change in the current operation of the existing improvements resulting from the requested approvals would be the construction of an above -grade parking structure of approximately 1,700+ spaces to replace the existing surface parking. The structure is proposed to be designed to allow for increased capacity in response to future needs. Subterranean parking has been determined to be infeasible due to the high -level of the groundwater table beneath the site. The over all objective of the Transit Village Center is to provide a pedestrian - friendly environment for high - density residential and campus office land uses with access to multi -modal transportation options in order to encourage mass transit ridership and allow for reduced dependence automobile use. Also important to the layout of this Planning Area are the proposed street and circulation improvements and recreational components to include a new neighborhood park and access to the Iron Horse Trail greenbelt which has been improved with pedestrian and bicycle corridors. Requested/Required Actions: The Property Owner /Applicant has applied to the City for a number of planning actions and approvals necessary for marketing and developing the property within the Transit Village Center area. These actions collectively comprise PA 00 -013 and include: • Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared, circulated, and reviewed for the Transit Village Center along with adoption of findings concerning significant impacts, adopting findings regarding alternatives, adopting a statement of overriding considerations and adopting a mitigation monitoring plan; • An Amendment to the General Plan reflecting the proposed land uses; • An Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that would annex or incorporate the 91 -acre Transit Village Center as a subarea of this Specific Plan; • A Planned Development Rezone /Stage 1 Development Plan to establish zoning uses and development standards; and • Subsequent to the approvals this evening, the Applicant will be applying for a development agreement that will identify the timing of infrastructure construction as well as other items. • Proposed Development: The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area is proposed to have nine development sites and public right -of -way serving as the circulation system for the area. As a subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, development standards pertaining to density are applied to gross area or acreage. The gross area of each Development Site within the boundaries of the Dublin Transit Village Center includes property that has been or will be dedicated for public space including rights -of -way or common public space. In depth details regarding a summary of land uses, analysis of land use density per development area and acreage comparisons are included in the Planning Commission Staff Report attached hereto as Attachment 7. Please refer to that document for detailed analysis. ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment: The proposed General Plan Amendment represents the fourth General Plan Amendment of 2002. State law limits General Plan amendments to four per calendar year. 3 eK0 • Addition to the Eastern Extended Planning Area - The 91 acres of the Dublin Transit Village Center is proposed to be added to the Eastern Extended Planning Area. This addition would increase the size of the Eastern Extended Planning Area from 4,200 acres to 4,291. The following Sections, Tables, and Figures would require amendment or revision due to this increase: a) Section 1.4, Primary Planning Area and Eastern Extended Planning Area; b) Table 2. 1, Land Use Summary, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area; c) Figures: 1 -1, 1-2,2 -1, and 2 -2 and any other figures or tables that make reference to this area • Land Uses — The current General Plan land uses described in the Background section above and shown on Figure 1 -2B [which will be Figure 1 -la when the new Dublin General Plan Land Use Map approved on November 5, 2002 becomes effective December 5, 2002] of the General Plan are proposed to be replaced by High- Density Residential, Campus Office, Public /Semi- Public, and Parks /Public Recreation corresponding to the proposed uses shown Exhibit C of the Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval of this amendment and corresponding to the proposed development plan. The Transit Center is currently outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and because of this, the Transit Center is not included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee area (City Council Resolution 225 -99). Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), the owner of the Transit Center property and the applicant for the General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezoning has requested that the project area be annexed into the EDSP and that the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee area be expanded to include the Transit Center area. An extensive Fiscal Analysis backed by a specific traffic study to determine impact from Eastern Dublin was conducted and is included herein as Attachment 6. • Allowance of Ancillary Uses - A mixed -use area by definition includes a variety of uses on one site generally in a vertical configuration. Also, certain land use designations of the General Plan allow uses that are incidental or ancillary to the designated use. Of the land use designations proposed for Dublin Transit Village Center, only Campus Office allows ancillary uses, which provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area. However, as a mixed - use project, the High- Density Residential and Public /Semi - Public uses also are proposed to include ancillary retail and services uses at the ground floor level. The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the High- Density Residential and Public /Semi- Public uses to include ancillary retail and service uses for residents, workers, and businesses when they are part of a transit village center or other mixed -use project. Such uses would be limited to ground floor space oriented towards Iron Horse Parkway. Examples of those uses would be similar to those allowed in the Campus Office designation as stated in the General Plan. • Flex Uses on Sites D -1 and E -1 — The land use designation for Sites D and E is proposed as Campus Office, with ancillary retail on the ground floor of Sites D -1 and E -1. Approximately 490,000 sf of office space is proposed for these two sites. The plan also proposes an optional or "flex" use of these sites in place of the office space depending upon market conditions and developer interest. The Campus Office space designation allows a maximum of 50% of the site to be developed as residential use. The gross acreage for Sites D and E is 38.3 acres; Sites D -1 and E -1 together are 9.78 gross acres, or about 26% of the site. Additionally, the campus office space of 490,000 sf proposed for these two sites represent approximately 25% of the 2 million sf total proposed for the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area. Therefore, a land use amendment would not be required to allow the optional high- density residential use. The proposed plan also provides Site D -1 with a development option as a hotel. A hotel use also is an allowable use under the Campus Office land use designation and would not require a land use amendment to exercise that development option. • Structured Parking for High- Density Housing — Parking for the Campus Office space and high - density housing is proposed to be accommodated in multi -level parking structures below or adjacent to these uses. Street -level frontages would be screened or wrapped by ancillary retail and service uses. However, the General Plan directs the majority of multi - level, non - surface parking to be provided "under- structure." As an example, it suggests a high- density residential development of up to 80 units per acre is possible in 4- stories if carefully designed. It has been determined that subterranean parking is infeasible due to the high water table in this area. Therefore, the proposed PD Rezone /Stage I Development Plan discussed below indicates that the height limit next to the transit center would be between 8 and 10 stories or up to 120 feet. Residential building height would be established at a maximum of five stories above the parking levels and campus office uses would be established at a height of eight to ten stories, inclusive of parking levels. The exteriors of buildings with above -grade parking level will need to be designed with materials and architectural elements that tie together parking levels with office or residential uses on the upper stories. Amendment to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently is divided into ten subareas, each with its own land use concept and community design guidelines. The 91 -acre Dublin Transit Village Center is proposed to be incorporated or annexed into the 3,300 -acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area as the 11th subarea. The Specific Plan text would be amended beginning with the addition of "Chapter 4.9.10: "Transit Village Center" under "Chapter 4: Land Uses" which would describe the location, land use concept, and subarea development potential. The addition of this subarea also would require appending "Chapter 7: Community Design" with "Chapter 7.6: Transit Village Center." This new chapter would establish the building types and form as well as the policies for open space and public facilities. The proposed text amendments are set forth in the draft resolution recommended for City Council approval. Unless otherwise stated in this Specific Plan Amendment, all provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are applicable to this Subarea, and all figures and maps included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would need to be amended to be consistent with the newly - established boundary. This new subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan generally has been designed in conformance with the standards required for designation as a transit village plan pursuant to the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Section 65460 et seq. of Government Code). The Applicant has requested that designation. However, at this time staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council postpone any action to adopt the Dublin Transit Village Center as a transit village plan until conformance with the requirements can be confirmed and further analysis is conducted regarding the benefits of this designation. PD Rezone /Stage I Development Plan: At this time, the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area (Subarea 11 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) is proposed to be rezoned from Agriculture and Public /Semi- Public to PD Planned Development pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The uses are consistent with the land uses proposed in the Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan consistent with development standards adopted in a Stage 1 Development Plan will need to be approved prior to development project approval along with any required Site Design Reviews. A number of other requirements would be adopted as part of the Stage I Development Plan, as follows: • Applicability of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan - As with the amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, all of the standards and requirements in that document would be applicable to the 5 a,< 9 PD Rezone and Stage I Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Village Center except as otherwise stated in that Amendment. • Permitted Uses - Permitted uses within the area designated for Campus Office allow up to 300 optional residential units on Sites D -1 and E -1 in place of the 490,000 sf of Campus Office space proposed. In addition, Site D -1 may be developed as hotel in place of either Campus Office or High- Density residential use. Adjustments regarding required park acreage will be addressed within a subsequent development agreement. • Affordable / Inclusionary Housing — The City's Zoning Ordinance requires Stage I Development Plans to include an Affordable or Inclusionary Housing component. The ACSPA has stated that Transit Center housing will be more affordable by virtue of its proximity to a major multi -modal transit hub. To assist in meeting the State requirement for providing very low, low, and moderate income housing, the ACSPA is proposing that 15% of the units in the Dublin Transit Village Center be available as affordable. The ACSPA has stated in its application materials that it is willing to significantly write down the value of the underlying land and work with interested non- profit and for - profit developers to create and manage the affordable units in as efficient manner as possible • Traffic Impact Fee Area — The uses established by the Stage I Development Plan allow planning for infrastructure improvements needed to mitigate the traffic anticipated from new development. The approved uses also are factored into the estimated financing requirements for constructing those improvements. Specific development proposals would be considered only after approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan with site - specific development standards established for evaluating new construction. • Public Realm Approval of the proposed Dublin Transit Village Center would include conceptual design of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system within this Planning Area, such as street widths, right -of -way improvements, lighting, and landscaping. The plan submitted by the ACSPA provides a detailed discussion of the proposed improvements for the areas within the public realm. The design concept statement discusses the principles, goals, and objectives for the streetscape, open space, and landscaping. As a multi -modal transportation hub, functional improvements and aesthetic appeal are essential to the operation and success of this project. In addition to creating a transit - oriented development in a village -like neighborhood, the plan has been designed to provide a comprehensive open space system, maximize pedestrian circulation, and create distinctive and attractive streetscapes. In addition to the over all concept, the Plan also establishes specific guidelines and criteria for non -auto circulation, lighting, and landscaping. The proposed "Circulation Diagram" (Non -Auto) identifies the pedestrian circulation routes to transit connections and multi -use trails, along with the walking radii shown in minutes and (portions of) miles. To achieve these objectives, the plan provides specific design standards for each street and intersection within the project area appropriate to the type of circulation needs anticipated. Plazas and open space designed for residents, workers, and commuters also have been integrated auto routes. The main focal point of design is the oval- shaped Village Green with generous sidewalks linking this public space to Iron Horse Parkway on the east and DeMarcus Boulevard on the west. The plan proposes specific design elements for the entry plazas and entry nodes to the Village Green to include decorative paving, special landscape treatment, and public art or water features. A mid - block pedestrian pathway links the Village Green with Iron Horse Plaza across from the entry to the BART station. For vehicular traffic, visual focal points would include pedestrian plazas and opportunities for landmarks in the form of public art. In keeping with the agricultural -based history of the area, plantings are proposed to represent patterns found in orchards, groves, and hedgerows. A grid of trees planted in an orchard motif is the proposed landscaping for designated corners. As traffic moves westward from the intersection of Arnold Road and Digital Drive, the street narrows which indicates that the area is becoming more oriented towards pedestrians. Hardscape materials would identify areas distinctly for pedestrians including paving materials and patterns. Depressed corner ramps with bollards would be designed to be compatible with access standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Area: The Developer has requested that following approval of the project the Eastern Dublin TIF be amended to include the Transit Center area and that certain improvements required by the conditions of approval of the parcel map (Attachment 9) be included in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. These improvements are estimated to cost $8.4 million and include (1) Dublin/Dougherty intersection [Dougherty Road north leg and south leg and Dublin Blvd. west leg and east leg]; (2) Scarlett Drive extension; and (3) Hacienda Drive/I -580 Interchange (included as Conditions 26, 27 and 29 respectively of the conditions of approval of the Parcel Map). In addition, the Developer has requested that the City consider including certain parking spaces, estimated to cost $6 million, in the proposed BART parking garage in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. Staff contracted with Economic and Planning Systems to do a study to assess whether these improvements could be included in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. That study (Attachment 6) indicates that there is a need for parking stalls at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and that the need will continue to grow as Eastern Dublin develops. The parcel map approval includes various conditions requiring either construction or funding of certain traffic improvements (see conditions 19 to 29 of Attachment 9). Condition 7 requires the Developer to construct or fund all such improvements specified in the conditions of approval unless the City amends the Eastern Dublin TIF to include the Transit Center area. If the Council includes the Transit Center area in the Eastern Dublin TIF area, condition 7 allows the Developer to pay the Eastern Dublin TIF in lieu of constructing or contributing directly to those new improvements identified in the parcel map conditions which are later determined to be appropriate for inclusion in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. Although the EPS study (Attachment 6) anticipates that the improvements identified in Conditions 26, 27 and 29 (Attachment 9) are appropriate for inclusion in the Eastern Dublin TIF, that decision is not before the Council now. Regardless of whether the Transit Center area is included in the Eastern Dublin TIF area, the Developer will be required to construct or fund the improvements identified in Conditions 19, 20, 21, 22 23, 24, 25 and 28 (Attachment 9) because those improvements are either not appropriate for inclusion in the TIF program because they are local improvements or are already in the TIF program (Condition 28 of Attachment 9). If the Transit Center project is approved, Staff will return to the Council with a proposed amendment to the Eastern Dublin TIF to include those improvements required by the Transit Center which are appropriate for inclusion in the TIF program. As noted, Staff believes these include the improvements included in conditions 26, 27 and 29) [estimated to cost $8.4 million] and a portion of the BART parking garage [estimated to cost $6 million]. If the Transit Center area is included in the Eastern Dublin TIF, the Surplus Property Authority could use certain of its existing credits towards payment of the TIF for the Transit Center project if the Authority entered into a credit/ reimbursement agreement with the City (TIF Guidelines, V.B.) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City prepared a Notice of Preparation dated November 13, 2000, and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Dublin Transit Center Project. It was assigned the State Clearinghouse number SCH 20001120395, and the 45 -day review period ran from July 6, 2001 to August 21, 2001. During the course of preparing the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, an additional 7 traffic impact was identified that had not been analyzed previously. Also, subsequent to this review period and after the preparation of the response to comments, the proposed plan was revised to designate Site F as a neighborhood park. An analysis of the newly - identified traffic impact was recirculated for a new 45 -day review period from July 16, 2002 to August 30, 2002. The written responses to comments and the related revisions to the Draft EIR are contained in a separately bound Final EIR dated September 2002. Therefore in conjunction with this application, the City Council will consider certifying the Environmental Impact Report and adopting findings regarding mitigation of significant impacts, findings regarding alternatives, a statement of overriding consideration and a mitigation monitoring plan. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 22, 2002, considered the EIR, the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezone and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a portion of the property. The Planning Commission discussed items such as parking, future review potential, park size and affordable housing. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council certification of the EIR, adoption of the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments approval of the Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezone and approved the Tentative Parcel Map contingent upon Council approval of the companion applications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2) question Staff; 3) take testimony from the applicant and the public; 4) close the public hearing and deliberate; 5) adopt resolutions certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments; and 6) Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3) approving the Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezoning. M. RESOLUTION NO. -02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING RELATED MITIGATION FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00 -013 WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority submitted applications for a 90.65 - acre high- density mixed -use pedestrian and transit- oriented development located directly north and east of the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project proposes 1500 high- density residential units, up to 2 million square feet of campus office uses, 70,000 square feet of ancillary commercial uses, an 8.73 acre (net) Neighborhood Park, and a new parking structure to replace existing permanent and temporary surface parking around the BART station. The development includes applications to amend the General Plan; to add the site and related development standards to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; to zone the site as PD- Planned Development and adopt a related Stage 1 Development Plan; and to approve a tentative parcel map; collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project area boundaries include Dublin Boulevard and Parks RFTA to the north, Arnold Road to the east, I -580 to the south, and the Iron Horse Recreational Trail to the west. Existing uses on the site include the East Dublin - Pleasanton BART station, a major public bus transfer station, associated surface parking lots and other facilities generally near I -580, and vacant land; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") should be prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation dated November 13, 2000 to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated July 2001 (SCH No. 20001120395) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from July 6, 2001 to August 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared a Final EIR dated September 2002 containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, in the course of preparing the written responses to comments, the City identified a new significant impact related to potential traffic impacts on I -680 that had not been identified in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, the City recirculated analysis of this new impact for a 45 -day public review period from July 16, 2002 to August 30, 2002. The City received two comments on the recirculated information; written responses to these comments are included in the Final EIR; and 608845 -1 1 ATTACHMENT I M WHEREAS, based on discussions with City staff, the applicant proposed minor changes to the project description to replace the proposed Campus Office uses on Site F with an 8.73 acre (net) neighborhood park. The Campus Office uses previously shown on Site F were redistributed onto adjacent sites within the Project area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, City staff reviewed the project revisions and determined that they did not constitute significant new information and would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than already identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR and the recirculated traffic impact, therefore no further recirculation was required; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including responses to comments and the recirculated traffic impact) reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis and constitute the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Dublin Transit Center Project; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 22, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the EIR and all written and oral testimony submitted to them at a noticed public hearing on October 22, 2002, and based thereon, adopted Resolution 02 -37 recommending certification of the EIR and Resolution 02 -38 recommending adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, the Project would have significant effects on the environment, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, some of the significant effects cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit B, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report is incorporated herein by reference, and is available for review in the City planning department, file PA 00 -13. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. 608845 -1 ? -5,e /lS C. The Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council who reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the Project. D. The Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental effects of the Dublin Transit Center Project. E. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Dublin Transit Center Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Mike Porto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit A, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit B, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit C, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit D, which exhibits A, B, C and D are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19`" day of November 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk g:pa00- 013 /cc reso certify eir 608845 -1 V ee ins EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15 09 1, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to section 21081(c) relating to Project alternatives are made in Exhibit B. Impact 4.1 -2: Views and vistas. The project would reduce existing views of Mount Diablo and surrounding ridgelands from some public viewpoints. DEIR p. 38 Mitigation 4.1 -1. During the Site Development Review process for individual projects, encourage breaks and corridors between building clusters to maintain some views of Mount Diablo, taking into account the need to block freeway noise and create a compact transit- oriented development pattern. DEIR p. 39 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that views of Mount Diablo and distant ridgelands will be considered and preserved through site planning for each development project. Impact 4.1 -5: Light and glare. The project would generate new sources of light and glare from office building and parking structure lighting that could intrude into adjacent residential units. DEIR p. 38 Mitiization 4.1 -2. Condition Site Development Review for individual projects to require that all exterior light fixtures will be oriented downward or be equipped with cut -off lenses to avoid spillover light onto adjacent residential areas. DEIR p. 39 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that new light and glare sources are directed down or away from adjacent residential areas to prevent spillover into those areas. Impact 4.2 -1: Construction impacts. Construction activities could increase dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM 10 downwind. DEIR p. 49 Mitigation 4.2 -1. Require construction practices such as watering active construction areas and stockpile areas; covering trucks hauling loose materials; sweeping paved roads, parking and staging areas; installing sandbags to prevent silt runoff, replanting vegetation in disturbed areas, and other similar practices to control dust and loose materials. DEIR p. 53 -54 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measures ensure that dust generation is avoided or minimized during construction activities; the identified measures are implemented at various stages of construction, providing more effective control of dust and particulates. Impact 4.2 -3: Regional air quality impacts. Buildout of the project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for regional impacts on a project and cumulative level. DEIR p. 52 r- 608863-1 X t= ~ WWI f� 1 Finding. The impact is significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. The Project is consistent with BAAQMD policies encouraging compact, infill development near public transit and includes variants of all of the strategies suggested by BAAQMD to minimize regional air quality impacts through accessibility to non - automobile forms of transportation. However,'even with its transit and pedestrian oriented design, the Project would exceed BAAQMD regional air quality standards and no feasible mitigation measures are identified to further reduce this impact; therefore Project impacts remain significant and unavoidable. DEIR p. 51 -53 Impact 4.3 -1: Impacts to Congdon's spikeweed. The Project could result in the loss of a population of Congdon's spikeweed (also known as Congdon's tarplant) and potential loss of populations of four other special status plant species. DEIR p. 70, FEIR p. 3 Mitigation 4.3 -1. Determine the size of the area occupied by the tarplant. If onsite avoidance is. not possible, ensure replacement at a 1:1 ratio through a) a permanent conservation easement or other similar method; or b) harvesting seeds from onsite plants or another Livermore - Amador Valley source and seeding an equal amount of suitable offsite area which shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a tentative map and /or Site Development Review application, project developers shall submit a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to the City demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including steps to ensure that reseeding will be successful. FEIR p. 3 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that subsequent development projects incorporate protective measures in development applications and further ensures that tarplant are preserved either on -or off -site thereby avoiding the loss of the plant species. Impact 4.3 -2: California red - legged frog. The Project could adversely affect California red - legged frog and /or their habitat. DEIR p. 71 Mitigation 4.3 -2. a) Conduct a pre - construction survey to determine if red - legged frogs are on or adjacent to the Project site; include all drainage channels and potential hydration, foraging or cover habitat in the survey; conduct the survey according to current USFWS survey protocols; b) If red - legged frogs are found, the project proponent shall consult with the USFWS to determine appropriate avoidance or mitigation actions and shall obtain any necessary permits. DEIR pp. 72 -73 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The likelihood of red - legged frogs occurring onsite is low as there is no breeding habitat and no frogs were observed during a reconnaissance survey. However, the mitigation measure ensures that no construction activity that could injure the frogs or their habitat will occur until additional surveys are conducted for the presence of the species on or adjacent to the Project site. The measure further ensures that if any red - legged frogs are found, consultation and applicable permits will be obtained from USFWS to avoid or mitigate any impacts. Impact 4.3 -3: Burrowing owls. The Project could result in the loss of potential nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls. DEIR p. 71 Mitigation 4.3 -3. Conduct pre - construction surveys on and within 500 feet of the Project site. If over - wintering birds are present, no disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows unless the Department of Fish 608863 -1 2 and Game gives written consent to relocating the birds. If owls must be moved away, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG guidelines should be used. If no over - wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nesting season. If removing unoccupied burrows is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, maintain a minimum buffer of at least 250 feet around active nesting sites to avoid direct loss of individuals; all active burrows shall be identified. Establish a 250 foot exclusion zone around nests if construction is scheduled when young are not yet fledged, or delay construction. Enhance existing burrows or create new burrows when removal of occupied burrows is unavoidable. Acquire and permanently protect a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird. Prepare a management plan and provide funding for long -term management and monitoring of protected lands, including success criteria, remedial measures and an annual report to CDFG. FEIR pp. 3 -4 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The preconstruction surveys and required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites will preserve owl burrows by allowing them to be avoided during the construction and development process. The measures will also ensure that any unavoidable disturbance will be mitigated in coordination with CDFG. Impact 4.4 -1: Historical, archeological and Native American resources. Construction of the Project could disturb unidentified and unrecorded historical artifacts or archeological and /or Native American resources. DEIR P. 81 Mitigation 4.4 -1. Cease all work if archeological, discrete historical or Native American artifacts are encountered during construction of individual development projects within the Project site. Comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. Contact the County Coroner immediately if any human remains are encountered. DEIR p. 81 Findin Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. There is no evidence of prehistoric cultural resources in the Project area and no trenching in the area over the last several years has encountered prehistoric or historic materials. However, should unknown resources be discovered during construction activities, the mitigation measure ensures that such resources will not be inadvertently disrupted or destroyed and that construction activities will cease until the materials are identified and addressed in compliance with the CEQA guidelines section on historical and unique archeological resources. Impact 4.5-2: Seismic hazard. Strong shaking during an earthquake could result in ground failure such as soil liquefaction or differential compaction. DEIR p. 86 Mitigation 4.5 -2. Require site - specific geotechnical investigations for each individual development project, including the presence of potential liquefiable material. Design and construct structures in accord with the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code. DEIR p. 87 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code will be considered at the design stage of development projects so as to anticipate and avoid or reduce ground shaking effects before development occurs. Impact 4.5 -3: Expansive soils. Soils in the Project area exhibit the potential for shrink -swell of expansive soils which can result in damage to buildings with improperly designed foundations. DEIR p. 87 Mitigation 4.5 -3. Geotechnical investigations required for each development project shall address expansive soils and provide appropriate engineering and construction techniques to reduce potential damage to buildings and pavement surfaces. DEIR p. 87 608863 -1 3 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The design level geotechnical investigation will identify expansive soils and ensure that special techniques are used in these areas to reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage. Impact 4.6 -1: Hazardous materials. Hazardous material or polluted groundwater may be present from past military uses. DEIR p. 90 Mitigation 4.6 -1. Phase I and, if required, Phase II level environmental investigations shall be performed for each individual development project prior to any grading or construction activity. Individual developers shall be responsible for performing any necessary cleanup. DEIR p. 91 FiadiII& Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Findin. The potential for hazardous materials impacts is low; however, the mitigation measure ensures that the presence of such materials will be assessed prior to any grading or construction activity on development sites. If any unknown materials are discovered, the mitigation measure ensures that appropriate assessment and cleanup will occur. Impact 4.6 -2: Risk of upset. Future residential dwellings could be subject to fire, explosion and/or contamination should the petroleum pipeline within the Iron Horse Trail be damaged. DEIR p. 90 Mitigation 4.6 -2.. a) Flag the Iron Horse Trail right -of -way locations during construction of residential developments on Sites A and C to prevent heavy equipment from crossing over the petroleum pipeline and fiber - optic cable. Construction materials and equipment shall not be stored on top of the right -of -way. b) Maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the petroleum pipeline to the nearest habitable residential structure. DEIR p. 91 Findin. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. Marking the trail location will ensure that construction activity and equipment is able to avoid disturbance of the pipeline area. The minimum setback for residential structures minimizes the potential for adverse effect by providing a buffer area if there is damage to the pipeline. Impact 4.7 -3: Non -point source pollution. The quality of stormwater runoff could decline with increased production of non -point source urban pollutants. Stormwater runoff would carry non -point source pollutants in to surface waters which could cause a cumulative degradation of water quality in San Francisco Bay. DEIR p. 96 Mitigation 4.7 -1. Project development shall not increase any sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters, in accordance with the City's NPDES general construction permit. Provisions for the proper handling and disposal of fuels and hazardous construction materials shall be included in the erosion control plan required under Mitigation 4.7 -3. DEIR p. 96 Mitigation 4.7 -2. Each individual development project shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that incorporated Best Management Practices for construction and post- construction conditions, including but not limited to incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of fossil filters, covering solid waste and recycling areas and similar features. DEIR p. 97 Findin. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. 608863 -1 4 im m Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that pollution sources related to construction and operation of development projects, such as soil erosion and street debris, are controlled so as prevent pollutants from entering storm drain systems. Control techniques focus not only on preventing runoff but also on removing or filtering pollutants, for example, through onsite biofiltration, so that the quality of runoff from urban sites is improved. Impact 4.7 -4: Soil erosion. During construction, short-term increases in soil erosion could result as the Project area is stripped of the limited natural vegetation thereby exposing it to wind and water erosion. DEIR p. 96 Mitigation 4.7 -3. Project sponsors shall prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan in accordance with City and RWQCB standards, including measures such as leaving vegetated areas undisturbed until construction commences and revegetating after grading, directing runoff away from all areas disturbed by construction, collecting runoff into stable drainage channels, and other measures as specified. DEIR pp. 97 -98 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that construction sites are properly protected to reduce soil loss through erosion until disturbed areas are stabilized underneath buildings, pavement, or landscaping. Impact 4.9 -1: Construction noise impacts. Future residents of the Project could be subject to short-term construction noise. DEIR p. 117 Mitigation 4.9 -1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Individual project developers shall submit to the City, a Construction Noise Management Plan identifying measures to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties, particularly residential developments. At a minimum, the measures shall contain a listing of construction hours, muffler use on construction equipment, limitation on onsite speed, identification of haul routes and a noise monitor, and shall be included in appropriate contractor specifications. DEIR p. 118 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. Through the mitigation measure, developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise exposure experienced by surrounding residential and other development. Impact 4.9 -2a: Permanent noise impacts for residential uses. Residential dwellings near Dublin Boulevard, the 1 -580 freeway, or the BART line would be exposed to conditionally acceptable or normally unacceptable future noise levels. Employees in campus office buildings at some locations may also be subject to conditionally acceptable or normally unacceptable future noise levels. DEIR p. 117 Mitigation 4.9 -2a. Site - specific acoustic reports shall be prepared for all residential uses and shall identify noise exposure levels and specific measures to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels. DEIR p. 118 Mitigation 4.9 -2b. For commercial projects where noise levels on a majority of the site are projected to be normally unacceptable (greater than 75dB DNL), individual developers shall submit a site - specific acoustic report at the time of Site Development Review identifying noise exposure levels and specifying measures to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels. DEIR p. 119 Mitigation 4.9 -2c. For commercial projects where noise levels on a majority of the site are projected to be conditionally acceptable or normally acceptable (75dB DNL or less), individual developers shall submit evidence to the City at Site Development Review that noise reduction features are included in the building design to ensure acceptable interior noise levels. DEIR p. 119 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. 608863 -1 5 9 e ins Rationale for Finding. Acoustical mitigation will be identified and incorporated into future new development in the Project area and will ensure compliance with applicable noise standards. Impact 4.9 -3: Helicopter overflight noise. Residential dwellings near Dublin Boulevard south of Camp Parks RFTA would be subject to helicopter overflights from Camp Parks. DEIR p. 118 Mitigation 4.9 -3. Provide future residents of the Project with advance notification of the potential for helicopter overflights from Camp Parks. DEIR p. 119 Finding. Although not identified as a significant effect, the changes or alterations identified above have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project and will avoid or lessen the helicopter overflight noise effect discussed in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The EIR recommends mitigation for helicopter overflight noise, but does not identify it as a . significant effect. The City wishes to implement the EIR recommendation and has, therefore, included it in these findings. Impact 4.11 -1: External intersection impacts. Increased levels of peak hour traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard (AM and PM) and Hacienda Drive/I -580 westbound off - ramp (AM) intersections. DEIR p. 152 Mitigation 4.11 -1. a) -e) Undertake specified roadway improvements for the Scarlett Drive extension, and at the Dougherty/Dublin, Hacienda/I -580 westbound off -ramp, Dougherty / Scarlett and Dublin/Scarlett intersections. DEIR pp. 167 -68 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. Construction of the identified improvements will result in intersection operations that comply with applicable LOS standards. Impact 4.11 -4: Parking. BART patrons could use on- street and nearby private residential, retail and office parking, resulting in insufficient parking for these uses. DEIR p. 156 Mitigation 4.11 -2. Post all on- street parking for short-term use. Through Site Development Review, ensure that onsite parking lots and structures for individual projects discourage unauthorized BART patron use. DEIR p. 168 Findin Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. Through the mitigation measure, parking will be managed so that on- street parking and residential and office parking structures will be available for residents, visitors and employees. Impact 4.11 -5: Cumulative traffic impacts. In 2025, project and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty. Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E and LOS F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. DEIR pp. 160 -61 Mitigation 4.11 -3. Construct specified improvements at the Dublin/Dougherty intersection. DEIR p. 168 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 608863 -1 6 Rationale for Finding. These improvements are not sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant, however, additional improvements are not feasible due to the physical constraints at the intersection. The City will monitor the intersection to obtain updated volume forecasts; also, implementation of the I -580 Smart Corridor Project will likely relieve some congestion at the intersection. Impact 4.11 -6: Roadway segment impacts. Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the two -lane roadway 15,600 ADT volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. The future extension of Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road would approach maximum average daily traffic volumes and would carry a significant number of peak hour turning movements. DEIR p. 165 Mitigation 4.11 -4. Widen Hacienda Drive to four travel lanes and construct the Scarlett Drive extension with four travel lanes prior to buildout of the Project. DEIR p. 168 Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Findin. With these improvements, capacity of the roadway segments will be expanded so that the ADT volume complies with the maximum ADT threshold. Impact 4.11 -7: Mainline freeway operation impacts. Project traffic will worsen I -580 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. DEIR p. 166 Mitigation. No mitigations identified. Finding. The impact is significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable regional Transportation Impact Fees, a portion of which will fund freeway improvements; however, freeway improvements are controlled by Caltrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. DEIR pp. 165 -66 Impact 4.11 -8: Mainline freeway operations, I -680. Project traffic will worsen I -680 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. FEIR Appendix A Mitigation. No mitigations identified. Finding. The impact is significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable TVTD regional traffic improvement fees, which will assist in funding planned auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road. However, these measures will not avoid or substantially reduce the impact to the I -680 freeway. Furthermore, freeway improvements are controlled by Caltrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. FEIR Appendix A Impact 4.12 -1: Fire protection. The Project would increase the number of calls for service for fire protection and emergency medical response. Construction of office buildings greater than six stories will require specialized fire equipment and fire protection procedures. DEIR p. 178 608863 -1 7 r7 zpd pis Mitigation 4.12 -1. Buildings greater than six stories shall incorporate augmented fire protection measures including but not limited to caches of fire fighting equipment on upper floors, and other project - specific measures as identified by the Alameda County Fire Marshal. DEIR p. 184 Findin Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that fire equipment and fire protection procedures will be provided to meet the specialized needs of Project area development where buildings exceed six stories. Impact 4.12 -2: Police services. The Project would increase the number of calls for service, specifically regarding traffic control, burglary, theft and neighborhood and domestic disturbances from the residential portion of the Project. Coordination of security protocol between future site users and the City Police Services Department would also be a concern. DEIR p. 179 Mitigation 4.12 -2. Individual buildings and or buildings complexes shall submit a safety and security plan for approval by the City Police Chief. Security plans shall include but not be limited to provision for private security measures and methods to achieve coordination with the Dublin Police Services Department. DEIR p. 184 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that security plans for individual projects, especially when onsite private security is provided, are prepared and coordinated with the City's Police Services Department. Impact 4.12 -3: Schools. Additional student demand generated at buildout of the Project would require the cumulative construction of new school facilities. DEIR p. 179 Mitigation 4.12 -3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Project proponent shall enter into a school mitigation program with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that future Project uses pay a fair share toward the costs of new school facilities. Developers of individual projects shall pay mitigation fees, as specified in the mitigation agreement, at building permit issuance. DEIR p. 184 Findinu. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that development in the Project area will contribute to the cost of providing school facilities to serve Project - generated student demand. Impact 4.12 -8: Electric power. Until State and local power supply and transmission issues are resolved, it is uncertain whether PG & E can provide a reliable supply of electrical power. DEIR p. 183 Mitigation 4.12 -4. Prior to issuing building permits for individual projects, the City shall require PG & E "will serve" letters indicating sufficient electric power and transmission capacity to serve the proposed project, taking into account any onsite generation facility. DEIR p. 184 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure ensures that there will be an available electrical supply for the Project prior to any development. g:pa00 -013 Exhibit A mitigation findings 608863 -1 8 /; ee 11-5- EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The Dublin Transit Center EIR identifies four alternatives: No Project, Same Intensity /Lower Building Height, Campus Office Development, and Lower Intensity Transit Center. The alternatives analysis, presented in Chapter 5.0 of the EIR, evaluates the comparative merits of the alternatives. Because the EIR identifies significant unavoidable impacts for the Project, the analysis also discusses the extent to which the alternatives would attain the Project objectives set forth in the EIR and would avoid or substantially reduce the Project's significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council considered the four alternatives identified and analyzed in the EIR and hereby finds that they do not avoid the Project's unavoidable impacts and/or are infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section 21081(c). NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 188 -190. Finding: Infeasible. This alternative provides for no development beyond existing vacant land and BART parking uses. Because no development would occur, impacts identified for the Project would be avoided, including significant unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts. The No Project Alternative is infeasible because it would not attain any of the Project objectives to create a transit and pedestrian oriented development that takes advantage of the existing BART station and bus transfer station. Instead, development would take place further from these major transportation facilities thereby reducing the opportunity to provide options to single occupant automobile use. Needed higher density housing, and increased employment opportunities would not occur. Tax and other revenues generated by the Project would also not occur SAME INTENSITY /LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 190 -192. Finding: This alternative does not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant unavoidable impacts. This alternative assumes the same amount of development as the Project, but campus office buildings would be restricted to six stories rather than the Project's ten stories. Reducing the office building heights would require that the building footprints be increased to accommodate the office densities. Most of the impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Project since the same amount of development would occur, and would involve development of the entire Project site. Visual impacts would increase since larger building footprints would make it more difficult to maintain view corridors. Impervious surface area would also increase with the larger building footprints thereby reducing opportunities for onsite biofiltration of stormwater. This alternative would generally meet the Project objectives because it provides the same uses and amount of development as the Project. However, with the same amount of development as the Project, this alternative would not avoid the Project's regional air quality, cumulative traffic or freeway mainline unavoidable impacts. CAMPUS OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 192 -194 Finding: This alternative does not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant unavoidable impacts and is infeasible. This alternative assumes that the Project site would be developed exclusively with Campus Office uses. The building intensity would be similar to other campus office uses in Eastern Dublin with an FAR of 0.6, yielding approximately 1.5 million square feet of office use. The existing 608858 -1 1 EXHIBIT b /-� 4 115 surface parking would remain for the BART station and surface parking lots are assumed for potential office uses. Some Project impacts, such as view obstruction, would be reduced due to lower building heights, fewer buildings and use of surface parking lots. Some impacts, such as biological resources, geology and soils, and hazardous materials would be similar to the Project since the entire Project site would be developed. Development of the site without a housing component would result in a substantial imbalance of jobs and housing. Traffic generated under this alternative would be reduced, but not enough to avoid the Project's unavoidable regional air quality, cumulative traffic and mainline freeway impacts. The Campus Office Alternative is infeasible because it does not attain the Project objectives to create a mixed use transit and pedestrian oriented development near existing transit facilities. This alternative would provide employment opportunities but would provide no housing near the employment or transit sources, and would gain none of the advantages of a complementary mix of uses planned around transit hubs. LOWER DENSITY TRANSIT CENTER ALTERNATIVE. DEIR Pages 194 -196. Finding: This alternative does not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant unavoidable impacts and is infeasible. This alternative assumes a mix of office and residential uses at approximately half the Project densities. Existing surface parking would be replaced by a parking garage, however no ancillary commercial uses would be developed. Impacts would generally be reduced compared to the Project due to the reduced amount of development and the likelihood of more pervious open spaces. Regional air quality, cumulative traffic and mainline freeway impacts would also be reduced, but not to less than significant. The Lower Density Alternative is not feasible because it does not attain the project objectives of providing an efficient and effective transit oriented development. The reduced densities would not provide a sufficient "critical mass" of employment, shopping and residential uses to support a transit oriented development focused on existing major transit facilities. g:pa00 -013 Exhibit B alternative findings 608858 -1 2 /Y� 115 EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Although the City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, and by future development plans as well as future mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the Dublin Transit Center Project as identified in the EIR. The impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project. Impact 4.2 -3: Regional air quality impacts. Buildout of the project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for regional impacts on a project and cumulative level. DEIR p. 52. The Project is consistent with BAAQMD policies encouraging compact, infill development near public transit and includes variants of all of the strategies suggested by BAAQMD to minimize regional air quality impacts through accessibility to non - automobile forms of transportation. However, even with its transit and pedestrian oriented design, the Project would exceed BAAQMD regional air quality standards and no feasible mitigation measures are identified to further reduce this impact; therefore Project impacts remain significant and unavoidable. DEIR p. 51 -53 Impact 4.11 -5: Cumulative traffic impacts. In 2025, project and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E and LOS F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. DEIR pp. 160 -61. Improvements adopted as mitigation measures are not sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant, however, additional improvements are not feasible due to the physical constraints at the intersection. The City will monitor the intersection to obtain updated volume forecasts; also, implementation of the I -580 Smart Corridor Project will likely relieve some congestion at the intersection. However, Project impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.11 -7: Mainline freeway operation impacts, I -580. Project traffic will worsen I -580 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. DEIR p. 166. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable regional Transportation Impact Fees, a portion of which will fund freeway improvements; however, freeway improvements are controlled by Caltrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. DEIR pp. 165 -66 Impact 4.11 -8: Mainline freeway operations, I -680. Project traffic will worsen 1 -680 mainline conditions which are projected to exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management 608849 -1 1 EXHIBIT C 1s _�e ins Agency's threshold of significance in 2025 even without the Project. FEIR Appendix A. Individual developments within the Project will be required to pay applicable TVTD regional traffic improvement fees, which will assist in funding planned auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road. However, these measures will not avoid or substantially reduce the impact to the 1 -680 freeway. Furthermore, freeway improvements are controlled by Caltrans and not the City of Dublin, therefore there are no feasible mitigations identified for this impact, which remains significant and unavoidable. FEIR Appendix A 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Dublin Transit Center Project to the City of Dublin against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the EIR that have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extent that the Project would result in unavoidable significant impacts described in the EIR, the City. Council hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of Project as further set forth below. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that unavoidable impacts of the Project are outweighed by the substantial public benefits of developing a state - of- -the -art transit and pedestrian oriented village. Approval of the Project takes. advantage of the unique opportunities presented by a large, infill, single -owner property with no major physical constraints and located directly adjacent to existing transit facilities. The Project's residential, office and ancillary commercial uses provide a complementary mix of uses that facilitates use of transit facilities. The mix of uses and site design will also create a vibrant urban neighborhood with attractive housing at higher densities to encourage transit use as well as increase the potential for affordable housing. The urban densities will be further complemented by recreational opportunities from common and private open space, as well as a nearby park and the adjacent Iron Horse Trail. Approval of the Project advances City policies to provide comprehensive community planning that balances various land uses and encourages higher density housing convenient to shopping, employment centers and transit facilities. In addition, the Project will result in the following substantial public benefits. Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the economic benefits that the City would derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, the Project will result in: a. As many as 7,832 new jobs, as well as a substantial number of construction jobs. b. Potential commercial development that will result in increases in sales tax revenues for the City. C. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits that the City would derive from the implementation of the Project. Specifically, the Project will result in: a. Increases in housing opportunities in the City and in a region where housing is costly and in short supply. b. Increases in the amount of affordable housing in the community.. C. Increased opportunities for the City to contribute its fair share of regional housing. 608849 -1 2 /6 �, rrs d. Provision of higher density housing opportunities near local and regional public transit facilities and within a mixed residential /office /commercial use setting that provides goods and services accessible without automobile travel. g:pa00 -013 statement of overriding 608849 -1 3 Dublin Transit Center (PA 00 -013) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2002 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.1 -1: During the Site Development Review Project Developers Dublin Planning During Site process for individual projects within the Division Development proposed Transit Center, encourage the Review application inclusion of breaks and corridors between reviews for building clusters, especially along the north - individual projects south axis, so that some views of Mount Diablo are maintained, taking into account the need to block freeway noise and to create a compact transit- oriented development pattern 4.1 -2: As a condition of Site Development Review for individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of lighting plans for all non - residential projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut -off lenses to ensure that no spill -over of unwanted light onto adjacent residential areas shall occur. Project Developers Dublin Planning Division During Site Development Review application reviews for individual projects EXHIBIT Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.2 -1: The following measures are recommended, Project Contractors Dublin Public During Project based on BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction Works Department Construction impacts to a level that is less - than - significant. The following construction practices should be required during all phases of construction on the project site: Water all active construction areas as needed; Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Verification Page 2 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Verification • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non- toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Dublin Transit Center Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Responsibility Responsibility 4.3 -1: The following mitigation measures would Project Developers Dublin Planning mitigate the loss of a population of Congdon s Division spikeweed (CNPS List 1B) and potential loss of four other special - status plant species and their habitat. The size of the area occupied by the tarplant should be determined from the field survey and notes on past on -site distribution, measuring the entire area from which the plant has been observed. If on -site avoidance is not possible, one of the following options must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 acreage ratio: a. Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, equal amount of off -site acreage that contains the plant; or b. Harvest seeds from on -site plants to be lost or from another source within the Livermore - Amador Valley, and seed an equal amount of off -site area suitable for supporting the plant which shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of grading permits Verification Dublin Transit Center Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Verification c. Prior to submittal of a tentative map and /or a Site Development Review (SDR) application, the project developer shall submit a Mitigation and Monitoring plan to the City for its review and approval, demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps they will take to ensure that reseeding will be successful. If Option' b" is selected and is not successful, Option "a" shall be implemented. Dublin Transit Center Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin �1 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Schedule 4.3 -2 The following steps shall be taken to reduce Project Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of impacts to California red - legged frogs to a less -than- Developers Division grading permits significant level. a) In order to determine if red - legged frogs occur on or adjacent to the Transit Center project area, a preconstruction survey for red - legged frogs shall be conducted prior to initiation of construction activities on adjacent development sites (Sites A and F). The survey will include all drainage channels and potential hydration, foraging, or cover habitat on or immediately adjacent to the Transit Center (e.g., pool in the northwest corner of Site A drainage channel along Iron Horse Trail, and flood control channel along northern boundary of Site F. The. survey will be conducted according to current USFWS survey protocols by a qualified biologist. Results of the survey will be reported to the City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure b) If red - legged frogs are found on or adjacent to the Transit Center project area, the project proponent will consult with the USFWS to determine a) the appropriate course of action to avoid or mitigate impacts to red - legged frogs and their habitat, and b) any necessary permits that must be obtained. All mitigation measures and permits will be obtained prior to initiation of construction activities. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Page 7 ti. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3: The following measures will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls to a less- than - significant level. a. Pre - construction surveys by a qualified biologist shall be conducted on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the Project area within 30 days prior to any ground disturbance. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre - construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed. b. If over - wintering birds are present (September 1 to January 31) no disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows unless the Department of Fish and Game provides a letter giving consent to relocate wintering birds. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over - wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nesting season to reduce impacts from noise, dust, and human disturbance to mated pairs. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Implementing Responsibility Project Developers Monitoring Responsibility City of Dublin Planning Division Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of grading permits Verification Page 8 Mitigation Measure c. If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre - construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (February 1- September 1). All active burrows shall be identified. d. If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, a 250 -foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31. e. When removal of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Page 9 Mitigation Measure A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. g. The project proponent shall prepare a management plan and provide funding for long -term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG. 4.4 -1: If, during construction of individual development projects within the Transit Center, archeological, discrete historical or Native American artifacts are encountered, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Project work may be resumed in compliance with any applicable resource protection plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. Implementing Responsibility Project Developers Monitoring Responsibility City of Dublin Planning Division Monitoring Schedule During Project Construction Verification Dublin Transit Center Page 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6� City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.5 -1: Site specific geotechnical investigations shall be Project Developers City of Dublin Prior to issuance of required for each individual development proposed Public Works building permits within the Transit Center project area. Design and Department construction of structures shall be in accordance with the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which includes construction standards near fault factors. The site - specific geotechnical investigation should further investigate the presence of potentially liquifiable material at the site. Conventional design and engineering techniques should be able to mitigate for minor settlements. 4.5 -2: For each building, as well as public streets and Project Developers City of Dublin Prior to issuance of other pavement areas constructed in the project area, Public Works building permits the required site specific geotechnical investigation Department and /or approval of shall address expansive soils and provide appropriate street construction engineering and construction techniques to reduce documents potential damage to buildings and pavement surfaces. 4.6 -1: Phase I and, if required, Phase II level Project Developers Dublin Planning As part of Stage 2 environmental investigations shall be performed for Division Planned each individual development project within the Development proposed Transit Center prior to any grading or Rezoning review construction activity. Individual developers shall be responsible for performing any necessary cleanup, as recommended in the environmental investigations and as required by regulatory authorities. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Page 11 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification 4.6 -2: Project Developers Dublin Public a) During project a. During construction of residential Works Department construction; b) as developments on Sites A and C, the adjacent and Dublin part of Stage 2 Iron Horse Trail right -of -way locations shall be Planning Division Planned flagged to prevent heavy equipment from Development crossing over the petroleum pipeline and fiber rezoning reviews optic cable. Construction materials and equipment shall not be stored on top of the right-of-way. - b. Future residential development within the proposed Transit Center shall maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the petroleum pipeline to the nearest habitable residential structure within the proposed Transit Center. Dublin Transit Center Page 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DIN City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.7 -1: Development projects within the proposed Project Developers Dublin Public Transit Center are subject to the City of Dublin s Works Department NPDES general construction permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The terms of this permit require that project development not cause any increase of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters. It is expected that implementation of the erosion control plan outlined below under Mitigation Measure 4.7 -2 would satisfy all NPDES erosion and sedimentation requirements, but additional provisions are needed for the proper handling and disposal of fuels and hazardous construction materials. 4.7 -2: Each individual development project within Project Developers Dublin Public the Transit Center shall prepare a Stormwater Works Department Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post - construction conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards in effect at the time SDR permits are requested. The SWPPP shall include, but is not limited to incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of fossil filters, covering of solid waste and recycling areas and similar features. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects Prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects Page 13 ti Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility 4.7 -3: The project sponsors shall prepare an erosion Project Developers and sedimentation control plan for implementation throughout project construction. The plan should be prepared in accordance with City of Dublin and RWQCB design standards. It is recommended that this plan, at a minimum, include the following provisions: a. Existing vegetated areas should be left undisturbed until construction of improvements on each portion of the development site is actually ready to commence; b. All disturbed areas should be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and water erosion upon the completion of grading activities; Stormwater runoff should be collected into stable drainage channels, from small drainage basins, to prevent the buildup of large, potentially erosive stormwater flows; Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Monitoring Responsibility Dublin Public Works Department Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects Verification Page 14 N Mitigation Measure d. Specific measures to control erosion from stockpiled earth and exposed soil; e. Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction; f. Sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged into on -site or offsite drainage culverts and channels. g. To the extent possible, project sponsors should schedule major site development work involving excavation and earth moving for construction during the dry season. Implementing Responsibility 4.9 -1: Individual project developers shall submit a Project Developers Construction Noise Management Plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties, particularly residential developments. Noise Management Plan shall be approved by the City of Dublin Community Development and Public Works departments prior to issuance of grading permits and shall contain, at a minimum, a listing of hours of construction operations, use of mufflers on construction equipment, limitation on on -site speed limits, identification of haul routes to minimize travel through residential areas and identification of a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in appropriate contractor specifications. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Schedule Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Division and Public grading permits for Works Department individual projects Page 15 Vl Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2a: For all residential uses within the Transit Center, site - specific acoustic reports shall be prepared by qualified acoustical consultants for individual residential projects at the time Site Development Review applications are filed with the City of Dublin. The acoustic reports shall include detailed identification of noise exposure levels on the individual project site and a listing of specific measures to reduce both interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels, including but not limited to glazing and ventilation systems, construction of noise barriers and use of buildings to shield noise. 4.9 -2b: For commercial projects where noise levels on a majority of the Site is projected to be Normally Unacceptable (greater than 75 dB DNL), the individual developer shall submit to the City of Dublin, at the time Site Development Review applications are filed, a site - specific acoustic report prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. The acoustic reports shall include detailed identification of noise exposure levels on the individual project site and a listing of specific measures to reduce both interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels, including but not limited to glazing and ventilation systems, construction of noise barriers and use of buildings to shield noise. Implementing Responsibility Project Developers Project Developers Monitoring Responsibility Dublin Planning Division Dublin Planning Division Monitoring Schedule As part of Site Development Review applications As part of Site Development Review applications Verification Dublin Transit Center Page 16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility 4.9 -3: Future residents of dwelling units within the Project Developers Transit Center shall be provided with advance notification of the potential for - helicopter overflights from Camp Parks. The precise language of the notification shall be approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Director. 4.11 -1: The following improvements shall be Project Developer undertaken to reduce impacts to external intersections to a less than significant level: a. The Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard shall be constructed to relieve the Dougherty /Dublin intersection of south and east bound AM peak hour traffic and west and north bound PM peak traffic. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Schedule Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Division Certificates of Occupancy for individual dwelling units Dublin Public As determined by Works Department City Traffic Engineer Page 17 W Q\ Mitigation Measure b. Dougherty/Dublin intersection. The eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard at this intersection shall be widened to include an additional through lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have one (1) left - turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right -turn lanes. The westbound left -turn lanes from Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty Road shall be lengthened to accommodate additional traffic demand safely and efficiently. As part of these intersection improvements, Dougherty Road should be four (4) lanes in the southbound direction between Dublin Boulevard and the I- 580 westbound on -ramp. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the I -580 westbound on- ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the I -580 westbound on- ramp. These improvements would require widening and re- striping the I -580 westbound diagonal on -ramp. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from E (0.97) to LOS C (0.74) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from E (0.99) to LOS D (0.86). Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Dublin Transit Center Page 18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Hacienda/I -580 Westbound Off -Ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach (overcrossing) shall be widened to three (3) northbound travel lanes. This improvement would require some alignment modifications to the I -580 westbound loop on -ramp. In addition, the 1 -580 westbound off -ramp approach would need to be widened to include three (3) left -turn lanes and two (2) right -turn lanes. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from F (1.17) to LOS D (0.89) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from B (0.61) to LOS A (0.57). Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Page 19 A \Y (v \^1 1 Mitigation Measure d. Dougherty /Scarlett intersection: The southbound Dougherty Road approach shall be widened and re- striped to include two (2) left -turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right - turn lane. The two left - turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound approach should be widened and re- striped to include one (1) left -turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) free right -turn lane. The westbound Scarlett Drive approach should have two (2) right -turn lanes and one (1) shared through/ left -turn lane. The two right -turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS C (0.78) during the PM peak hour. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Page 20 'No Mitigation Measure e. Dublin /Scarlett intersection: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach shall be modified to include one (1) left -turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right -turn lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened to include one (1) left -turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right -turn lanes. The two right -turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include one (1) left -turn lane and one (1) shared through /right -turn lane. The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would include two (2) left -turn lanes, one (1) through lane and one (1) right -turn lane. The two left -turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LOS is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.59) during the PM peak hour. 4.11 -2: Post all on- street parking within the Transit Center for short -term (2 or 4 hour) use. Through the Site Development Review process for individual development projects, ensure that on -site parking lots and structures discourage unauthorized BART patron use through security, validation or other means. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Project Developer Dublin Public Works Department and Dublin Planning Division Site Development Review applications Page 21 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.11 -3: The southbound Dougherty Road approach Project Developer Dublin Public shall be modified to include two (2) left -turn lanes, Works Department three (3) through lanes and one (1) shared through /right -turn lane. The northbound Dougherty Road approach shall be modified to include three (3) left -turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and two (2) right -turn lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach shall be modified to include three (3) left - turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and one (1) shared through/ right turn lane. With these improvements, the intersection would operate at LOS E (0.7) during the AM peak hour and LOS F (1.06) during the PM peak hour. Additional improvements are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dougherty/ Dublin intersection. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e. Year 2025). In addition, current and future phases of the I -580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the Dougherty /Dublin intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin As determined by City Traffic Engineer Page 22 CN Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.11 -4: The road segment of Hacienda Drive between Project Developers Central Parkway and Gleason Drive should be widened from three to four travel lanes and the Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road shall be constructed with four travel lanes prior to buildout of the proposed Transit Center. 4.12 -1 Proposed high rise buildings (greater than 6 Project Developers stories feet in height) shall incorporate augmented fire protection measures, including but not limited to caches of fire fighting equipment on upper floors and other project - specific measures as identified by the Alameda County Fire Marshal. 4.12 -2: Individual buildings and /or complexes of Project Developers buildings proposed for construction within the Transit Center shall submit a safety and security plan for the approval of the Police Chief. Safety and Security Plans shall include but not limited to provision for private security measures, methods to achieve coordination with the Dublin Police Services Department and other items as deemed important by the Dublin Police Services Department. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Dublin Public As determined by Works Department City Traffic Engineer Alameda County Site Development Fire Department Review applications for high rise buildings Dublin Police Site Development Department Review applications Page 23 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule 4.12 -3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit within the Transit Center, the project proponent shall enter into a school mitigation program with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that future land uses within the Transit Center pay a fair share towards off - setting costs for new school facilities within the District. Developers of individual projects within the Transit Center shall be required to pay mitigation fees, as specified in the mitigation agreement, at time of building permit issuance by the City of Dublin. 4.12.4: Prior to issuing building permits for individual projects within the Transit Center, the City of Dublin shall require that "will serve' letter issued by PG &E indicating that there is sufficient electric power and transmission capacity to serve the proposed project, taking into account any on -site generation facility. Dublin Transit Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Project Developers Project Developers Dublin Planning Division Dublin Planning Division Prior to issuance of the first building permit within the Center Prior to issuance of first building permit within the Center Page 24 // Z& y5 RESOLUTION NO. -02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN �3cYxx9exx��xa� *x-hxk�'ckk� *xYxxxxxx APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00 -013 WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority submitted applications for a 90.65 - acre high- density mixed -use pedestrian and transit - oriented development located directly north and east of the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project proposes 1500 high- density residential units, up to 2 million square feet of campus office uses, 70,000 square feet of ancillary commercial uses, an 8.73 acre (net) Neighborhood Park, and a new parking structure to replace existing permanent and temporary surface parking around the BART station. The development includes applications to amend the General Plan; to add the site and related development standards to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; to zone the site as PD- Planned Development and adopt a related Stage I Development Plan; and to approve a tentative parcel map; collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project area boundaries include Dublin Boulevard and Parks RFTA to the north, Arnold Road to the east, I -580 to the south, and the Iron Horse Recreational Trail to the west. Existing uses on the site include the East Dublin - Pleasanton BART station, a major public bus transfer station, associated surface parking lots and other facilities generally near I -580, and vacant land; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend General Plan land use and other maps to place the Project area within the Eastern Extended Planning Area and to change the land use designations from Public Lands, Business Park/Industrial, and Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage to High Density Residential, Campus Office, Public /Semi - Public, and Parks /Public Recreation with a Neighborhood Park designation. The Project would amend General Plan text to provide for ancillary retail and service uses in the High Density Residential and Public /Semi- Public land use designations, and would amend Table 2.1 to add the Project to the Eastern Dublin land use summary; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to add the Project area to the Specific Plan as its eleventh planning subarea, with related land use designations and development guidelines. The land uses and development guidelines provide for a high- density mixed use residential and office project most of which is within 11/4 mile of the existing East Dublin BART station. Ancillary retail and service uses would be provided to serve the needs of residents, employees, and transit patrons and would be located on ground floors along Iron Horse Parkway and on the ground floor of or adjacent to the proposed parking garage. Development guidelines also provide for building siting, height, type and entry treatment to enhance the pedestrian scale and focus of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Draft EIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the Project. Anew significant traffic impact identified after the Draft EIR public review period was recirculated for public review. The City prepared a Final EIR comprised of written responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR and the recirculated traffic impact. The Final EIR also includes revisions to the project, including a new 8.73 acre (net) neighborhood park The Draft and Final EIRs together constitute the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR") for the Project, and 608865 -1 1 ATTACHMENT 9 y� � !ts WHEREAS, a Planning Commission staff report dated October 22, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the EIR and the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on October 22, 2002, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the EIR and all written and oral testimony submitted to them and based thereon, adopted Resolution recommending certification of the EIR and Resolution recommending adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a City Council staff report dated November 19, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the EIR and the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on November 19, 2002, the City Council considered the staff report, the EIR, the Planning Commission recommendations, and all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution -02, incorporated herein by reference, certifying the EIR as, adequate and complete pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopting mitigation and alternatives findings as well as a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required for approval of the Transit Center Project; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, the City Council approved PA -045, a General Plan Amendment to consolidate various land use maps into a single land use map for the entire. General Plan planning area. Upon the effective date of the PA -045 approval, General Plan Figures 1 -1, 1 -2 and 1 -213, among others, will be consolidated into a single Figure 1 -la. The Dublin Transit Center approval will amend Figure 1 -lain the same manner as it would have amended prior Figures 1 -1, 1 -2 and 1 -213; to avoid confusion until the PA -045 approval is effective, both the prior and consolidated land use maps are referenced herein. 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 approves the following General Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Section 1.4, PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA, first paragraph under Eastern Extended Planning Area as follows. The eastern planning area represents the largest remaining area available for future development in Dublin. The approximately 4,291400 -acre area east of Parks RFTA will permit the eventual expansion of urban development in order to accommodate the healthy growth of the community B. Amend Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, Eastern Extended Planning Area, Residential: High Density as follows. 608865 -1 2 Projects in this category are intended for downtown and urban core areas. Ancillary retail and service uses which provide services to residents in the High Density Residential area are permitted. Projects within this density range must meet the majority of their parking requirements with under- structure parking where feasible. For example, with careful design, densities of up to 80 units per acre can be achieved without exceeding four stories in height. Assumed household size is 2.0 persons per unit. C. Amend Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, Eastern Extended Planning Area, Public /Semi- Public /Open Space, Public /Semi- Public Facilities to add a second, new paragraph as follows. Ancillary retail and service uses which provide services to transit patrons may be permitted as a ground floor use in or adjacent to the Eastern Dublin BART station parking garage. D. Amend Section 2.0, LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION, LAND USE ELEMENT, first two sentences under Eastern Extended Planning Area as follows. Figure 1 -2B illustrates generalized land uses and circulation for the Eastern Extended Planning Area that lies east of Parks RFTA. This area includes approximately 4,291 acres. E. Amend Table 2. 1, LAND USE SUMMARY, EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA to reflect the Project acreage added to the Eastern Dublin planning area, as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. F. Amend the following figures (as amended by PA -045) by reference to remove the Project area from the Primary Planning Area and add it to the Eastern Extended Planning Area. 1. Figure 1 -1: Land Use & Circulation, Primary Planning Area 2. Figure 1 -2: Extended Planning Area 3. Figure 2 -1: Sites for Housing Development 4. Figure 2 -2: Development Potential, Dublin Planning Area G. Amend Figure 1 -213 (as amended by PA -045) to add the Project area to the Eastern Extended Planning Area and identify land use designations as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the following Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and that the Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Chapter 4.0, Land Use, to add anew Section 4.9.10, TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER, as follows. 4.9. 10 TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER LOCATION The Transit Village Center subarea comprises the southwestern most corner of the planning area, directly adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, in the area north of I -580, west of Arnold Road, south of Camp Parks and east of the planned Iron Horse Trail alignment. 608865 -1 3 Y V e 11s LAND USE CONCEPT The Transit Village Center subarea is intended to maximize the transit opportunities presented by the BART station and the associated bus hub by creating a vibrant, pedestrian- friendly and high - density mix of office, residential and retail uses all within easy walking distance of the BART station. Densities within the subarea are the highest planned for the various land areas within the Specific Plan, with residential densities averaging 50 units to the acre, and office densities over 1.0 FAR. To accommodate these densities, office buildings of up to 10 stories will be permitted, helping to make the BART station area a visual focal point for the entire Tri- Valley area. Parking will be primarily accommodated by garages, including a new BART parking garage to replace much of the existing surface parking lots. Because of the area's high visibility, architectural elements within the subarea should present a high - profile, quality image. To encourage transit use, design standards in the subarea should encourage high levels of pedestrian use by creating short street blocks, permitting reduced parking standards, encouraging minimal building setbacks, and designing relatively narrow street sections, with wide, tree - canopied sidewalks and on- street parking. Ancillary retail and service uses that offer convenient goods and services to subarea residents, employees and commuters are encouraged as a ground -floor use for residential and office uses along Iron Horse Parkway to add vitality to the street. TABLE 4.14 Transit Village Center Subarea Development Potential Designation Acres (gr.) Density Development Potential Campus Office 38.3 1.2 FAR 2 msf High Density Residential 31.5 48 DUs per acre 1,500 units Neighborhood Park 12.2 acres -- 8.73 park acres Public /Semi Public 8.65 acres -- -- TOTAL 90.65 acres -- -- B. Amend Chapter 7.0, Community Design, to add a new Section 7.6, TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER, as follows. 7.6 TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER The guiding design concept for the Transit Village Center subarea is to maximize use of regional transit opportunities and minimize reliance on the auto by creating a vibrant, high- density, compact, pedestrian- friendly environment that serves the daily needs of subarea residents, employees and commuters. As a regional transit hub and geographic center of the Livermore /Amador Valley, the subarea should provide a visual focal point for the surrounding area. 608865 -1 4 Y'5 , `ls BUILDING SITING Buildings should be located adjacent to the sidewalks, with no or minimal setbacks from the sidewalk, and should be oriented toward the street to create a well- defined, pedestrian - scaled and more intimate street space. Where possible, building massing should be broken up so that there are opportunities for pedestrian movement between larger street blocks and to create visual interest. Ancillary retail and service uses, such as restaurants, cafes, and banks should be encouraged as a ground -floor use along and near Iron Horse Parkway. Due to high levels of traffic noise from I -580 and, to a lesser extent, Dublin Boulevard, buildings adjacent to these roads should be sited and designed to act as noise shields for the rest of the subarea., It is especially important to shield open spaces and gathering places by placing buildings between these use areas and the freeway. Building setbacks from the sidewalk/street right -of -way along Iron Horse Parkway are discouraged. Building setbacks from the sidewalk along Digital Drive, DeMarcus Boulevard, Arnold Road, and Campus Drive should be minimized so that buildings relate to the adjacent street. Landscape setbacks for parking garages and along Arnold, Campus and Dublin Boulevard are permitted. • Public utility easements should be located within the street or sidewalk area to limit the need for building setbacks. Sideyard setbacks are not required. • Residential and commercial development may be set back from Dublin Boulevard due to the high volume of traffic on the street. BUILDING HEIGHT Buildings should be of a height to enclose the street space, giving it a more intimate scale. In general, buildings adjacent to I -580 and closer to the BART station should be higher to emphasize that the Transit Center is a major regional focal point and to maximize densities as close to the station as possible. Maximum building heights: High Density Residential: 5 stories over parking Campus Office: 8 stories adjacent to Dublin Boulevard 10 stories adjacent to Digital Drive and I -580 BUILDING TYPES Mixed use buildings are strongly encouraged, especially along Iron Horse Parkway. Both residential and office buildings along this street should accommodate ground -floor ancillary retail and service uses that provide convenient goods and services to employees, residents, and BART 608865 -1 5 �6 `15 commuters. A hotel, or mixed -use hotel /office development on Site D -1 should be considered that would provide ground -floor service uses and could share parking facilities with the adjacent BART garage. Residential and commercial architecture should be varied in form and style to provide visual interest and to avoid long, monotonous facades along pedestrian- oriented streets. ENTRIES Building entries should be sited to promote sidewalk activity and to maximize pedestrian use of adjacent streets. • Locate ground -floor retail and service uses so that they front on Iron Horse Parkway and are clustered so that long stretches of "dead" street frontage are avoided. Encourage uses, such as cafes, that can "spill out" onto the adjacent sidewalks. Design sidewalks of sufficient width to provide for outdoor seating. • Site major building entries and lobbies so that they are visible and accessible from the street, not just parking areas. Design residential units with balconies and windows affording views of the street to create the security of "eyes on the street ". PARKING Parking standards should be reduced as much as possible to encourage the use of public transit. Most parking should be provided in garages and located so that street frontages are not dominated by it. • Permit 1.5 parking spaces per unit for residential uses, and 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for office uses. Recognize shared parking with these uses and BART, as well as on- street parking to accommodate most of the parking needed for ancillary retail and service uses. Utilize parking studies from other transit - oriented developments to encourage developments with lower parking ratios. • Reduce the site area needed for off - street parking by allowing curbside parking space around the project perimeter to count toward the project's parking requirements. • Establish a means of discouraging BART patrons from utilizing on- street and nearby residential and office parking by enforcing on- street parking limitations and providing secure parking garages. • Encourage the use of parking garages and minimize on -site surface parking. Locate and design garages so that they do not distract from the pedestrian experience by "wrapping" residential units around them, fronting them with retail uses, or other means. . Encourage shared -use of residential and office parking facilities with ground -floor retail and service users to provide adequate parking to encourage retail development along Iron Horse Parkway. 608865 -1 6 Y 14115 • Encourage shared -use of BART garage parking with hotel /conference /evening entertainment venues, as well as other public /semi - public uses. CIRCULATION The internal street system should be designed so that it accommodates the movement of vehicles, at relatively slow speeds and reasonably high levels of congestion, while enhancing the pedestrian experience. - Utilize street and intersection standards that minimize the width of streets (curb -to- curb), and the distance between intersections. Limit corner radii to reduce the distance pedestrians must travel to cross intersections. Develop wide sidewalks along Iron Horse Parkway to accommodate pedestrian circulation, window shopping, outdoor merchandising, and cafes. Encourage the development of sidewalk cafes and indoor /outdoor restaurants as ground -floor uses that can "spill out" onto the sidewalk along this street. . Provide wide sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, seating and other amenities on all Transit Center streets to encourage and accommodate pedestrian circulation from the office blocks to the retail area and to BART. • Create a logical, well- marked bicycle lane system that provides access to the BART station, the Iron Horse Trail, the East -West Trail located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, and development within the subarea. OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Because of the relatively small size of the subarea and the desire to maximize densities within the subarea to encourage transit use, large public open space areas south of Dublin Boulevard are discouraged. Instead, a series of public and/or private plazas, greens, and corridors should be developed south of Dublin Boulevard that provide recreational amenities and social gathering spots for residents, workers and commuters. A pedestrian and bike trail system should provide safe and convenient access to nearby, parks and schools within Eastern Dublin. • Provide a central "Village Green" for the residential area that provides a common meeting and gathering place for area residents that is shielded from freeway noise and wind by intervening buildings. Connect the Village Green to the BART station via pedestrian corridors through adjacent residential development. • Provide pedestrian corridors and open plazas within large office developments to break up building masses and to provide convenient walking access to all parts of the subarea and adjacent areas. • Create a small public "square ", through building placement and landscaping, near the entrance to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station that can serve as a meeting or gathering place. Utilize water or other features to reduce the negative impact of freeway noise. 608865 -1 7 r i 'I • Create small plazas in appropriate locations along Digital Drive and Iron Horse Parkway that provide opportunities for public art and for informal gatherings. • Provide a new neighborhood park north of Dublin Boulevard that maintains or enhances the overall park acreage -to- population ratio within the City of Dublin with the inclusion of the new Transit Center residential neighborhood. C. Amend Figure 4. 1, Land Use Map, to add the Project area to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and identify Specific Plan land use designations as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. D. Amend other Specific Plan figures by reference as appropriate to add the Project area to the Specific Plan area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November 2002 by the following vote: AYES: 09061 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 608865 -1 8 �y its Table 2.1: LAND USE SUMMARY EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA Classification Acres Intensity* Units Factor Yield Residential Du's /acre Du's Persons /du Population High Density 69.9 35 2,447 2.0 4,894 Medium -High Density 134.0 20 2,680 2.0 5,360 Medium Density 486.3 10 4,863 2.0 9,726 Single Family 977.0 4 3.908 3.2 12,505 Rural Residential /Agriculture 842.5 .01 8 3.2 25 TOTAL 2,509.7 13,906 35,510 COMMERCIAL Floor Area Ratio Gross Square Feet million Sq. Ft./ Employee Jobs General Commercial 289.3 .35/25 3.435 510 6,735 Neighborhood Commercial 69.7 .35/30 .980 490 2,000 Campus Office 216.9 .75/35 3.952 260 15,200 Industrial Park 125.8 .25 1.370 590 2,322 TOTAL 701.7 9.737 26,257 PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION City Park 56.3 1 park Community Park 126.7 2 parks Neighborhood Park 62.2 10 parks Neighborhood Square 13.3 7 parks TOTAL 258.5 20 parks OPEN SPACE 437.7 PUBLIC /SEMI- PUBLIC Public /Semi - Public 98.6 .25 1.074 590 1,820 Schools Elementary School 74.1 7 schools ** Junior High School 40.4 2 schools ** High School 55.3 1 school Subtotal 169.8 10 schools TOTAL 268.4 Note: The only items revised on this chart are shown shaded and reflect the addition of the Transit Center into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan *Numbers represent a mid -range considered reasonable given the permitted density range. * * Partial school sites represent sites that lie partially outside the Specific Plan area, but within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area. 207929 -1 .EXHIBIT A to Attchment 2 Q w r z z n m z .4 r.�V/ 0 1 [irI1.%lollil 00 x x rn OD N ODPT p8= T co • 10 V W�. IRON. HORSE PARCWAY urns g T 4cn ►c CD � IV 800 d Cn Z O � n rn WW VO 00 �Q v8�N CA W p ° x 8 n -n El C.) rn (n i Low- 30 F 2 i i 1 i c m C x n z r m CA N L" C." O m C!?* cn O z ;v Ep§rq 1 0 t7 ■j ■ s G) m m v m a "o • C z a z I:4 n m z m m m - x m co 0 54) r O 0 co N = 2 z O W m [ iellX411 OD 5 �0 �m M�mv ©a• cn Cn �C ` 0 IRON HORSE PARKWAY z cn �NF N � N (n rn rn ARNOLD �r rr �► N � co �m5imb El §5 m I-C �4 t-3 � Qa C4aX W = � U) � �� z ox* m 'v z G-) ;V m �z -_ onen v Z co 1 1 1 i C2 C W C z En C7 m O z r m IR is NCA cry a A Q. ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00 -013 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Dublin Transit Center PD- Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that is tailored to the transit orientation of the site, creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan, and uses creative design and a mix of complementary uses to establish the project as a focal point for the Area. 2. Development of the Transit Center under the PD- Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the land uses and site plan take advantage of the existing BART station and bus transfer center to provide housing, employment and retail uses that encourage and facilitate use of the transit facilities. The land uses and site plan provide effective transitions to surrounding development which is characterized by different kinds of uses, from campus office buildings to Parks RFTA to the I -580 freeway. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed PD- Planned Development zoning for the Transit Center will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the land uses and site plan take advantage of the existing BART station and bus transfer center to provide housing, employment and retail uses that encourage and facilitate use of the transit facilities. The land uses and site plan provide effective transitions to surrounding development which is characterized by different kinds of uses, from campus office buildings to Parks RFTA to the I -580 freeway. 2. The Transit Center site is a relatively flat infill site with existing transit facilities and no major or unusual physical or topographic constraints and thus is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed PD- Planned Development district. 3. The proposed PD- Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD- Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that the project includes companion amendments to both plans which 608851 -1 ATTACHMENT 5 % e 1!S Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Transit Center This is a Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for a Stage 1 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD- Planned Development rezoning for the Transit Center project, PA 00- 013. The Stage 1 Development Plan consists of the items and plans identified below, many of which are contained in a separately bound document titled General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning, dated October, 2002 ( "Stage 1 DP booklet ") which is incorporated herein by reference. The Stage 1 DP booklet is on file in the Dublin Planning Department under file no. PA 00 -013. The PD- Planned Development District and this Stage 1 Development Plan provide flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. 1. Statement of Permitted Uses. Permitted, conditional, accessory and temporary uses are allowed as set forth in the Stage 1 DP booklet, Appendix 2, Dublin Transit Center PD Zoning and Uses, pp. A.6 -.7. 2. Stage 1 Site Plan. See Stage 1 DP booklet, p. 1.5. 3. Site Area, Proposed Densities. For site area, proposed densities, maximum permitted residential units and maximum non - residential square footages, see Stage 1 DP booklet, p. 1.13. 4. Phasing Plan. See Stage 1 DP booklet, pp. 1.17. 5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. See Stage 1 DP booklet, pp. 2.2 to 2.41. 6. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Dublin Transit Center project includes a General Plan amendment which modifies General Plan maps and text for the project. The project also includes an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to add the project site to the specific plan area, to create the project site as a new specific plan subarea, and to add development policies and standards related to the project. Parkland planning for the project also anticipates approval of a General Plan amendment on Site 15A of the County Surplus Property Authority lands, PA 02 -041. The project PD- zoning and this Stage 1 Development Plan shall not be effective until the above general plan amendments and specific plan amendment are approved and effective. 7. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. See Stage 1 DP booklet, pp. 1.10. 8. Aerial Photo. See Stage 1 DP booklet, pp. 1.9. 9. Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to section 8.32.060.C. SECTION 4. 608851 -1 3 �55 `1.S This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced upon the effective date of the general plan amendments and specific plan amendment in PA 00 -013 and PA 02 -041. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this th day of , 2002, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk g:pa00 -013 pd ord 608851 -1 4 '54 e 1115r 1 {Jconon'lic & Planning Systems Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Public Finance Land Use Policy TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Eddie Peabody, City of Dublin Community Development Director From: Tim Youmans and Nicole Brown Subject: Recommendations for Transit Center Financing, East Dublin FFIC Impact Fee Analysis; EPS #12038 Date: October 17, 2002 EPS has been retained to help the City determine the most appropriate method of financing to fund infrastructure improvements required in the Transit Center area, and to fairly allocate the infrastructure costs of both the Transit Center and East Dublin areas, based on the benefits conferred to each. In addition, EPS was asked to determine whether or not costs associated with a BART parking garage could be included in the fee program according to standard nexus requirements. This Memorandum documents the findings of our analysis, and describes our recommended approach to structuring the East Dublin FFIC Impact Fee program. EAST DUBLIN FFIC IMPACT FEE The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area has been a focal point for new development in recent years and has consequently required significant capital improvements to accommodate new residents, employees, and visitors associated with this development. The City established the East Dublin FFIC Impact Fee (EDTIF) to fund improvements needed by development in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area. At the time of its most recent revision in 1999, the EDTIF included a total of $145.5 million in project improvement costs.1 1 It should be noted that the improvement project costs, fee amounts and fee estimates shown in this Technical Memorandum and accompanying tables reflect 1999 project cost estimates. In accordance with Section 10 of Resolution No. 225 -99, these amounts would be increased to 2002 levels to account for inflation. BERKELEY SACRAMENTO DENVER 2501 Ninth St., Suite 200 Phone: 510- 841 -9190 Phone: 916- 649 -8010 Phone: 303 - 623 -3557 Berkeley, CA 94710 -2515 Fax: 510- 841 -9208 Fax: 916 - 649 -2070 Fax: 303 - 623 -9049 www.epsys.com ATTACHMENT � Eddie Peabody October 17, 2002 City of Dublin Page 2 A summary of project costs, is shown in Table 1, with background information provided in Appendix Table 1.2 As shown, improvement projects fall into one of three categories: 1. Category I improvement costs total $112.6 million. These projects are required to serve East Dublin residents and employees, so East Dublin pays the entire cost of these improvements at a rate of $361 per vehicle trip. The per vehicle trip fee rate calculations are shown in Table 2. 2. Category II improvement costs total $28.5 million. These projects are required primarily to serve East Dublin residents and employees, but the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County are also beneficiaries. Consequently, East Dublin pays only its fair share of the total improvement costs at a rate of $91 per vehicle trip. 3. Category I Residential improvement costs total $4.4 million. These projects are required to serve East Dublin residents only, so residents pay the entire cost of these improvements at a rate of $44 per residential trip. TRANSIT CENTER Immediately west of the East Dublin Specific Plan Area lies the proposed Transit Center, another area identified for new development that is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ( ACSPA). Development of the Transit Center will result in increased traffic levels beyond those associated with the East Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Areas, and will consequently require the expansion of a number of improvement projects included in the EDTIF. The City staff estimates that $8.4 million in additional road improvement costs will be required to serve anticipated traffic increases associated with the Transit Center. Similar to other major transportation improvements, these improvement project costs can be included in the EDTIF program assuming that the proposed Transit Center development is subjected to the EDTIF. ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY The ACSPA is one of many landholders in the East Dublin Specific Plan Area, and has consequently constructed a number of transportation improvements in this area that are identified in the EDTIF. As a result, ACSPA is entitled to Category I fee credits from the EDTIF program. However, according to City Resolution #23 -99, fee credits can only be applied against fees due within the same fee category (e.g., Category I) and the same fee benefit district (e.g., EDTIF). 2 Total costs used to calculate the EDTIF in 1999 included individual improvement costs, as well as prior funding advances, TIF credits, anticipated revenues from fees collected at pre -1999 rates and Contra Costa County's contribution, and other adjustments. This accounting is shown in Appendix Table 1. W77mmdac Eddie Peabody October 17, 2002 City of Dublin Page 3 The ACSPA is also the primary landholder in the Transit Center area. As currently proposed, the Transit Center development would include a 1,680 space parking garage to serve the BART station. The proposed parking garage, which will be constructed by ACSPA, is expected to cost approximately $20 million. In addition to the major road improvements that could be included in the EDTIF program, ACSPA has requested that the City review its Traffic Impact Fee program to determine whether there is a need for parking spaces at the BART station due to traffic from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area. Such a finding would warrant inclusion of parking facilities as an EDTIF improvement project, thereby creating a funding source to reimburse the County for $6 million in costs associated with construction of the garage. By including this $6 million in parking garage space costs, the total Transit Center costs to be added to the EDTIF would be $14.4 million, as shown in Table 1. NEXUS FINDINGS The East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee was originally adopted by the City of Dublin in 1995 as a means for financing major transportation projects required to serve the area encompassed by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. The City Resolution (1- 95) that instituted the fee referenced the City policies and specific technical information that underpin the Fee including the East Dublin Specific Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Specific Plan. These documents outlined the freeway, freeway interchanges, arterial and collector road improvements, transit improvements, pedestrian trails, and bicycle paths required to serve the East Dublin Area as it develops. City General Plan policy and the EIR also specify that development occurring in the East Dublin area would pay its proportionate share of the cost of these transportation improvements. The specific "nexus' between development in the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Area and the need for these improvements was established by several technical studies, including the Traffic Impact Fee - Eastern Dublin, Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. (1994) and the 1995 Update to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, TJKM (1996). As noted above, the City has determined that development of the proposed Transit Center will involve construction and /or expansion of existing transportation facilities. The cost of these expanded facilities is estimated to be $8.4 million. The need for these improvements is directly linked to development in the proposed Transit Center; without its development, City staff has determined that the additional transportation facilities will not be necessary. Additionally, the residents and businesses of the proposed Transit Center will benefit from transportation improvements throughout East Dublin. OW 7—doe '57 e /J; Eddie Peabody October 17, 2002 City of Dublin Page 4 Regarding the parking garage spaces, the BART garage is similar to any number of other transportation projects identified as Category II improvements that have already been included in the EDTIF (see Appendix Table 2). These projects are located outside of the EDTIF boundaries but provide benefits to development in East Dublin and can therefore be included in the TIF program. Access to BART provided by the parking garage increases transit access and thus reduces off site trips (and any associated mitigation costs). In order to establish the specific relationship between Eastern Dublin development and the parking garage, the City of Dublin commissioned the firm Omni -Means to conduct a technical analysis of the current spatial derivation of East Dublin BART station patrons and, on the basis of this information, estimate how the distribution may change as East Dublin develops in the future. The Omni -Means analysis, documented in a letter to Mr. Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin dated October 11, 2002, concluded that as many as 860 spaces may be demanded by East Dublin residents, while a more "conservative" estimate of future demand from East Dublin would be in the range of 400 to 500 spaces. A copy of the Omni -Means letter follows this Technical Memorandum, and is identified as Attachment A. EVALUATION OF FINANCING SCENARIOS EPS evaluated a number of financing structures in order to identify a mechanism that would fund needed capital improvement projects within the proposed Transit Center and EDTIF areas, and adhere to AB 1600 requirements with regard to its nexus relationship. Costs for both East Dublin and the proposed Transit Center total $159.9 million, including $114.5 million in Category I, $40.9 million in Category II improvements, and $4.4 million in Category I Residential. These costs are summarized in Table 1. EPS examined the following scenarios: • Creating a single fee area for both East Dublin and the proposed Transit Center; • Preserving the existing boundaries of the EDTIF and creating a separate fee area for the proposed Transit Center; and • Preserving the existing boundaries of the EDTIF and charging mitigation costs to the proposed Transit Center development. Each of these scenarios was evaluated with and without the inclusion of the BART parking garage costs. EPS also worked with the City's Public Works Department to determine the most appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed Transit Center development. Upon review of the daily trip rates estimated for office and retail uses in the Transit Center EIR, the Public Works Department advised that the City's standard trip rates, OdI7mm.da Eddie Peabody City of Dublin lPr October 17, 2002 Page 5 established for the EDTIF, will better characterize the proposed Transit Center development. It was also recommended that a "Transit Center Residential" category be added to the City's trip rate tables to reflect an anticipated increase in transit usage among these residents, as described in the Transit Center EIR. The recommended trip generation rates are shown in Table 3. ACSPA FEE CONCEPT Each financing scenario was studied in relation to an initial fee concept identified by ACSPA in October 2001 as a starting point in studying how the Transit Center costs might be included in the EDTIF program. To illustrate how the EDTIF could be expanded to include the proposed Transit Center development, ACSPA estimated EDTIF revenues by applying the current rate of $496 per residential trip and $452 per non - residential trip to the total number of trips anticipated for both the East Dublin and the Transit Center areas. For discussion purposes, EPS has labeled this the ACSPA fee concept. As shown in Table 4, this approach would result in approximately $168.2 million in fee revenues, including over $145.4 million from Eastern Dublin development and more than $22.8 million from development at the proposed Transit Center. In this scenario, the total fees paid would exceed total project costs by approximately $8.3 million. Although the ACSPA fee concept is a helpful illustration of the County's request, it could not be implemented in practice because the fee concept results in $8.3 million more in revenues than associated project costs, so this program would charge development with more than its fair share of costs. RECOMMENDED FEE PROGRAM As described previously, the total cost of transportation improvements needed to serve the proposed Transit Center and the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Area is $159.9 million. EPS evaluated the issues associated with expanding the EDTIF program to encompass the proposed Transit Center development and its associated improvement costs, and also reviewed trip rate assumptions and other considerations. In light of nexus requirements and the City's objectives related to both the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Area and the proposed Transit Center development, the optimal fee program would likely involve the following: 1) expand the EDTIF program to encompass transportation improvement costs of both the East Dublin and Transit Center areas; 2) include the cost of constructing 500 spaces for the proposed BART parking garage ($6 million) as a Category II project; and 3) recalculate TIF fees using the trip rates shown in Table 3. This fee structure is referred to herein as the Recommended Fee Program. OdVmm.do Eddie Peabody October 17, 2002 City of Dublin rage b As shown in Table 2, the Recommended Fee Program may result in lower fee rates for both East Dublin and the proposed Transit Center of $471 per residential trip and $430 per non - residential trip. This represents a savings of approximately 5 percent from existing fee rates. Fees for each land use were calculated by multiplying the per vehicle trip rates by the appropriate trip generation rate for each use, as detailed in Table 5. The total fees paid were then estimated by multiplying the fee for each land use by the anticipated amount of development for both East Dublin and the proposed Transit Center. Under the Recommended Fee Program, the fair share of program costs allocated to East Dublin is estimated at $138.2 million, while the fair share of program costs allocated to the proposed Transit Center is estimated at $21.7 million, as shown in Table 5. However, it is important to note that the conditions of approval for the Transit Center may require ACSPA to construct transportation improvements at a cost that exceeds this land owner's fair share of program costs. If this occurs, ACSPA will accrue fee credits equal to the difference between the cost of constructing the necessary improvements and the fair share amount of fee program costs. The Recommended Fee Program appears to be the optimal fee structure for five key reasons, as described in the following section: 1) Creates Simple Fee Structure The improvement projects identified for the East Dublin and Transit Center areas will confer benefits to both areas that would be difficult to estimate if two separate fee programs were established. A single fee program will be easier and more cost effective to administer. 2) Preserves Nexus Relationship In light of the inseparable crossover benefits between the East Dublin and Transit Center areas as described above, creating a single fee benefit district to fund costs associated with both areas is justified by nexus principles. The BART parking garage provides a good illustration of the relationship between the two areas. Although this project is a component of the proposed Transit Center development, the provision of additional spaces will benefit residents and employees of both the East Dublin and Transit Center areas, as demonstrated in the Omni -Means analysis summarized previously. Similarly, development at the proposed Transit Center will benefit from improvements made to Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, which are included in the existing EDTIF program. Provided that development in both East Dublin and the proposed Transit Center pay their fair share of total project costs, the nexus relationship for a single fee area is preserved. Under the Recommended Fee Program, development at the proposed Transit Center will pay its fair share of transportation facilities serving the area. As shown in Table 1, expanding the EDTIF to encompass the proposed CW17 d- Eddie Peabody City of Dublin 6'� 2� 11-5 October 17, 2002 Page 7 Transit Center development will add $14.4 million in project costs to the total fee program. However, as shown in Table 5, the Transit Center would pay a total of $21.7 million in TIF fees under the Recommended Fee Program. The additional $7.3 million in TIF fees paid by the Transit Center reflect the benefits that development in this area will receive from improvements already included in the original EDTIF program. Meanwhile, East Dublin s fair share of improvement costs is lowered as a result of expanding the fee program to include the Transit Center development and its required transportation projects. As shown in Table 1, the EDTIF program includes $145.5 million in total improvement project costs. Yet, development in East Dublin will only pay $138.2 million in TIF fees under the Recommended Fee Program (see Table 5). As described above, this difference accounts for benefits that development at the Transit Center will garner from other EDTIF improvements. This savings of $7.3 million in total fees paid also demonstrates the advantage of the Recommended Fee Program for development in East Dublin. 4) Funds Needed Improvements The Recommended Fee Program will provide the City with sufficient fee revenue to fund all of the capital improvements programmed for both the East Dublin and the Transit Center areas. 5) Lowers TIF Fees As described above, development in East Dublin would pay an estimated $7.3 million less in fees under the Recommended Fee Program. This translates into lower TIF fees relative to the ACSPA Fee Concept as well. In fact, the fees for development in both areas are approximately 5 percent lower with the Recommended Fee Program than under the ACSPA Fee Concept. CONCLUSION The Recommended Fee Program outlined above represents one method for financing the $159.9 million in transportation improvement costs needed to serve the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area and the proposed Transit Center development. As described earlier in this Technical Memorandum, expanding the EDTIF to encompass the proposed Transit Center development and including the cost of constructing 500 parking spaces for a BART parking garage is well within the bounds of a justifiable nexus relationship. In addition to meeting the standard nexus requirements, the Recommended Fee Program would also establish a simple fee structure that can provide sufficient funding for improvements made to both the East Dublin and Transit Center areas. Finally, the Recommended Fee Program may result in lower TIF fees than if the EDTIF maintains its existing geographic boundaries. oM.7mm.&C Eddie Peabody City of Dublin IMPLEMENTATION ' //-5' October 17, 2002 Page 8 The City of Dublin can implement the Recommended Fee Program in the process of updating the Eastern Dublin TIF, an effort that is currently underway. The fee update will reflect changes to land use projections as well as revised cost estimates for transportation improvements included in the EDTIF program. These changes will result in a revised fee that takes into account the current status of improvements that are complete, under construction, or guaranteed under a development agreement. It is important to note that the analysis presented in this Technical Memorandum does not reflect changed conditions since the TIF was last updated in 1999. Therefore, the estimates made in this study will need to be revised once the Eastern Dublin TIF update has been completed. It also bears repeating that while the fair share of program costs allocated to the proposed Transit Center under the Recommended Fee Program is estimated at $21.7 million, the conditions of approval for the Transit Center may require ACSPA to construct transportation improvements at a cost that exceeds this fair share amount. ACSPA would be entitled to fee credits if this occurs. Oc Mn-dac Table 1 Summary of Costs Used to Calculate East Dublin and Transit Center Fees City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 Item East Dublin TIF Total Costs for Calculation of TIF [1] Transit Center Additional Costs of EDTIF Projects Triggered by Transit Center [1] Transit Center BART Parking Garage Total Transit Center Costs Total Costs for East Dublin and Transit Center Category I Category II Category I Total Residential $112,589,333 $28,478,389 $4,443,645 $145,511,367 $1,918,815 $6,460,590 $0 $8,379,405 $00 $6,000,000 $0 $6,000,00 0 $1,918,815 $12,460,590 $0 $14,379,405 $114,508,148 $40,938,979 $4,443,645 $159,890,772 [1] See Appendix Table 1 for detail. Figures shown reflect total costs for the transportation improvement projects listed in Appendix Table 2 as well as the cost adjustments identified in Appendix Table 1. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1011712002 H :112038dublmodelslloctl7mod.xis IR Table 2 Calculation of Fee per Vehicle Trip City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 L/' . 115 Item Fee is Applied To: Category I Residential AND Non- Residential Category II Residential AND Non - Residential Category I Residential Development ONLY Total Existing Program Existing TIF Program Costs [1] $112,589,633 $28,478,389 $4,443,645 $145,511,667 Existing TIF Program Trips [2] 311,882 311,882 102,115 311,882 Existing Fee Per Residential Trip [3] $361 $91 $44 $496 Existing Fee Per Non - Residential Trip [3] $361 $91 N/A $452 Recommended Fee Program Existing TIF Program Costs [1] $112,589,633 $28,478,389 $4,443,645 $145,511,667 Additional Transit Center Costs [1] $1,918.815 $12.460.590 $00 $14.379.405 Total Costs $114,508,148 $40,938,979 $4,443,645 $159,890,772 Existing TIF Program Trips 311,882 311,882 108,424 311,882 Adjusted Transit Center Trips 49.765 49.765 0 49.765 Adjusted Program Trips 361,647 361,647 108,424 361,647 Adjusted Fee Per Residential Trip [2] $317 $113 $41 $471 Adjusted Fee Per Non - Residential Trip [2] $317 $113 N/A $430 [1] From Table 1. [2] Fee per vehicle trip is equal to .total costs divided by total trips. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. In Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1011712002 H :112038dublmodelslloctl7mod.xls Table 3 Description of Projects and Total Vehicle Trips at Buildout [1] City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 Land Use Residential Units Single Family Medium Density Medium High Density High Density Residential Transit Center Residential Rural Total Non - Residential Square Footage General Commercial Light Industrial Campus Office General Commercial / Campus Auto Dealership Auto Service Neighborhood Commercial Restaurant Industrial Park Total Other Uses Hotel Rooms Total TOTAL FOR ALL LAND USES East Dublin TIF [1] Transit Center Trip Rate Devel. Trips Devel. Trips 6� 11-5 Total Devel. Total Trips [1] Information provided by City of Dublin Public Works Department. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1011712002 H:112038dublmodelsllodl7mod.xls Units Units Units 10.00 3,425 34,250 - 0 3,425 34,250 10.00 3,984 39,840 - 0 3,984 39,840 7.00 2,365 16,555 - 0 2,365 16,555 6.00 1,709 10,254 - 0 1,709 10,254 4.97 1,500 7,455 1,500 7,455 10.00 7 70 - 0 7 70 11,490 100,969 1,500 7,455 12,950 108,424 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 33.00 2,363,348 77,990 70,000 2,310 2,433,348 80,300 8.00 0 0 - 0 0 0 20.00 4,225,916 84,518 2,000,000 40,000 6,225,916 124,518 26.50 182,952 4,848 - 0 182,952 4,848 48.00 63,300 3,038 - 0 63,300 3,038 20.00 12,360 247 - 0 12,360 247 46.00 647,694 29,794 - 0 647,694 29,794 133.00 14,000 1,862 - 0 -14,000 1,862 8.00 883.068 7.065 0 883.068 7.065 - 8,392,638 209,363 2,070,000 42,310 10,462,638 251,673 Rooms Rooms Rooms 10.00 155 1,550 - 0 155 1,550 155 1,550 0 0 155 1,550 311,882 49,765 361,647 [1] Information provided by City of Dublin Public Works Department. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1011712002 H:112038dublmodelsllodl7mod.xls Table 4 Estimated Fees by Land Use Category and Fee Structure: ACSPA Fee Concept City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 Non - Residential Development Assumptions [1]. ACSPA Fee Concept [2] Land Use Trip Fee Development 33.00 Total Fees 2,363,348 70,000 Rate Per East Transit Fee by East Transit - - $3.62 Trip Dublin Center Land Use Dublin Center 4,225,916 2,000,000 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) _ (A) " (B) (F) _ (C) * (E) (G) _ (D) " (E) 182,952 - $11.98 $2,191,399 $0 Auto Dealership 48.00 $452 Residential Development $21.70 $1,373,357 $0 Auto Service 20.00 $452 Single Family 10.00 $496 3,425 - $4,958 $16,982,113 $0 Medium Density 10.00 $496 3,984 - $4,958 $19,753,792 $0 Medium High Density 7.00 $496 2,365 - $3,471 $8,208,434 $0 High Density Residential 6.00 $496 1,709 - $2,975 $5,084,221 $0 Transit Center Residential 4.97 $496 - 1,500 $2,464 $0 $3,696,399 Rural 10.00 $496 7 - $4,958 $34,708 $0 Non - Residential Development General Commercial 33.00 $452 2,363,348 70,000 $14.92 $35,251,699 $1,044,120 Light Industrial 8.00 $452 - - $3.62 $0 $0 Campus Office 20.00 $452 4,225,916 2,000,000 $9.04 $38,202,281 $18,080,000 General Commercial / Campus 26.50 $452 182,952 - $11.98 $2,191,399 $0 Auto Dealership 48.00 $452 63,300 - $21.70 $1,373,357 $0 Auto Service 20.00 $452 12,360 - $9.04 $111,734 $0 Neighborhood Commercial 46.00 $452 647,694 - $20.79 $13,466,854 $0 Restaurant 133.00 $452 14,000 - $60.12 $841,624 $0 Industrial Park 8.00 $452 883,068 - $3.62 $3,193,174 $0 Other Uses Hotel -- Per Room 10.00 $452 155 - $4,520 $700,600 $0 Total Fees Paid by Development Area $145,395,989 $22,820,519 TOTAL FEES PAID $168,216,507 [1] See Table 3 for detailed trip generation rates and total trips. [2] See Table 2 for calculation of fees. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 68 � pis Table 5 Estimated Fees by Land Use Category and Fee Structure: Recommended Fee Program City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 Non - Residential Development Assumptions [1] Recommended Fee Program [2] Land Use Trip Fee Development 33.00 Total Fees 2,363,348 70,000 Rate Per East Transit Fee by East Transit - - $3.44 Trip Dublin Center Land Use Dublin Center 4,225,916 2,000,000 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) _ (A) " (e) (F) _ (C) " (E) (G) _ (D) ' (E) Residential Development $11.39 $2,083,919 $0 Auto Dealership 48.00 $430 Single Family 10.00 $471 3,425 - $4,708 $16,125,412 $0 Medium Density 10.00 $471 3,984 - $4,708 $18,757,267 $0 Medium High Density 7.00 $471 2,365 - $3,296 $7,794,341 $0 High Density Residential 6.00 $471 1,709 - $2,825 $4,827,736 $0 Transit Center Residential 4.97 $471 - 1,500 $2,340 $0 $3,509,925 Rural 10.00 $471 7 - $4,708 $32,957 $0 Non - Residential Development General Commercial 33.00 $430 2,363,348 70,000 $14.18 $33,522,726 $992,910 Light Industrial 8.00 $430 - - $3.44 $0 $0 Campus Office 20.00 $430 4,225,916 2,000,000 $8.60 $36,328,592 $17,193,239 General Commercial / Campus 26.50 $430 182,952 - $11.39 $2,083,919 $0 Auto Dealership 48.00 $430 63,300 - $20.63 $1,305,998 $0 Auto Service 20.00 $430 12,360 - $8.60 $106,254 $0 Neighborhood Commercial 46.00 $430 647,694 - $19.77 $12,806,352 $0 Restaurant 133.00 $430 14,000 - $57.17 $800,345 $0 Industrial Park 8.00 $430 883,068 - $3.44 $3,036,560 $0 Other Uses Hotel — Per Room 10.00 $430 155 - $4,298 $666,238 $0 Total Fees Paid by Development Area $138,194,698 $21,696,074 TOTAL FEES PAID [3] $159,890,772 [1] See Table 3 for detailed trip generation rates and total trips. [2] See Table 2 for calculation of fees. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. r7 ?5' // 5 Economic & Planning Systems Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Public Finance Land Use Policy APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table 1 East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee -1999 Update [1] Calculation of the Per Trip TIF by Category City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 Line (1) Costs of Improvements/Right-of-Way Not Currently Guaranteed [2] (2) Balance on Prior Funding Advances (3) Balance Due on TIF Credits (Existing TIF) (4) Balance Due on TIF Credits (New TIF) (5) Total Costs of TIF Improvements (6) Estimated Fees From Remaining Trips Collected at Current Rate (7) Fees Collected to Date (8) Section 1 Residential Fee Collected at Old Rate (9) Estimated Contra Costa County Contribution (10) Adjusted Costs to be Financed by Revised Fee [3] Category I Category II Category I Total (Residential) $85,755,480 $38,148,755 $1,947,335 $125,851,570 $6,559,210 $4,113,429 $0 $10,672,639 $11,568,507 $0 $0 $11,568,507 $20,377,385 $0 $2,802,460 $23,179,845 $124,260,582 $42,262,184 $4,749,795 $171,272,561 ($3,601,400) ($1,059,920) $0 - $774,001 ($2,423,875) $0 - $306,150 $0 ($306,150) - ($9,150,000) ($10,300,000) $0 - $112,589,333 $28,478,389 $4,443,645 $145,511,367 [1] This table is a replication of the City of Dublin EDT/F 1999 Update, Exhibit B, Table 1. [2] See Appendix Table 2 for detail. [3] These costs are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 to calculate fees. Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1011712002 H:112038dubldatalloct I7mod.xls 0 /)/ e ors Appendix Table 2 Transit Center Improvement Project List [1] City of Dublin TIF Analysis; EPS #12038 Sec. Name Project Costs Allocated by Area East Dublin Transit TIF Center Total Category I Improvements 8 Dublin -SP row to East Bart Access $73,125 $0 $73,125 8A Dublin - East BART Access to Hacienda $363,792 $0 $363,792 9 Dublin - Hacienda to Tassajara $0 $0 $0 10 Dublin - Tassajara to Fallon $11,703,768 $0 $11,703,768 11 Dublin - Fallon to Airway $17,502,214 $0 $17,502,214 8 -11 Dublin Blvd. Adjustment ($973,000) $0 ($973,000) 13 Hacienda Drive, 1 -580 to Dublin Boulevard $130,000 $0 $130,000 14 Hacienda Drive, Dublin to Gleason $663,636 $0 $663,636 15 Interchange at Hacienda $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000 16 Arnold - Dublin to Gleason $2,618,990 $0 $2,618,990 16A Central Parkway - Hacienda to Arnold $327,538 $0 $327,538 17 Central Parkway - Hacienda to Tassajara $1,356,012 $0 $1,356,012 18 Central Parkway - Tassajara to Fallon W. $4,335,073 $0 $4,335,073 18A Central Parkway - Tassajara to Fallon E. $3,909,472 $0 $3,909,472 19 Gleason - Arnold to Hacienda $146,250 $0 $146,250 19A Gleason - Hacienda to Tassajara $0 $0 $0 20 Gleason - Tassajara to Fallon $5,665,094 $0 $5,665,094 22 Tassajara - North of Gleason to CC County $7,727,764 $0 $7,727,764 22A Tassajara - Gleason to North of Gleason $2,340,955 $0 $2,340,955 23 Tassajara - Gleason to Dublin $604,970 $0 $604,970 24 Tassajara - Dublin to 1580 $62,400 $0 $62,400 25 Interchange at Tassajara $11,315,008 $0 $11,315,008 26 Fallon - Tassajara to Dublin (Gleason) $6,992,428 $0 $6,992,428 26A Fallon - Gleason to Dublin $5,275,973 $0 $5,275,973 27 Fallon - Dublin to North of 1580 $773,018 $0 $773,018 31 Precise Plan Line Costs $451,000 $0 $451,000 NA TIF Update $90,000 $0 $90,000 NA ROW Contingency $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 NA Balance on Prior Funding Advances $0 $0 $0 NA Balance on Credits Existing TIF $0 $0 $0 NA Hacienda Drive 11-580 Interchange $1,918.81 5 $1,918.815 Total Category I Improvements $85,755,480 $1,918,815 $87,674,295 Category II Improvements 1 Dougherty - City Limits to AVB $3,592,629 $0 $3,592,629 2 Dougherty - AVB to Houston $3,875,217 $0 $3,875,217 3 Dougherty Road – North Leg $131,213 $446,350 $577,563 4 Dougherty Road – South Leg $1,928,809 $3,078,490 $5,007,299 5 Dublin - E of VP to Sierra Court $0 $0 $0 6 Dublin Blvd – West Leg $1,933,334 $201,740 $2,135,074 7 Dublin Blvd – East Leg $2,366,025 $369,810 $2,735,835 12 Interchange at Airway $2,080,000 $0 $2,080,000 21 Scarlett Drive – Extension $8,321,777 $2,364,200 $10,685,977 28 Interchange at Fallon $13,919,751 $0 $13,919,751 NA Balance on Prior Funding Advances Mo $0 $0 Total Category II Improvements $38,148,755 $6,460,590 $44,609,345 Category I Residential Improvements 8 Dublin - SP row to East BART Access $0 $0 $0 29 Tassajara Creek Bike Path $1,063,335 $0 $1,063,335 30 Park and Ride Lots IU4 0-00 $0 $884,000 Total Category I Residential (Applied to Residential $1,947,335 $0 $1,947,335 Development Only) Total Program Cost J$125,85 1,570 $8,379,405 $134,230,975 [1] Cost information from Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee 1999 Update, Table 2: "Transit Center Mitigations Cost Share Analysis ". Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/17/2002 H .112038dubtmodelslloctl7mod.xls ATTACHMENT Economic & Planning Systems Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Public Finance Land Use Policy October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 1 October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Traffic Engineer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 //73 1-"' its From Omni -Means Subject: Analysis of East Dublin Residents Parking at the Dublin BART Station Dear Mr. Kuzbari: This letter report summarizes our analysis of resident parking characteristics at the Dublin BART station. Specifically, we have identified the residence locations for the existing BART station parkers and projected how those patterns are likely to change in the future. 1. Existing Dublin BART Parking Characteristics The existing Dublin BART station parking consists of-surface parking within lots and along streets in the BART station area. In order to establish the residence locations for the current BART users, a license plate survey was conducted at the BART station.0 ) This survey recorded a total of 1,440 license plates of the vehicles parked at the station. These plates were processed by the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to identify addresses for the parked vehicles. The results of the survey are listed in Table 1. As indicated, about 25% of the current BART users are Dublin residents. Of this total, 9.4% currently reside within the East Dublin area (east of Arnold Drive and north of 1 -580). The East Dublin area currently has about 2,570 occupied dwelling units.(2) The 135 BART users from East Dublin therefore represent about 5% of the current dwelling units. The survey results suggest that a high proportion of the BART users are from outside the City of Dublin. In particular, the combined use by San Ramon, Livermore and Central Valley residents is 53% of all the BART users. This statistic suggests that "end - of -line" stations such as Dublin are significantly affected by demand from areas beyond the City limits. October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 2 2. Proiected BART Use By East Dublin Residents q � its From Omni -Means As noted above, 9.4% of the current BART users represent East Dublin households. However, the number of East Dublin dwelling units will increase significantly. At buildout, an additional October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 3 95 VZ From Omni -Means TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RESIDENCE PATTERNS FOR CURRENT DUBLIN BART PARKING Residence Location Percent of BART Parking Dublin 25.0% (East Dublin 9.4 %; other Dublin 15.6 %) San Ramon 23.8% Central Valley Livermore Pleasanton Danville Other Locations 15.8% 13.4% 6.5% 4.9% 10.6% 100% ll:5 n En October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 4 �26 `1S From Omni -Means 12,300 units will be occupied and added to the current 2,570 unit count.(3) The eventual 14,900 East Dublin units will represent nearly six times the current housing in the area. With this very large increase in housing, it is likely that the BART ridership from East Dublin residents would also increase. It would be tenuous to assume that the very large increase in East Dublin dwelling units would result in a proportional increase in BART ridership from that area. The BART station parking spaces would continue to be available for riders on a "first come - first served" basis. Thus, a rider from outside the City of Dublin would have the same opportunity for parking at Dublin BART as an East Dublin resident. However, it is expected that with the very large increase in East Dublin residents, the proportion of BART use by those residents would increase somewhat. The potential for this increase has been assessed based on several data sources. With construction of the West Dublin BART station, it is likely that a substantial portion of West Dublin and, San Ramon patrons, would shift to that station. With that shift, a greater number of the existing stations users would be East Dublin residents. If one - half of the current San Ramon and West Dublin patrons shift to the new West Dublin BART station, about 283 East Dublin BART spaces would, in theory, be available for East Dublin residents. The total BART use by East Dublin residents could increase to about 418 vehicles (135 existing vehicles plus 283 vehicles). With a proportional increase to account for an increased parking supply (2,200 future spaces vs. 1,680 current spaces), the East Dublin BART usage could increase to about 550 spaces. It is, however, also recognized that the greater availability of parking at the East Dublin BART station could attract patrons from the substantial population growth of the Central Valley and Dougherty Valley areas. Based on 2000 Census survey information about 5.8% of East Dublin households use BART as their primary commute mode.(4) This ratio is measurably higher than the 3.4% factor for other Dublin residents taken from the same Year 2000 Census survey data.(5) Applying the 5.8% factor to the eventual 14,900 East Dublin dwelling units could yield a total of about 860 BART riders from the East Dublin area. Again, these residents would be competing with other BART patrons from outside the City, and the actual proportion of East Dublin BART users could be lower. Finally, we have discussed the potential for East Dublin BART usage with Mr. Robert Cervero, a Professor with the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Mr. Cervero indicates that in increasing numbers, people are choosing their housing location based upon its proximity to BART. Thus, it could be expected that East Dublin would attract a greater number of potential BART users. In fact, the relative BART usage by East Dublin residents (described above) appears to validate this premise. October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 5 3. Summary and Conclusions � its From Omni -Means As determined from the license plate surveys, use of the existing BART station is widespread geographically with only 25% of the users representing Dublin residents. Substantial use (53% of the total) is generated by residents of San Ramon, Livermore and the Central Valley. While it is tenuous to precisely predict future BART use by Dublin residents, it is likely that a greater number of the East Dublin BART patrons would represent East Dublin residents. First, applying the current commute patterns to the East Dublin dwelling units would yield an East Dublin demand for about 860 BART parking spaces (14,900 total East Dublin dwelling units x 5.8% BART usage). In light of people choosing to live in East Dublin because of its proximity to BART, this appears to be a reasonable estimate. In addition, construction of the West Dublin BART station would be expected to attract a substantial portion of the San Ramon and West Dublin residents, resulting in more parking spaces being available at the existing East Dublin BART station. If one -half of the San Ramon and West Dublin BART users shift to the new station, about 550 East Dublin residents would have spaces available within the expanded East Dublin BART parking. However, Dublin residents would continue to compete with non - Dublin residents for parking spaces. In light of this fact, a more conservative estimate would be that 400 -500 of the future East Dublin BART parking spaces would be used by East Dublin residents. I trust that this report responds to your needs. Please review our analyses and call me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, George W. Nickelson, P.E. Branch Manager Omni - Means, Ltd. cc: Nicole Brown, EPS October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 6 References: iS e 1`S From Omni -Means (1) Parking survey by Omni- Means, Ltd. on September 30, 2002. (2) Dwelling unit statistics provided by Mr. Eddie Peabody, Dublin Community Development Director, on September 30, 2002. (3) Mr Eddie Peabody, Ibid... (4) Year 2000 census data provided by Ms. Janet Harbin, Dublin Community Development Department, October 8, 2002. (5) Year 2000 census data, East Dublin Residents Using BART (104 workers / 1,803 total workers = 5.8 %), Remaining [other] Dublin Residents (437 workers / 12,696 workers = 3.4 %), Table P30, Means of Transportation to Work for Workers 16 Years and Over, Census 2000 Summary File. g . A R S R October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Traffic Engineer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Analysis of East Dublin Residents Parking at the Dublin BART Station Dear Mr. Kuzbari: l /-:5, This letter report summarizes our analysis of resident parking characteristics at the Dublin BART station. Specifically, we have identified the residence locations for the existing BART station parkers and projected how those patterns are likely to change in the future. 1. Existing Dublin BART Parking Characteristics The existing Dublin BART station parking consists of surface parking within lots and along streets in the BART station area. In order to establish the residence locations for the current BART users, a license plate survey was conducted at the BART station."' This survey recorded a total of 1,440 license plates of the vehicles parked at the station. These plates were processed by the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to identify addresses for the parked vehicles. The results of the survey are listed in Table 1. As indicated, about 25% of the current BART users are Dublin residents. Of this total, 9.4 % currently reside within the East Dublin area (east of Arnold Drive and north of I -580). The East Dublin area currently has about 2,570 occupied dwelling units." The 135 BART users from East Dublin therefore represent about 5% of the current dwelling units. The survey results suggest that a high proportion of the BART users are from outside the City of Dublin. In particular, the combined use by San Ramon, Livermore and Central Valley residents is 53 % of all the BART users. This statistic suggests that "end -of- line" stations such as Dublin are significantly affected by demand from areas beyond the City limits. 2. Projected BART Use By East Dublin Residents As noted above, 9.4% of the current BART users represent East Dublin households. However, the number of East Dublin dwelling units will increase significantly. At buildout, an additional 1901 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 120 @ Walnut Creek, CA 94596 m (925) 935 -2230 fax: (925) 935 -2247 ROSEVILLE REDDING VISALIA WALNUT CREEK October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 2 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RESIDENCE PATTERNS FOR CURRENT DUBLIN BART PARKING Residence Location Dublin (East Dublin 9.4 %; other Dublin 15.6 %) San Ramon Central Valley Livermore Pleasanton Danville Other Locations 51 Percent of BART Parkina 25.0% 23.8% 15.8% 13.4% 6.5% 4.9% 10.6% 100% 28Z' Il October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 3 12,300 units will be occupied and added to the current 2,570 unit count. (3) The eventual 14,900 East Dublin units will represent nearly six times the current housing in the area. With this very large increase in housing, it is likely that the BART ridership from East Dublin residents would also increase. It would be tenuous to assume that the very large increase in East Dublin dwelling units would result in a proportional increase in BART ridership from that area. The BART station parking spaces would continue to be available for riders on a "first come - first served" basis. Thus, a rider from outside the City of Dublin would have the same opportunity for parking at Dublin BART as an East Dublin resident. However, it is expected that with the very large increase in East Dublin residents, the proportion of BART use by those residents would increase somewhat. The potential for this increase has been assessed based on several data sources. With construction of the West Dublin BART station, it is likely that a substantial portion of West Dublin and San Ramon patrons would shift to that station. With that shift, a greater number of the existing stations users would be East Dublin residents. If one -half of the current San Ramon and West Dublin patrons shift to the new West Dublin BART station, about 283 East Dublin BART spaces would, in theory, be available for East Dublin residents. The total BART use by East Dublin residents could increase to about 418 vehicles (135 existing vehicles plus 283 vehicles). With a proportional increase to account for an increased parking supply (2,200 future spaces vs. 1,680 current spaces), the East Dublin BART usage could increase to about 550 spaces. It is, however, also recognized that the greater availability of parking at the East Dublin BART station could attract patrons from the substantial population growth of the Central Valley and Dougherty Valley areas. Based on 2000 Census survey information, about 5.8 % of East Dublin households use BART as their primary commute mode."' This ratio is measurably higher than the 3.4% factor for other Dublin residents taken from the same Year 2000 Census survey data. ts' Applying the 5.8 % factor to the eventual 14,900 East Dublin dwelling units could yield a total of about 860 BART riders from the East Dublin area. Again, these residents would be competing with other BART patrons from outside the City, and the actual proportion of East Dublin BART users could be lower. Finally, we have discussed the potential for East Dublin BART usage with Mr. Robert Cervero, a Professor with the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Mr. Cervero indicates that in increasing numbers, people are choosing their housing location based upon its proximity to BART. Thus, it could be expected that East Dublin would attract a greater number of potential BART users. In fact, the relative BART usage by East Dublin residents (described above) appears to validate this premise. October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 4 3. Summary and Conclusions As determined from the license plate surveys, use of the existing BART station is widespread geographically with only 25 % of the users representing Dublin residents. Substantial use (53 % of the total) is generated by residents of San Ramon, Livermore and the Central Valley. While it is tenuous to precisely predict future BART use by Dublin residents, it is likely that a greater number of the East Dublin BART patrons would represent East Dublin residents. First, applying the current commute patterns .to the East Dublin dwelling units would yield an East Dublin demand for about 860 BART parking spaces (14,900 total East Dublin dwelling units x 5.8 % BART usage). In light of people choosing to live in East Dublin because of its proximity to BART, this appears to be a reasonable estimate. In addition, construction of the West Dublin BART station would be expected to attract a substantial portion of the San Ramon and West Dublin residents, resulting in more parking spaces being available at the existing East Dublin BART station. If one -half of the San Ramon and West Dublin BART users shift to the new station, about 550 East Dublin residents would have spaces available within the expanded East Dublin BART parking. However, Dublin residents would continue to. compete with non - Dublin residents for parking spaces. In light of this fact, a more conservative estimate would be that 400 -500 of the future East Dublin BART parking spaces would be used by East Dublin residents. I trust that this report responds to your needs. Please review our analyses and call me with any questions or comments. Sin rely, George Xic k elson, P. E. Branch Manager Omni- Means, Ltd. cc: Nicole Brown, EPS 8 October 11, 2002 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Page 5 References: (1) Parking survey by Omni - Means, Ltd. on September 30, 2002. (2) Dwelling unit statistics provided by Mr. Eddie Peabody, Dublin Community Development Director, on September 30, 2002. (3) Mr Eddie Peabody, Ibid... (4) Year 2000 census data provided by Ms. Janet Harbin, Dublin Community Development Department, October 8, 2002. (5) Year 2000 census data, East Dublin Residents Using BART (104 workers / 1,803 total workers = 5.8 %), Remaining [other] Dublin Residents (437 workers / 12,696 workers = 3.4 %), Table P30, Means of Transportation to Work for Workers 16 Years and Over, Census 2000 Summary File. M M E5 F� l/,o AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2002 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 00 -013 known as the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area submitted by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) to consider an Amendment to the General Plan; Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; Planned Development (PD) Rezone /Stage I Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area; Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892; and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Report prepared by: Michael Porto, Project Planner) ATTACHMENTS: 1 Resolution Recommending City Council Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 2 Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 3. Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the Planned Development Rezone /Stage I Development Plan 4. Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 5. Dublin Transit Center - spiral -bound report dated October 2002 prepared by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for the City of Dublin 6. Draft EIR dated July 2001 and Final EIR dated September 2002 for the Dublin Transit Center (sent previously under separate cover 7. EPS Study /Omni Means Traffic Study RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public. 3. Question Staff, Applicant, and the public. 4. Close public hearing and deliberate. 5. Adopt the following resolutions: a. Resolution recommending City Council certification of the Final EIR (SCH No. 20001120395) and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program b. Resolution recommending City Council approval of Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan c. Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone /Stage I Development Plan d. Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner PA File Project Manager ATTACHMENT ITEM NO. ,FS `1s BACKGROUND: The subject property of this Application is referred to as the Transit Village Center Planning Area. The Applicant is the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ( ACSPA), as the primary property owner, in cooperation with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Until several years ago, the area was owned by the U. S. Army as part of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA), but came under ownership of the ACSPA as a result of several land exchanges. Total area within the Transit Village Center boundaries is approximately 91 acres (actual 90.65 acres) with ownership divided as follows: a) ACSPA = approximately 61.5 acres, b) BART = 15 acres, c) public roads and right -of -way = approximately 14 acres. This 90.65 -acre area generally is bounded on the north by Dublin Boulevard and the southerly portion of the Parks RFTA complex, on the south by I -580 and existing BART station, on the east by Arnold Road, and on the west by the Iron Horse Trail which is a recreational greenbelt along an abandoned railroad right -of -way. Other than the existing public streets, transit - related improvements, and associated parking lots, the area currently is undeveloped with a flat topography that gently slopes to the south and west. The Dublin Transit Village Center is not located within any of the City's Specific Plan areas, but is situated immediately to the west of the 3,300 -acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and east of the City's "Primary Planning Area." Due to its history as part of Parks RFTA, the area retains a General Plan Land Use designation as Public Lands. Portions of the area also are designated Business Park/Industrial and Business Park: Low Coverage. Aside from the transit related uses, the area currently is zoned for Agriculture. A planning study was conducted by ACSPA and concluded in September 2001. According to the Applicant, no other BART station has as much adjacent vacant land under one ownership with major streets and utilities in place. The proposed plan reflects the results of that study with consideration given to opportunities for planning and developing a mixed -use project from the ground up which provides convenient access to mass transit use as a primary means of transportation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General: The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area is proposed as a new neighborhood of mixed uses arranged around a village green, a series of open space corridors, and plazas connecting to the entrance of the East Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. The project is anticipated to include approximately 1,500 high- density residential units and approximately 2 million square feet of campus office ranging in height from 8 to 10 stories. Ground floors of both the residential and campus office developments are proposed to include ancillary retail for providing convenient goods and services to residents, workers, and rail commuters. Approximately 490,000 sf or up to 24% of this campus office space is "flex" space meaning that it may be replaced with up to 300 additional residential units or a combination of housing and hotel uses depending upon the market and developer interest. A key element of the proposed plan is the BART station and reconfiguration of the parking, which serves that station. The existing BART facility, which opened in 1995, is located in the median of the I -580 freeway on the south side and just outside of the Dublin Transit Village Center project area. Transit - related improvements on site include a traction station/access platform, a utility substation that supplies power to the BART station, a bus transfer station, and surface parking lot of approximately 1,326 spaces. Parking and access to this station also is provided in surface lots south I -580 within the City of Pleasanton. The most significant change in the current operation of the existing improvements resulting from the 6 L dZ) requested approvals would be the construction of an above -grade parking structure of approximately 1,700+ spaces to replace the existing surface parking. The structure is proposed to be designed to allow for increased capacity in response to future needs. Subterranean parking has been determined to be infeasible due to the high -level of the groundwater table beneath the site. The over all objective of the Transit Village Center is to provide a pedestrian- friendly environment with access to multi -modal transportation options in order to encourage mass transit ridership and allow for reduced dependence automobile use. Also important to the layout of this Planning Area are the proposed street and circulation improvements and recreational components to include a new neighborhood park and access to the Iron Horse Trail greenbelt which has been improved with pedestrian and bicycle corridors. Requested/Required Actions: The Property Owner /Applicant has applied to the City for a number of planning actions and approvals necessary for marketing and developing the property within the Transit Village Center area. These actions collectively comprise PA 00 -013 and include: • Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared, circulated, and reviewed for the Transit Village Center along with a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program • An Amendment to the General Plan reflecting the proposed land uses • An Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that would annex or incorporate the 91 -acre Transit Village Center as a subarea of this Specific Plan • A Planned Development Rezone /Stage I Development Plan to establish zoning uses and development standards • Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 establishing a circulation system and block layout which is consistent with the proposed land uses Proposed Development: The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area is proposed to have nine development sites and public right -of -way serving as the circulation system for the area. As a subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, development standards pertaining to density are applied to gross area or acreage. The gross area of each Development Site within the boundaries of the Dublin Transit Village Center includes property that has been or will be dedicated for public space including rights -of -way or common public space. Sites designated specifically for public use (such as parks, public parking, transit improvements, or utilities) also are described on a gross area basis and assigned a share of the abutting right -of -way. TRANSIT VILLAGE CENTER PLANNING AREA Summary of Uses — based on gross acreage Development Gross Cam us Office Retail Residential Park Public/Semi- Options(l) Acreage acres sf acres du acres Public EXAMPLE 1 90.65 ac 38.3 1,977,500 sf 70,000 sf 31.5 1,500 12.2 8.65 EXAMPLE 2 90.65 ac 28.52 1,510,000 sf 70,000 sf 41.28 1,800 12.2 8.65 Maximum (2) 1 90.65 act 2,000,000 sf 70,000 sf 1,800 12.2 8.65 (1) Based on options allowed by "flex" uses. (2) This figure represents the maximum. Resulting amount may be less depending upon combination of uses. t3> Included within the total figure. I! Analysis of Non - Residential and Residential Density - based on gross acreage by Site Use Development Area ross Site Area FAR Total Residential 48 dulac Sites office retail (gross) (gross) Units Density Optional Units D -1 & E -1 0 22,500 9.78 ac :. gross) INAa, Campus Office D -2 & E -2 1,510,000 sf 0 28.52 ac 1.22. 1 High Density A, B &C _ 40,000 sf 31.5 ac 62,500 sf 1,500 48 du /ac Residential 43 du /ac Transit Related Public/Semi- Public 7,500 sf 8.65 ac Campus Office D -1, D -2, E -1 1,977,500 sf 22,500 sf 38.3 ac 1.20-1 Public rights -of -way & E -2 , „ , , ; N/A Sub -Total f,_ ,.,,; 7 1,977,500 sf 62,500 sf 69.8 ac ,,,,; 1,500 High Density A, B &C 40,000 sf 31.5 ac 1,500 48 dulac Residential Optional Units D -1 & E -1 0 22,500 9.78 ac :. 300 45 du /ac Campus Office D -2 & E -2 1,510,000 sf 0 28.52 ac 1.22. 1 E_ Sub -Total 1,510,000 sf 62,500 sf 69.8 ac ;,,., , 1,800 43 du /ac Transit Related Public/Semi- Public 7,500 sf 8.65 ac Neighborhood Park F 12.2 ac Public rights -of -way u 28% of Area , „ , , ; N/A 111 Ancillary Retail included in the campus office space listed above for the purpose of calculating gross FAR. PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT — by Development Site Non- Residential Area, only, but includes ground floor ancillary retail and service uses 12) Includes Retail, but excludes Residential (3) Ancillary Ground Floor retail and service uses, except those within the transit facility, are included within the maximum sf allowed. {4) Up to 300 units may be developed on Sites D -1 and E -1 combined in place of the maximum amount of campus office space on these 2 sites as long as the total amount of optional units does not exceed 300. 151 Hotel or mixed use office /hotel also is a development option for this site in place of campus office or high - density residential use. 161 Maximum square footage of Campus Office may be exceeded on a parcel -by- parcel basis provided that maximum square footage of Campus Office use (minus any replacement uses) is not exceeded, and provided that overall Campus Office FAR does not exceed 1.2. 1'1 Incidental retail included within the transit station site and in excess of the ancillary retail and service uses on the other development sites. 4 zg' 'Z 115 DEVELOPMENT SITES — comparison of net v. gross acreage NOTE: Right -of -way attributed to the gross size of each development parcel represents 28% of the gross area of the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area. Proposed development for each development site within the Dublin Transit Village Center is described as follows: Sites A, B & C: These three sites, located west of Iron Horse Parkway, are designated for High- Density Residential use with ground floor ancillary commercial use. Sites A and B are immediately south of Dublin Boulevard. Sites B & C are east of DeMarcus Boulevard separate from Site A. The maximum number of units proposed for these three development sites is 1,500 units at a gross density of 48 units per acre (averaging 68 units per net acre). Residential units are anticipated to be developed as apartments, lofts, or condominiums of approximately five stories in height. Townhomes potentially could be incorporated. Parking would be located in levels beneath the residential floors or as multi -level garages wrapped by the units. • Site A is a triangularly shaped site and is located the furthest west on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. The interim/overflow parking lot for the BART station currently is located on Site A. The interim parking lot will be closed when the parking structure adjacent to the I -580 freeway is completed. • Site B, when developed, would face onto a 1 -acre Village Green across from Site C. • Site C, owned by BART, currently is used as the surface parking lot for the BART station. These spaces would be replaced by the proposed parking structure. Development of Site C would be located nearest the to the BART station on the south. The northerly boundary of Site C would face the proposed Village Green. A north -south pedestrian corridor through Site C is intended to visually connect the Village Green with the BART station and directly provide pedestrian access. Sites D and E: The area between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway currently is one large parcel of approximately 38.3 acres. However, it is proposed to be subdivided through Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892. This subdivision will result in creating development sites D -1, D -2, E -1, E -2, Lot A (for the future BART parking structure), and the associated public right -of -way. Digital Drive would be extended westward between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway. Development Site D would be located south of Digital Drive, and Site E would be the area on the north side of Digital Drive, south of Dublin Boulevard. Sites D and E would be further divided by a new street, Campus Drive, running north -south between Dublin Boulevard and Altamirano Road which serves as access to the transit station. • Site D -1 and E -l: These two, sites located west of Campus Drive with frontage on Iron Horse 5 g9 e //s Parkway, are proposed as optional or "flex" uses. These two sites may be developed with approximately 490,000 sf of campus office space with ancillary retail and service (commercial) on the ground floor frontage of Iron Horse Parkway. Alternatively, depending upon market conditions or developer interest, Sites D -1 and E -1 may be developed together or separately with a combined total of up to 300 residential units (including ground floor commercial) in place of the allowable campus office space. Another option would allow Site D -1 nearest the transit station to develop as a hotel and Site E -1 to develop as shown in the table above either as campus office or high - density residential. • Site D -2 and E -2: These two sites, located west of Campus Drive, would be oriented towards Digital Drive and Arnold Road and developed with approximately 1.51 million square feet of campus office space Site F: This triangularly- shaped site, located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard west of Arnold Road, is proposed to be developed as a neighborhood park. The site is separated from the south portion of the Camp Parks facility by the right -of -way from the abandoned Dublin Boulevard to be incorporated into the park. This park site will be acquired from the ACSPA either through dedication or another arrangement typically negotiated under a Development Agreement. The timing of this acquisition and responsibilities, including a schedule for improvement, also would be addressed typically by the Development Agreement or as a condition of approval of the Stage 2 Development Plans and Site Development Review. Public /Semi- Public: These uses primarily are comprised of the transit- related improvements including surface parking, structured parking, bus transfer station, utilities, and access platform. The Transit Center is currently outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and because of this, the Transit Center is not included in the Traffic Impact Fee Program for Eastern Dublin (City Council Resolution 1 -95). Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ( ACSPA), the owner of the Transit Center property and the applicant for the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning and Tentative Parcel Map, has requested that this project be annexed into the EDSP and the Traffic Impact Fee Program. An extensive Fiscal Analysis backed by a very specific traffic study to determine impact from Eastern Dublin was conducted and is included herein as Attachment 7. The basic conclusion in Attachment 7 states that as eastern Dublin has developed and continues to develop, the impact for parking stalls at the eastern Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, currently exists and will continue to grow thereby making the correlation to development and the need for parking. Proposed uses within this area also would allow approximately 7,500 sf of ancillary retail and service uses in keeping with the mixed -use concept. These uses most likely would be incorporated at the ground level of, or adjacent to, the parking structure. Ancillary retail as an allowed activity within the Public /Semi Public land use designation is addressed in the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the permitted uses under the proposed PD Rezone. Ancillary Retail: The proposed plan would allow for ancillary retail and service uses located on the ground floors along Iron Horse Parkway frontage. Ancillary uses are allowed by the Campus Office designation as a convenience to businesses and employees of the area. The proposed General Plan amendment discussed below would expand the definitions for High - Density Residential and Public /Semi- Public designations also to include incidental or ancillary uses to serve residents, workers, or business in the area. The proposed PD Rezone /Stage I Development would establish the uses allowed and limitations on ancillary uses within these land use designations. In any case, the 70,000 sf maximum of ancillary uses represent less than 5% of the area proposed for non - residential use. Streets/Right- of- Way/Public Realm: Approval of the proposed Dublin Transit Village Center would include conceptual design or the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system within this Planning Area, such as street widths, right -of -way improvements, lighting, and landscaping. The plan submitted by the 6 �� X-0, 115 ACSPA provides a detailed discussion of the proposed improvements for the areas within the public realm. The design concept statement discusses the principles, goals, and objectives for the streetscape, open space, and landscaping. As a multi -modal transportation hub, functional improvements and aesthetic appeal are essential to the operation and success of this project. In addition to creating a transit- oriented development in a village -like neighborhood, the plan has been designed to provide a comprehensive open space system, maximize pedestrian circulation, and create distinctive and attractive streetscapes. In addition to the over all concept, the Plan also establishes specific guidelines and criteria for non -auto circulation, lighting, and landscaping. The "Circulation Diagram (Non -Auto) identifies the pedestrian circulation routes to transit connections and multi -use trails, along with the walking radii shown in minutes and (portions of) miles. To achieve these objectives, the plan provides specific design standards for each street and intersection within the project area appropriate to the type of circulation needs anticipated. Plazas and open space designed for residents, workers, and commuters also have been integrated auto routes. The main focal point of design is the oval - shaped Village Green with generous sidewalks linking this public space to Iron Horse Parkway on the east and DeMarcus Boulevard on the west. The plan proposes specific design elements for the entry plazas and entry nodes to the Village Green to include decorative paving, special landscape treatment, and public art or water features. A mid -block pedestrian pathway links the Village Green with Iron Horse Plaza across from the entry to the BART station. Auto circulation along the Village Green would be allowed between Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard in a one -way, single -lane flow on either side of the Village Green. Westbound circulation would follow the northerly side of the Village Green with eastbound autos along the southerly side. Curbside parking is proposed to be allowed on either side of both the travel lanes adjacent to the Village Green, open spaces along the Village Green also have been designed to accommodate an underlying 30- foot wide storm drain easement. The Central Plaza of the Village Green and Iron Horse Plaza are both anticipated to be areas of high -level foot - traffic. Both are proposed to be designed similarly with a grid of canopy trees over seating, trellises of flowering vines, public art or water feature, accent lighting, and decorative paving. Given its access to the BART station, Iron Horse Plaza also is proposed to provide a curbside drop -off area for commuters and right -angle crosswalks to prevent unsafe crossing near the intersection at the curve of the road. For vehicular traffic, visual focal points would include pedestrian plazas and opportunities for landmarks in the form of public art. In keeping with the agricultural -based history of the area, plantings are proposed to represent patterns found in orchards, groves, and hedgerows. A grid of trees planted in an orchard motif is the proposed landscaping for designated corners. As traffic moves westward from the intersection of Arnold Road and Digital Drive, the street narrows which indicates that the area is becoming more oriented towards pedestrians. Hardscape materials would identify areas distinctly for pedestrians including paving materials and patterns. Depressed corner ramps with bollards would be designed to be compatible with access standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)• To provide a safe and functional environment, the lighting plan is proposed to employ a hierarchy of light standard sizes to differentiate primary pedestrian- oriented streets from those intended for auto traffic. These categories include: • Signalization — 5 intersections • Pedestrian lights —12 feet to 14 feet in height • Combination Pedestrian/Street lights (vehicular) — 12 feet and 30 feet in height • Street lights — 28 feet to 30 feet in height 7 • Accent lighting - for public spaces and plaza '�?/ e • Special lighting — for Village Green and pedestrian link to Iron Horse Plaza Examples are provided for specialized street furniture including benches, bollards, trash receptacles, tree grates, and bicycle racks. Also, suggested is the palette and planting arrangement of street trees and accent trees. Staff has reviewed the proposed plant materials and associated street furniture for consistency with plant types that are compatible with the climate and soil characteristics of the Dublin area. The proposed Streetscape/Public Realm concept plan provides the plan and sections for the key intersections and road segments. These details identify standards in terms of right -of -way width; traffic and parking lanes; sidewalk widths and placement from street; medians; location of lighting fixtures; and proposed plantings, tree grates, and bulb -outs. Street design concepts are identified for the following key intersections and roads sections: Intersections - A -A: A. Arnold Road /Digital Drive Eastern edge entry feature . Public art opportunity at nw /corner Iron Horse Parkway (in front of BART station) — 76 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction; • Street narrows through plantings and bulb -outs B. Digital Drive /Campus Drive o Pedestrian design with view into the Village Green C. Iron Horse Parkway /Digital Drive • Retail use wrapping all 4 corners on ground floor • Accommodates 30 -ft storm drain easement (sw /c). D. DeMarcus Boulevard/Village Green • • Corner plaza /pedestrian crossing Accommodates 30 -ft storm drain easement (se/c . D -D: DeMarcus Boulevard — 90 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction with raised median /turn Marks major entry point to Transit Village Center E. Iron Horse Parkway /Dublin Boulevard • Public art defined by special landscape frame Street - A -A: Iron Horse Parkway — 96 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction with median /turn pocket lane in center; 18 -foot wide sidewalks with tree grates on both sides; parking on both sides of the street; and bike lanes on along both sides. B -B: Iron Horse Parkway (in front of BART station) — 76 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction; no median;14 -foot sidewalk along both sides; parking lane along west side of street and 9- foot transition zone along east side; and bike lanes along each side. C -C: Village Green btwn Iron Horse Parkway /DeMarcus Boulevard — 181 -foot distance from building to building; 6 -foot wide sidewalk with 5 -foot wide plantings between sidewalk and curb /4 -foot planting between sidewalk and buildings; Village Green width of 95 feet; one travel lane in one direction each along both north and south sides of the Village Green; and parking along both sides of each travel lane; no bike lanes. D -D: DeMarcus Boulevard — 90 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction with raised median /turn pocket lane in center; 11 -foot wide sidewalks on both sides adjacent to curb on one side and separated from building or required setback by 4 feet of plantings on other side; parking lanes on both sides of the street; and bike lanes on both sides of street. E -E: Digital Drive btwn Arnold Road /Campus Drive — 116 -foot r /w; two travel lanes in each direction with raised median /tum pocket lane in center; 14 -foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street with tree wells adjacent to curb; parking lanes on both sides of the street; and bike lanes on both sides. 0 Street Sections (cont'd) 1 F -F: Dublin Boulevard — 160- foot r /w; three travel lanes in each direction with 2 turn pockets and raised median in center; 30 -foot wide regional trail along the north side; 6 -foot wide sidewalk on the south side, with 6 -foot wide planting along both sides of the sidewalk; no parking on either side of Dublin Boulevard, but does include an 8 -foot wide transition /shoulder between curb and travel lane on both sides of the street. G -G: Campus Drive north of Digital Drive — 76 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction with median /turn pocket lanes in center; 12 -foot wide sidewalk with tree grates on both sides of the street; parking lanes on both sides of the street; no bike lanes. H -H: Campus Drive south of Digital Drive - 76 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction with median /turn pocket lanes in center; 12 -foot wide sidewalk with tree grates on both sides of the street; parking lanes on both sides of the street; no bike lanes. I -1: Altamirano Road — 60 -foot r /w; one travel lane in each direction; 12 -foot wide sidewalk and parking lane along north side; no bike lanes. J-J: Arnold Road north of Digital Drive — 98 -foot r /w; two travel lanes in each direction with a raised median /turn pocket lane in the center; 6 -foot wide sidewalk with a 4 -foot wide planting strip between the sidewalk and curb; bike lane on both sides of the street; no curbside parking. K -K: Arnold Road south of Digital Drive — 76 -foot wide r /w; one travel lane in each direction with a wide, raised median /turn pocket lane in the center; 6 -foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street with a 6 -foot wide planting strip separating the sidewalk and the curb; bike lanes on both sides of the street; no curbside parking. ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment: The proposed General Plan Amendment represents the third General Plan Amendment of 2002. State law limits General Plan amendments to four per calendar year. • Addition to the Eastern Extended Planning Area - The 91 acres of the Dublin Transit Village Center is proposed to be added to the Eastern Extended Planning Area. This addition would increase the size of the Eastern Extended Planning Area from 4,200 acres to 4,291. The following Sections, Tables, and Figures would require amendment or revision due to this increase: a) Section 1.4, Primary Planning Area and Eastern Extended Planning Area; b) Table 2. 1, Land Use Summary, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area; c) Figures: 1 -1, 1 -2, 2 -1, and 2 -2 and any other figures or tables that make reference to this area • Land Uses — The current General Plan land uses described in the Background section above and shown on Figure 1 -213 of the General Plan are proposed to be replaced by High- Density Residential, Campus Office, Public /Semi - Public, and Parks /Public Recreation corresponding to the proposed uses shown Exhibit C of the Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval of this amendment and corresponding to the proposed development plan. • Allowance of Ancillary Uses - A mixed -use area by definition includes a variety of uses on one site generally in a vertical configuration. Also, certain land use designations of the General Plan allow uses that are incidental or ancillary to the designated use. Of the land use designations proposed for Dublin Transit Village Center, only Campus Office allows ancillary uses, which provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area. However, as a mixed - use project, the High - Density Residential and Public /Semi- Public uses also are proposed to include ancillary retail and services uses at the ground floor level. The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the High - Density Residential and Public /Semi- Public uses to includes ancillary retail and service uses for residents, workers, and businesses when they are part of a transit village center or other mixed -use project. Such uses would be limited to ground floor space oriented towards Iron Horse Parkway. Examples of those 0 F 15, fr 11-5 uses would be similar to those allowed in the Campus Office designation as stated in the General Plan. • Flex Uses on Sites D -1 and E -1 — The land use designation for Sites D and E is proposed as Campus Office, with ancillary retail on the ground floor of Sites D -1 and E -1. As shown in the table above approximately 490,000 sf of office space is proposed for these two sites. The plan also proposes an optional or "flex" use of these sites in place of the office space depending upon market conditions and developer interest. The Campus Office space designation allows a maximum of 50% of the site to be developed as residential use. The gross acreage for Sites D and E is 38.3 acres; Sites D -1 and E -1 together are 9.78 gross acres, or about 26% of the site. Additionally, the campus office space of 490,000 sf proposed for these two sites represent approximately 25% of the 2 million sf total proposed for the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area. Therefore, a land use amendment would not be required to allow the optional high- density residential use. The proposed plan also provides Site D -1 with a development option as a hotel. A hotel use also is an allowable use under the Campus Office land use designation and would not require a land use amendment to exercise that development option. • Structured Parkins for High - Density Housing — Parking for the Campus Office space and high - density housing is proposed to be accommodated in multi -level parking structures below or adjacent to these uses. Street -level frontages would be screened or wrapped by ancillary retail and service uses. However, the General Plan directs the majority of multi - level, non - surface parking to be provided "under- structure." As an example, it suggests a high- density residential development of up to 80 units per acre is possible in 4- stories if carefully designed. It has been determined that subterranean parking is infeasible due to the high water table in this area. Therefore, the proposed PD Rezone /Stage I Development Plan discussed below indicates that residential building height would be established at a maximum of five stories above the parking levels, and campus office uses would be established at a height of eight to ten stories, inclusive of parking levels. The exteriors of buildings with above -grade parking level will need to be designed with materials and architectural elements that tie together parking levels with office or residential uses on the upper stories. Amendment to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently is divided into ten subareas, each with its own land use concept and community design guidelines. The 91 -acre Dublin Transit Village Center is proposed to be incorporated or annexed into the 3,300 -acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area as the 116' subarea. The Specific Plan text would be amended beginning with the addition of "Chapter 4.9.10: "Transit Village Center" under "Chapter 4: Land Uses" which would describe the location, land use concept, and subarea development potential. The addition of this subarea also would require appending "Chapter 7: Community Design" with "Chapter 7.6: Transit Village Center." This new chapter would establish the building types and form as well as the policies for open space and public facilities. The proposed text amendments are set forth in the draft resolution ordinance recommended for City Council ,approval. Unless otherwise stated in this Specific Plan Amendment, all provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are applicable to this Subarea, and all figures and maps .included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would need to be amended to be consistent with the newly - established boundary. This new subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan generally has been designed in conformance with the standards required for designation as a transit village plan pursuant to the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Section 65460 of Government Code). The Applicant has requested that designation. However, at this time staff et seq. recommends that the Planning Commission and City 10 g �/ 4zf 11s Council postpone any action to adopt the Dublin Transit Village Center as a transit village plan until conformance with the requirements can be confirmed and further analysis is conducted regarding the benefits of this designation. PD Rezone /Stage I Development Plan: At this time, the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area (Subarea 11 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) is proposed to be rezoned from Agriculture and Public /Semi- Public to Planned Development - Transit Center PD -TC. The proposed rezone, accompanied by a Stage I Development Plan, does not include development standards but generally is limited to permitted, prohibited, and conditional uses. The uses are consistent with the land uses proposed in the Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A Stage II Development Plan with development standards will need to be approved prior to project approval along with any required Site Design Reviews. A number of other requirements would be adopted as are part of the Stage I Development Plan, as follows: • Applicability of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan - As with the amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, all of the standards and requirements in that document would be applicable to the PD Rezone and Stage I Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Village Center except as otherwise stated in that Amendment. • Permitted Uses - Permitted uses within the area designated for Campus Office allow up to 300 optional residential units on Sites D -1 and E -1 in place of the 490,000 sf of Campus Office space proposed. In addition, Site D -1 may be developed as hotel in place of either Campus Office or High- Density residential use. • Affordable/Inclusionary Housing — The City's Zoning Ordinance requires Stage I Development Plans to include an Affordable or Inclusionary Housing component. The ACSPA has stated that Transit Center housing will be more affordable by virtue of its proximity to a major multi -modal transit hub. To assist in meeting the State requirement for providing very low, low, and moderate income housing, the ACSPA is proposing that 15% of the units in the Dublin Transit Village Center be available as affordable. The ACSPA has stated in its application materials that it is willing to significantly write down the value of the underlying land and work with interested non- profit and for - profit developers to create and manage the affordable units in as efficient manner as possible. • Traffic Impact Fee Area — The uses established by the Stage I Development Plan allow planning for infrastructure improvements needed to mitigate the traffic anticipated from new development. The approved uses also are factored into the estimated financing requirements for constructing those improvements. Specific development proposals would be considered only after approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan with site specific development standards established for evaluating new construction. Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892: As.described above, the proposed tentative parcel map affects the 38.3 gross acres bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the north, Arnold Avenue on the east, I- 580 /Altamirano Road on the south, and Iron Horse Parkway on the west. The Planning Commission alone may approve the requested Tentative Parcel Map with approval of the Final map by the City Council. The proposed tentative parcel map would create five development sites consistent with the proposed Specific Plan amendment and Stage I PD zoning. These sites include: D -1, D -2, E -1, E -2, and Lot A for the BART parking structure. It also would allow for the extension of Digital Drive between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway and the creation of a new street, Campus Drive, between Dublin Boulevard and I- 580/Altamirano Road. Approval of the proposed parcel map would be conditioned on approval of the pending actions to amend the General Plan, amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and approve the PD 11 zoning with the Stage I Development Plan. �p5 e, / /-s Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Area: The Developer has requested that following approval of the project that the Eastern Dublin TIF be amended to include the Transit Center area and improvements pursuant to the conditions of approval, should this occur, the Applicant/Developer will be required to pay associated traffic impact and community services fees or construct specific improvements as a condition of approval for any Stage 2 development plans. If approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works, the construction of certain improvements may satisfy the Applicant/Developer's obligation or contribution towards satisfying such requirements of the Traffic Impact Fee Area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City prepared a Notice of Preparation dated November 13, 2000, and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Dublin Transit Center Project. It was assigned the State Clearinghouse number SCH 20001120395, and the 45 -day review period ran from July 6, 2001 to August 21, 2001. During the course of preparing the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, additional traffic impacts were identified that had not been analyzed previously. Also, subsequent to this review period and after the preparation of the response to comments, the proposed plan was revised to designate Site F as a neighborhood park. A description of the proposed changes to the project and re- analysis of the traffic impacts were recirculated for a new 45 -day review period from July 16, 2002 to August 30, 2002. The written responses to comments and the related revisions to the Draft EIR are contained in a separately bound Final EIR dated September 2002. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed Dublin Transit Village Center project meets a number of the City's General Plan objectives by serving as a regional transportation hub and creating an environment that provides opportunities for using alternative modes of transportation and reduced dependence upon the automobile. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions: 1. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approval of Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 3. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approval of Planned Development Rezone /Stage I Development Plan 4. Adopt Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 12 SPECIFIC PLAN Proposed as Residential -High Density, Campus Office, Public /Semi Public, and Neighborhood Park DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING Currently zoned for Agriculture and Public /Semi - Public use. & LAND USE: Currently designated for Public Lands, Business Park/Industrial, and Business Park: Low Coverage 13 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Alameda County Surplus Property Authority 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 110 Hayward, CA 94544 -1215 PROPERTY OWNER: Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 110 Hayward, CA 94544 -1215 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 LOCATION: A 90.65 -acre area generally bounded by on the north by Dublin Boulevard and the southerly portion of the Parks RFTA, on the south by I -580, on the east by Arnold Road abutting the southwest boundary of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, and on the west by the Iron Horse Trail, a recreational greenbelt along an abandoned railroad right -of- -way. APNs 986- 0001 - 001 -10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 946 - 0015 - 001 -05 GENERAL PLAN Proposed as mixed uses to include — High - Density Residential, DESIGNATION: Campus Office, Public /Semi - Public, and Parks/Public Recreation SPECIFIC PLAN Proposed as Residential -High Density, Campus Office, Public /Semi Public, and Neighborhood Park DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING Currently zoned for Agriculture and Public /Semi - Public use. & LAND USE: Currently designated for Public Lands, Business Park/Industrial, and Business Park: Low Coverage 13 Staff was also directed to verify the Excel spreadsheet on Page 43 regarding the cost per acre, and Ms. Ram responded that Staff would review this information and ensure that it is correct. Commission Johnson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing and requested a motion to approve with the changes. On motion by Cm. Fasulkey, the Commission moved approval of the draft Housing Element with condition that Staff would create a policy or program to be included in the Dublin Housing Element to explore utilizing the Arroyo Vista land to its highest and best use, while further expanding on the availability of low - income housing. Cm. Musser seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously approved: RESOLUTION NO. 02-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IN CONCEPT AND SUBMIT THE HOUSING ELEMENT (PA 01 -040) TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR REVIEW PA 01 -040 8.3 PA 00 -013 Dublin Transit Center - Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone /Stage 1 Development Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map. A Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Rezone/Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for development of a 91 Acre Mixed Use Transit Village including High Density Residential, Campus Office, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Commercial and uses supportive of a transit oriented development. The site is bounded on the South by I -580, on the East by the extension of Arnold Road, on the West by the Iron Horse Trail and on the North by Dublin Boulevard and Parks RFTA. Mr. Michael Porto introduced those present who were instrumental in preparation and presentation of this project, including Adolph Martinelli, Pat Cashman, and Stuart Cook from Alameda County. He also introduced Kit Faubion and Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, and Staff including Eddie Peabody, Jr., Jeri Ram and Maria Carrasco. Tianning Commission 178 October 22, 2002 Regular 91feeting ATTACHMENT x t) �g e115 Mr. Porto introduced the Proposed Dublin Transit Center, which is a high density, transit - oriented mixed -use development on approximately 91 acres, located directly north of and adjacent to the East Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station. Project characteristics include: • 1,500 high density (HD) residential dwelling units (15% affordable); • 70,000 square feet of ground floor retail commercial; • 2 million square fee of campus office; and • 1,700+ car BART parking garage. Mr. Porto stated that Dublin Transit Center represents four different action items for consideration by the Planning Commission for approval. These include: • Recommendation to the City Council for Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR); • Recommendation to the City Council for Approval of Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; • Recommendation to the City Council for Approval of the Planned Development Rezone /Stage 1 Development Plan; and • Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892. Mr. Porto explained the EIR, reporting that three issues have been identified as unavoidable. These are: Cumulative traffic on local roads — Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd in year 2025; Cumulative traffic on I -580 freeway in year 2025; and Cumulative traffic on I -680 freeway in year 2025. Mr. Porto noted that a statement of overriding consideration would be approved by the City Council on this issue. He also stated that the City prepared a Final EIR dated September 2002 containing written responses to all comments received during the July 6, 2001 to August 21, 2001 public review period. The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment would allow the high density residential and Public /Semi - Public uses to include ancillary retail and service uses for residents, workers and businesses when they are part of a transit village center or other mixed -use project. Additionally, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is currently divided into 10 sub areas. The 91 -acre Dublin Transit Village Center is proposed to be amended or annexed into the 3,300 -acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area as the 11th sub area. Tlanning Commission 179 October 22, 2002 12egufarWeeting (11s The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area (sub area 11 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) is proposed to be rezoned from Agriculture and Public /Semi- Public to Planned Development- Transit Center PD -TC. The proposed rezone, accompanied by a Stage I Development Plan, does not include development standards but generally is limited to permitted, prohibited, and conditional uses. A Stage II Development Plan with development standards will need to be approved prior to project approval. Mr. Porto noted that one process, not generally performed in the Stage I Plan Development (PD), was the incorporation of many streetscape design elements, as it is the Applicant's intention to sell individual properties to individual developers in the future. He added that if the City were to wait until the Stage II PD to develop the streetscape standards, a coordinated and cohesive streetscape plan may not be possible. The Applicant made extensive efforts to develop a streetscape hierarchy that is a part of the actual approval process of the Stage I PD and called this the Design of the Public Realm. Mr. Porto explained the Public Realm and presented PowerPoint slides, including the Master Streetscape Diagram, Circulation Diagram which showed patterns from the Transit Center, street intersections and details, tree descriptions and diagrams that may be utilized to include trees from the City's approved tree list, tentative parcel map 7892 and proposed land uses. He showed graphic images of how the Center might look, with large corner plazas and public art. Mr. Porto requested the Commission open the public hearing on these recommendations, take testimony from Staff, the Applicant and the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and adopt the recommended resolutions. Mr. Porto pointed out the details of the Transit Center Site Plan to the Commission and stated that concluded Staff's presentation. Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing and asked if there were any questions or if anyone would like to speak. Mr. Adolph Martinelli, representing Alameda County. Surplus Property Authority, stated that he has spent 15 years working on this project. He introduced Mr. Stuart Cook and Mr. Pat Cashman, who have been responsible for the planning of the project, and Mr. John Reynolds, from BART, who is a partner in negotiating the agreement with BART. He stated that they are ready to move forward with the development of the central components of the property. Since the Applicant is in design for the parking garage, they are at risk for 20 -21 million dollars, have applied for some Planning Commission 180 October 22, 2002 Regufar Meeting %' / /-.s grants, and have an agreement with Bart that make the project time- sensitive. He mentioned that they would also move forward with some affordable housing, proposing an RFP to meet their first requirement. He informed the Commission that his Staff is present for questions. Cm. Johnson asked for questions from the Commissioners. Cm. Jennings asks the number of current parking spaces at BART today. Mr. Cashman told the Commission that when they made the bargain with BART, the understanding was that by the time the development was completed, BART would have 500 additional permanent parking spaces. As part of that bargain, the Applicant created 423 temporary parking spaces, in addition to the 1,300 spaces they originally started with. Once the development is complete, BART will have 1,800 permanent parking spaces, and the parking garage has been designed to allow an additional phase to build 500 additional parking spaces. He added that the garage would have 5 levels, with the potential of 7 levels and up to 2,300 parking spaces in the Second Phase. Cm. Jennings had questions regarding the use of the garage, and wanted to know if it would be shared by some of the occupants in the building. Mr. Cashman said that has not been confirmed, but there has been discussions for use of the parking lot at night (when the lot is empty at BART) by a hotel. He added that the ground level parking lot could be used to support retail in the area. Mr. Cashman stated that there is strong encouragement for joint use of the parking lot. Cm. Jennings also wanted to confirm that the Commission would hear each phase of the project, and Mr. Cashman assured the Commission that there would be at least 12 -15 phases that would come before the Commission. With a Stage I PD, the City requires Stage II standards and final design review. Cm. Nassar asked about the attributes and "feel" of a village, and what the atmosphere is intended to be. Mr. Martinelli explained that the intention is to have mixed uses, for activities in the daytime as well as the evening. There will be street life, commercial uses, cafes, outdoor dining, and restaurants. On the street frontage, there are wider walkways, outdoor dining, increased density, street amenities, street lights, paving, etc. that are special, integrated into commercial, commercial retail, residential uses and open space. Tlanning Commission 181 October 22, 2002 Regular Meeting l,)-/ 115 Cm. Nassar asked what the attraction would be for the community and what the educational options would be. Mr. Cashman stated that the hub is the BART station, as the transit center that will draw the commuters as well as those who will use the regional bus system. The street level commercial uses on Iron Horse Parkway and the Village Green, the outdoor.living room for the high density residential, will activate the attraction for this center. He stated that this project will be an amenity for the community overall for office workers using it at lunchtime and residential use at night and on weekends. Because this development will be a privately maintained public space, there will be planting amenities such as rose gardens or annual plantings, a green turf, a fountain, comfortable and casual space. This project will allow for design of any level of amenities. Cm. Jennings discussed the park area, and asked if there is any possibility to make the park larger. Mr. Porto stated that the designated park area exceeds the City's requirement for parkland under the Quimbey Act. Mr. Porto mentioned that there could be a linkage from Camp Parks to extend the parkland area, but nothing is planned at this time. Mr. Martinelli reminded the Commission that the new developments have significant open space and parks, but what is shown on the site plan are the public parks. Mr. Porto added that this project is a Stage I PD, and there will be time to review open space elements in conjunction with the SDR prepared during Stage II. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the water availability. Mr. Peabody stated that we have been assured that there will be provision of sufficient water for this particular development and the developer has prepared a program to provide water service to this project. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any more questions. Mr. Ed Church, East Bay Community Foundation, gave the background of his organization, and stated that they are a non - profit organization and a public charity. His organization plans to promote smart growth throughout Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and is interested in, development around the BART station. He applauded the effort of the City's Staff, and informed the Commission of the Foundation funding that is available for additional technical assistance on this project. Cm. Musser wanted some discussion regarding his concern about the Housing Element plan, which shows housing near this area, and with 121 /2% requirement there appears to be a shortage of affordable housing. Manning Commission 182 octo6er 22, 2002 12egufar Meeting Cm. Johnson mentioned that we should attempt to partner with the County to see if we could get a higher percentage requirement of affordable housing. Mr. Peabody responded that the City Council would want to address this and that the issue before Planning Commission was the rezoning of this area for development. Cm. Jennings asked if the City Council would receive the Planning Commission minutes, and Mr. Peabody assured her that the minutes and any recommendations from the Commission are normally provided to the City Council in a very timely manner. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone from the public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission approved the following four resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 02-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00 -013 (Planning Commission 183 October 22, 2002 12egufarWeeting 10-5 e,111-5 RESOLUTION NO. 02-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00 -013 RESOLUTION NO. 02-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ZONING THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE TO A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PA 00 -013 RESOLUTION NO. 02 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7892 PA 00 -013 Cm. Johnson asked if there is any other new or unfinished business. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Manning Commission 184 October 22, 2002 RegufarJKeeting RESOLUTION NO. 02 -40 /,!9 `l �� A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7892 CONCERNING PA 00 -013 WHEREAS, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) has requested approval of a Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 to divide 35.1 acres located west of Arnold Road and east of Iron Horse Parkway between Dublin Boulevard on the north and the Interstate -580 freeway on the south within the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area included as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for purpose of sale, lease or financing, unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20001120395) was prepared and circulated for the Dublin Transit Center project (PA 00 -013) including: Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development (PD) Rezone /Stage I Development Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution Numbers 02 -37 and 02 -38 on October 22, 2002 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, and approved project, related amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, a Tentative Parcel Map has been submitted to the City as required by section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on October 22, 2002; WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby find that: A. Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. ATTACHMENT q' /D s /!s B. The design and improvements of Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 are consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation of the Dublin Transit Village Center, a mixed -use project, in an area designated for this type of development. C. Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 is consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan approved for the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area (PA 00 -013) and therefore is consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Dublin Boulevard, I -580, and Arnold Road on approximately 35.1 acres of land with relatively flat topography and therefore is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed. E. With the incorporation of environmental mitigation measures included in the EIR for the Dublin Transit Village Center, the design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 will not cause environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns. F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby conditionally approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 (as part of PA 00 -013) to subdivide 35.1 acres into five parcels (parcel one: 4.0 acres, parcel two: 7.7 acres, parcel three: 2.4 acres, parcel four: 12.3 acres, and Parcel A 2.7 acres). This approval shall conform generally to Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892 prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk, dated received by the Community Development Department in October 2001, and labeled Exhibit 1 consisting of seven (7) sheet(s) stamped approved October 22, 2002 except as specifically modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring_ compliance with the Conditions of Approval: [PLJ Planning, rPOI Police, [PWI Public Works, [B] Building_ [ADM] administration, [FIN] Finance, fPCSI Parks and Community Services. [Fl Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7. 2 2. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval: Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval (Attachment A). Applicable standard conditions include, but not limited to, the following: Archaeology #1, Bonds # 2 -5, Drainage # 9, 13, 19, 20, 22 -27, Dust # 28, NPDS # 29 -40, General Design # 66, 69 -73, 75 -77, 80, 81, Easements #82, Erosion #83, Final Map # 84 -92, Fire # 3 93 -96, Frontage Improvements # 97, 98, Grading # 99 -112, Handicapped Access #115, Improvement Plans, Agreements & Securities # 116 -122, Miscellaneous # 124 -128, Permits # 129 -132, Noise # 133 -134, Streets #136, Street Lights #137, 138, Street Signs # 139 -140, Traffic # 144, Utilities # 147 -150 and Water # 151 -155. In the event of a conflict between the Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these conditions shall prevail. Scope of these Conditions of Approval: These conditions pertain to the public infrastructure requirements to support the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1- Planned Development Rezoning and the Vesting Tentative Map as referenced in the project related booklet dated September 2002 and approved in conjunction with these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval will be prepared for the private onsite improvements with the Site Plan Review during the Stage 2- Planned Development Zoning for each PW PL Final Map Improvement Plans Stage 2 PD and SDR 3. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions: In the event that there PW, PL As needed needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant / Developer without going to a public hearing. The Directors of Community Development and Public Works also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. 4. Development Agreement: A Master Development Agreement between PL, PW, Final Map the City of Dublin and the Applicant/Developer shall be recorded prior ADM to approval for any Stage 2 Planned Development zoning on any parcel within the area defined as the Dublin Transit Center Village. The Development Agreement shall include a detail infrastructure sequencing program that ties the improvements required in these Conditions of Approval to a specific phase of development of the Dublin Transit Center. 5. Final Map: The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance with the PW Final Map Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk received by the Planning Department in October 2001 unless otherwise modified by the conditions contained herein. 3 PD Zoning 1lS 14 '9 'e //s PL, PW, As required 6. Fees: Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning ADM by permit fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Fire Impact fees ; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. 7. East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee District: Applicant/Developer shall PL, PW, Development either be annexed into the East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee District ADM Agreement or (EDTIF) and pay all applicable fees, or fund or construct its fair share of Final Map all improvements identified in these Conditions of Approval. The City has the sole discretion as to the selection of the two options. 8. Codes and Ordinances: Applicant/Developer shall comply with the PL, PW, All Permits, Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Grading ADM Final Map, Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and Plans and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 9. Required Permits: Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary Various As required permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control and by permit water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of Public Works. ON on SERUM 10. Rights of Ways: Applicant/Developer shall offer to dedicate to the City PW Final Map of Dublin with the Final Map the full rights of way for Campus Drive, Digital Drive, and Altamirano Avenue as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, and any needed easements as specified in these conditions to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 11. Easements: Applicant/Developer shall dedicate a Public Service Utility PW Final Map Easements consistent with the GPA, SPA, and the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning documents to the satisfaction of Director of Public Works. 12. Traffic Signal Easements: Applicant/Developer shall grant to the City PW Building of Dublin easements for traffic signal detectors, boxes conduit, etc. at all Permits driveways entrances that will be signalized. 13. Abandonment of Easements and Right of Ways: PW Final Map Applicant/Developer or current landowner shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and right of ways not to be continued in use. R tions of Approval. A copy of the Conditions of Approval which PW Final Map en annotated how each condition is satisfied shall be included with 7tFinal Improvement mittals to the Public Works Department for the review of the Plans Ma and lans. 15. Non -City Agencies: Applicant/Developer will be responsible for Final Map submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non - Improvement City agencies. Plans 16. Geotechnical Report: Applicant/Developer shall submit a Geotechnical PW Grading and Report,: which includes street pavement sections and grading Improvement recommendations. I I Plans 'Zog "s 17. Water Quality Investigation: A water quality investigation shall be PL, PW Grading and Per submitted with the Grading and/or Improvement Plans for each Improvement development. The investigation shall indicate the existing water quality Plans frontage curb, gutter &, sidewalk, median curbs, pavement, drainage, and the impacts that urban runoff would have. The water quality Agreement investigation should address the quantity of runoff and the effects form discharged pollutants from surface runoff into creeks and drainage between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway as shown on the Vesting facilities. Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Ogg NOR -11 WO AN VOINMEM Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Approval: Approval of the Vesting PW z Final Map and 18. Tentative Parcel Map is not an approval of the specific design of with Digital Drive shall be modified to the satisfaction of the Director of Improvement drainage, sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, and street Public Works. The modifications are to permit all turning movements Plans improvements shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. and align the BART parking driveway with the intersection. These 19. Campus Drive: Applicant/Developer shall construct street PW Per EIR improvements including frontage curb, gutter &, sidewalk, median curbs, reconstructed as shown in the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning Development pavement, drainage, sanitary sewer, water, utilities, and street lighting on exhibits for the Dublin Transit Center. Agreement Campus Drive as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and to the Arnold Road: Unless previously constructed by others, the PW Per EIR satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Applicant/Developer shall construct the western frontage improvements Development 20. Altamirano Avenue: Applicant/Developer shall construct street PW Per EIR improvements including frontage curb, gutter &, sidewalk, median curbs, way for Arnold Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Altamirano Development pavement, drainage, sanitary sewer, water, utilities, and street lighting on Avenue. The roadway shall be in a street and lane configuration to be Agreement Altamirano Avenue as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and to the approved by the Director of Public Works. A temporary four -foot wide satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The sidewalk is required to rock shoulder may be constructed in lieu of the permanent eastern be constructed only on the north side of the road. frontage curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 21. Digital Drive between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway: PW Per EIR Applicant/Developer shall construct street improvements including Development frontage curb, gutter &, sidewalk, median curbs, pavement, drainage, Agreement sanitary sewer, water, utilities, and street lighting on Digital Drive between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing Iron Horse Parkway improvements at the new intersection with Digital Drive shall be modified to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The modifications are to permit all turning movements and align the BART parking driveway with the intersection. These improvements may be temporary until Iron Horse Parkway is reconstructed as shown in the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning exhibits for the Dublin Transit Center. 22. Arnold Road: Unless previously constructed by others, the PW Per EIR Applicant/Developer shall construct the western frontage improvements Development and all travel and turning lanes and median within the existing right of Agreement way for Arnold Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Altamirano Avenue. The roadway shall be in a street and lane configuration to be approved by the Director of Public Works. A temporary four -foot wide rock shoulder may be constructed in lieu of the permanent eastern frontage curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 23. Iron Horse Parkway between Dublin Boulevard and Digital Drive: PW Per PD Applicant / Developer shall reconstruct Iron Horse Parkway between Development Zoning Dublin Boulevard and Digital Drive as shown in the approved exhibits Agreement for the Dublin Transit Center, Stage Planned Development Rezoning and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works. 1d� ie 11-5 24. Digital Drive between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive: Unless previously constructed by others, Applicant/Developer shall construct the center travel lanes and median for Digital Drive between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road within the existing right of way. The improvements shall be for two travel lanes (26 -feet wide) with a 4 -foot wide rock shoulder in each direction and turning lanes at the intersections. A new traffic signal and lane modifications shall be provided on Hacienda Drive for the new intersection with Digital Drive. The improvements shall include median curbs, drainage, striping, signing, lighting, and traffic signal to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. PW Per Development Agreement EIR 25. Traffic Signals. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for PW Per installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Arnold Road / Digital Development Drive, Campus Drive / Digital Drive, and other signal modifications Agreement necessary for the required street improvements. The Applicant / Developer shall install all conduits under the finished pavement for the proposed future traffic signals located at future project driveways. 26. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection: PW Per EIR Applicant/Developer shall contribute their fair share of the following Development improvements to the Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard Agreement intersection; • Widen the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to the Dougherty Road intersection to provide one left -turn lane, three through lanes and two right -turn lanes, • Widen the westbound Dublin Boulevard approach to the Dougherty Road intersection to three left -turn lanes (min. 400' storage per lane), two through lanes and one through/right -turn lane, • Widen westbound Dublin Boulevard west of Dougherty Road for intersection alignment, • Widen the northbound Dougherty Road approach to Dublin Boulevard intersection to provide three left -turn lanes, three through lanes and two right -turn lanes, • Widen the southbound Dougherty Road approach to Dublin Boulevard intersection to provide two left -turn lanes, three through lanes and one through/right -turn lane, • Widen southbound Dougherty Road from three lanes to four lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the 1 -580 westbound on- ramp to provide two through lanes, one combined through/right I -580 on -ramp lane, and one right only lane to the 1 -580 westbound on -ramp, • Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the above, • Widen and re -stripe the westbound I -580 diagonal on -ramp to accommodate two SOV lanes and other Caltrans requirements. • Rights of way acquisition for the above improvements. All improvements to be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2 27. Scarlett Drive: Applicant/Developer shall contribute their fair share of the following improvements for Scarlett Drive between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard; • Construct four lanes of Scarlett Drive between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, per the Omni -Means traffic study dated April 27, 2001, • Widen and stripe the southbound Dougherty Road approach to the Scarlett Drive intersection to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and one exclusive right -turn lane, • Reconfigure the northbound Dougherty Road approach to the Scarlett Drive intersection to provide one left -turn lane, two through lanes and one exclusive right -turn lane, • The westbound Scarlett Drive approach to the Dougherty Road intersection shall provide one shared/through left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes, • The southbound Scarlett Drive approach to the Dublin Boulevard intersection shall provide 2 left turn lanes, one through lane and one right -turn lane, • Reconfigure the northbound Scarlett Drive approach to the Dublin Boulevard intersection to provide one left -turn lane and one shared through/right -turn lane, • Widen and stripe the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to the Scarlett Drive intersection to provide one left -turn lane, three through lanes and one right -turn lane, • Widen and stripe the westbound Dublin Boulevard approach to the Scarlett Drive intersection to provide one left -turn lane, three through lanes and two right -turn lanes (min. 350' storage per lane). • Install a new storm drain culvert at the Dublin Boulevard - Scarlett Drive intersection • Modify the traffic signals at the Dougherty Road and the Dublin Boulevard intersections as needed to accommodate the above, • Rights of way acquisition for the above improvements. All improvements to be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Alameda County shall cooperate in providing County land for the rights of way needed for the above improvements. 28. Hacienda Drive between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway: PW Per EIR Applicant/Developer shall improve and widen Hacienda Drive between Development Gleason Drive and Central Parkway from three lanes to four lanes to the Agreement satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 7 err e //5 29. Hacienda Drive/I -580 Interchange: Applicant/Developer shall pay for PW Per the following improvements; Development • Widen the northbound Hacienda Drive over - crossing of I -580 to Agreement provide three through lanes and one exclusive lane to the westbound I -580 loop on -ramp, • Modify the westbound I -580 loop on -ramp alignment as necessary, • Widen I -580 westbound off -ramp at Hacienda Drive to provide for three left -turn lanes and two right -turn lanes, • Rights of way acquisition for the above improvements. All improvements to be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. EIR 30. Storm Drain Improvements: All storm drain improvements needed to PW Grading and serve the Vesting Tentative Map shall be constructed by the Applicant / Improvement Developer. Interim storm drain improvements shall be constructed by Plans Applicant / Developer with the phased construction of roads, mass grading or other improvements as defined by the Development Agreement and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 31. Arnold Road Drainage Channel: Applicant/Developer shall improve PW Per and construct the extension to the Arnold Road Channel per the Santa Development Rita Property Drainage Master Study and to the satisfaction of the Agreement Director of Public Works. The work to include the removal of the "splitter" along the G -1 storm line, removing and filling the existing detention basin at Arnold Road/Gleason Drive, and the improvements needed to direct all storm water flow into the Arnold Road Drainage Channel. 32. Public Utilities: Applicant/Developer shall construct all water, Improvement reclaimed water, gas, electric, cable TV, communication, sanitary sewer, Plans and storm drainage improvements as necessary to serve the parcels shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and future adjacent parcels as approved by the Director of Public Works and the various Public Utility 33. Public Street Lights: The Developer shall install streetlights in the PW Improvement Digital Drive, Campus Drive, Altamirano Avenue, Iron Horse Parkway Plans and Arnold Road project frontage. The upgraded streetlights approved for the Transit Center with the Stage 1- Planned Development Zoning are to be used. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a street lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with City lighting requirements and submit the plan to the Director of Public Works for approval. 34. Joint Utility Structures: All utility vaults, boxes, and structures shall PW Improvement be underground and placed in landscape areas embellished and Plans camouflaged from public view. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures shall be shown on landscape plans and approved by the Director of Public Works and Community Development Director prior to construction. 11,57 &er `15 P3 5. Overhead Utility Line. The existing overhead utility pole line along the PW Construction north side of I -580 shall be placed underground by the Applicant / of Altamirano Developer with the construction of Altamirano Avenue in accordance Avenue with the respective utility guidelines and requirements. r b Campus Drive, Arnold Road, Digital Drive, Altamirano Avenue and PW Per 36. Iron Horse Parkway: Applicant/Developer shall landscape all project Development street frontage and medians in conformance with the approved exhibits Agreement for the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1- Planned Development Rezoning and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works. The Applicant / Developer shall maintain and irrigate all landscaping, sidewalks and street furniture in the public right way fronting the project including the landscape bulbs. The maintenance shall include sweeping around the landscape bulbs. The City of Dublin will maintain and irrigate all- landscaping in the street medians. The Developer shall install separate irrigation water meters for the landscaped medians and parkway landscaping along the project frontage. 37. Median along Digital Drive between Hacienda Drive and Arnold PW Per Road: Applicant/Developer shall landscape the median in Digital Drive Development between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive to the satisfaction of the Agreement Director of Public Works. 38. Landscaping Along I -580 frontage: Applicant / Developer shall PW, PL Per landscape the project frontage along the 1 -580 freeway from the edge of Development freeway pavement to the northerly Caltrans right of way to the Agreement satisfaction of Director of Public Works and Caltrans. Applicant / Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for maintenance for the landscaping in Caltrans right of way for 20 years. Applicant / Developer shall process and obtain the necessary approvals from Caltrans for the landsc!gmg in the Caltrans right of way. 39. Stop Sign Intersections: Applicant/Developer shall install all -way PW Improvement STOP signs at the intersections of Digital Drive /Iron Horse Parkway, Plans Altamirano Avenue /Arnold Road, and Altamirano Avenue /Campus Drive and a stop sign on Campus Drive at Dublin Boulevard. Applicant /Developer shall install interim STOP signs at intersections as determined by the Director of Public Works. 40. On Street Parking Restrictions: Applicant/Developer shall designate PW Improvement no parking areas along Dublin Boulevard and within 30 feet of all Plans intersections, and designate all other streets adjacent to the Transit Center for short -term parking (2 and 4 hour) or as directed by the Director of Public Works. 41. Bus Service: Applicant/Developer shall cooperate with the LAVTA to provide convenient access to public transit and to enhance local and regional mobility through the integration of LAVTA with other public transit systems. Applicant / Developer shall construct a bus stops and shelters at the location designated and approved by the LAVTA and the Director of Public Works. The Applicant/Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and installing the necessary improvements to meet the requirements listed. PW Improvement Plans //3 -�,iis EIR 42. Construction Noise: Applicant/Developer shall submit a Construction PW, PL Grading or EIR Noise Management Plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to each development Encroachment DSRSD construction noise on surrounding developed properties to the project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with Permit satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Community DSRSD utility master planning. Development Director. The Plan shall contain listing of hours of Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing Improvement DSRSD construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, 15 sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be Plans mph speed limit for construction traffic, identification of haul routes and allowed under extreme circumstances following a case -by -case review with identification of noise monitor. Specific noise management measures DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval shall be included in appropriate contractorspecifications. by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and 43. Construction Traffic: Applicant/Developer shall prepare a traffic- PW Grading or handling plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any 20 -year maintenance costs as well as other condition within a separate Encroachment existing public street. All construction traffic may be subject to specific agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. Permit routing, as determined by the Director of Public Works, in order to minimize construction interference with regional non - project traffic movement. 44. Damage/Repairs: The Developer shall repair all damaged existing PW Building street, curb, gutter and sidewalk as a result of construction activities to Occupancy the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 45. Construction by Applicant/Developer: All potable and recycled water DSRD, Improvement DSRSD and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the PW Plans Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master plans, standards_ snecifications. and requirements. 10 a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities," and all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Building Permits DSRSD b. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to each development Improvement DSRSD project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with Plans DSRSD utility master planning. C. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing Improvement DSRSD sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be Plans allowed under extreme circumstances following a case -by -case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specification. DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 -year maintenance costs as well as other condition within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. 10 11 e. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public Improvement DSRSD streets rather than in off - street locations to the fullest extent possible. If Plans unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off - street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. f. Prior to the approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development Site Plan DSRSD permit, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water Review and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. g. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument Final Map DSRSD irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. h. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be submitted Final Map DSRSD to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. i. Prior to issuance by the City of any building permit, all utility connections fees, Building DSRSD plan check fees, inspection fees, permit fees, and fees associated with a Permits wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and scheduled established in the DSRSD Code. j. Prior to issuance by the City of any building permit, all improvement plans for Building DSRSD DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of Permits improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to the approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant/Developer shall pay all required DSRSD fees, provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for water and sewer systems, a performance bond, a one -year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant/Developer shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. k. No sewer or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility Construction DSRSD construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will Permits only be issued after all of the items in this DSRSD Condition have been satisfied. 1. The Applicant/Developer shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, On -going DSRSD commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. m. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone (Ord. 280), Final Map DSRSD which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for future use of recycled water for approved landscaped irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available in the future, as described in the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Update, June 1997. Compliance with Ord. 280, as may be amended or superseded, is required. The District Engineer must approve any exemption thereto, in conformance with Ordinance 280. n. All irrigation facilities shall be subject to review by the District for compliance Landscape DSRSD with District and Dept. of Health Services requirements for recycled water Plans irrigation design. Irrigation plans shall not be approved by the City until review and approval thereof by the City is confirmed. 11 //5 , �� 1 o. The Applicant/Developer shall coordinate with the District and Alameda Improvement DSRSD County Fire Department on required fire flows. The present interim water Plans system is capable if providing a maximum of 3,500 gallons per minute of fire flow to the site. A future reservoir will be constructed which will allow for a flow of 4,500 gallons per minute. The Applicant/Developer shall hold the District harmless over the use of interim water system for fire protection. 46. Timing of this Approval: The approval of this Tentative Parcel Map PL will not be effective until such time as the relevant approvals for the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development zoning are approved by the City Council. The second reading of the Zoning Ordinance and the effective date of the Ordinance must have ass in order for this parcel map to have been approved PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 2002. AYES: Cm. Johnson, Musser, Jennings, Fasulkey, and Nassar NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Planning Manager G:PA00- 013Dub_(revised)PCReso TPM7892(TVC).doc Planning Commission Chair 12