HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Avalon Bay DA & Appeal Attch 8-12G`1.~ or n~~ll~
m~~~~~\
t9 (ef1=; _if~~,82
~`~ ~~~~1
~~LIFOR~~~
DATE:
TO:
March 22, 2011
Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Communities, Dublin
Station (Transit Center Site C) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment
and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting
Tentative Map 7929, and Development Agreement
Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consu/ting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed project, Avalon Transit Center Site C, is a residential project comprised of 505
apartment units, a 4,223 square foot fitness center, 733 spaces of structured parking within two
buildings, 25_ private, on-street parking spaces; and 40. public on-street parking ~spaces on a
combined 7:2-acre site located ~within the Transit Center Village planning area. ~_ .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing
and deliberate; and 5) Adapt the following Resolutions:
a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and, Stage 2 Development Plan for the Avalon Bay
Communities Dublin Station project on Site C of the Dublin Transit Center: and
b) Resolution approving Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7929
for Avalon Bay Communities, Site C, Dublin Transit Center; and
c) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a
Development Agreement for Dublin Station, Site C, Dublin Transit Center, Avalon Bay
. , _. ~ , -
Communities. " ~ ~ ~~ '
,,~
.:, ~~~c k~. r ~ ;~~
Submitted By:
Consulting Planner
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
; ~
~ ~
R v- weci By
Planning Manager
Page 1 of 11
G: IPA#12006106-060 Dublin Transit Center Site C1PC Mtg 3.22.11 (2}IPCSR 3 22 1 i(2). doc
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 ~0~~$3
ATTACHMENT 8
PROJECT DESCRtPT14N:
Locafion & Existing Use
~-re~d~a~3
Site C is a 5-sided site located immediately north af the BART station underpass entry. The site
is located within the loop area at the intersecting terminus of the two streets providing access to
the BART station. These streets are Iron Horse Parkway to the east and Demarcus Boulevard
to the west. Site C is comprised of two legal parcels (Sites C1 & C2) of approximately 3.6 acres
each divided by a north-south spine or corridor shown on the plan as Hamlet Lane. C-1 is to the
west and C-2 is to the east {see Map 2 below). The site currently is used as a surface parking
lot of approximately 1,086 spaces for the BART station. These spaces will be eliminated as the
1,528-space BART station parking structure was buil# to free Site C for development.
Additionally, there are 295 BART surFace parking stalls located adjacent to the BART garage
and in an open lot west of DeMarcus Blvd. Once this project is constructed, there will be 1,528
parking structure spaces and 295 surface parking stalls to serve BART.
Uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site are described as:
a) To the north: High density residential and mixed use projects (Elan and Avalon Bay)~
located across from the project site by a village green/community greenbelt, known as
Campbell Green;
b) To the southeast: Recently compfeted BART Station parking structure and bus parking
along the opposite side of Iron Horse Parkway;
c) To the east: Planned for hotel and/or office use but currently vacant;
c!) To the south: BART Station and underpass beneath the I-580 right-of-way to the BART
station platform; and
e) To the west: Open-air bus terminal, surFace parking, and a Pacific Gas & Electric power
substation.
2of11
Map 1- Aerial Photo Project Site
Surrounding Uses
Background
~ -~a ~~3
The Planning Commission, at a Study Session on December 9, 2008 reviewed the project and
referenced various concerns. (See Attachment No. 1, Planning Commission Study Session
Minutes and Attachment 2, Planning Commission Staff Report of September 14, 2010, pages 9
and 10 which describe items discussed at the Study Session).
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 14, 2010 reviewed and recommended
that the City Council approve a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, a Stage 2 Development
Plan, and a Development Agreement and also approved a Site Development Review and a
Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a residential project. Attachment 2 is the Staff Report frorn the
September '14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting and Attachment 3 are the Planning
Commission minutes of that meeting.
However, prior to Council taking action the Applicant requested that the project be held in order
to consider potential amendments to the overall project. The Applicant subsequently modified
the proposed project.
The Applicant made substantive changes to the project which requires review by the Planning
Commission. The following table illustrates a comparison of the original project and the
currently proposed project.
Com arison Table
-. .. __ f PC A roVed 9-44-10 '` Pro osed •
# of Units 486 =. ~ ' - ~ ~ 505 ~
Retail 4,192 s ft~~ , 0 '
Ameni S ace 7,390 s ft ~ 4,223 s ft Fitness center
Parkin Structure 751 Sta11s 733 Stalls
Private On-Street Parkin 25 Stalls: ' 25 Stalls
Public On-Street Parkin 40 Stalls ' ~ 40 Stalls
Stora e Grou 27;865 s~ft ~ ` ' 10,917 s ft ~
ANALYSIS:
The changes to the proposed project involve the Site Development Review, the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map, the Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, the Stage 2 Development
Plan and the Development Agreement which were previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The following is a discussion of the proposed changes to the previously requested
entitlements. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 14, 2010
(Attachment 2) for a complete discussion of the project.,
. , . ,.. .. ~x. .<~.. .., . ..
Staqe 1 Devetopment Plan
The Applicant is proposing an amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan, approved in 2002
through Ordinance 21-02 for the entire Dublin Transit Center. The Amendment would increase
the number of units allowable on Site C from 405 to 505. !n order to not increase the allowable
number of units in the overall Transit Center, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has
agreed to reduce the number of allowable units on Site A from 530 to 430 (Attachment 4).
The "Dublin Transit Center: Proposed Land Uses" chart found on page 1.13 of the Stage 1
Development Plan would be amended as follows to shift 100 units from Site A#o Site C. The
chart shows a strike out for the item to be changed and the revised number highlighted: .
3of11
Dublin Transit Center: Proposed Land Uses
l~D o~=~-3
Site Area Area GPlEDSP Max. Max. FAR Density FAR Density Ancillary Additional
(gr.ac.) (net Land Use Sq. Ft. Units (gross) (gross) (net) (net) Retail Units
ac. S . Ft.
A 10.92 8.29 High Density 538 49 64
Res 430 39 __ 52
B 12.00 8.10 High Density 565 47 70 t5,000
Res
C 8.58 5.80 High Density 4A5 4~ ~A 25,000
Res 505 59 87
D-1 3.50 2.50 Campus 190,000 9.25 1.74 7,500 150
Office
D-2 17.32 12.10 Campus 950,000 1.26 1.80
Office
E-1 6.28 4.10 Campus 300,000 1.10 1.68 15,000 150
Office
E-2 11.20 7.70 Campus 560,000 1.15 1.67
Office
F 12.20 8.73 Neighborhood
Park
P(SP 8.65 7.93 Public/Semi- 7,500
Public
Total 90.65 65.25 2,000,000 1,500 70,000 300
Summa
90.65 65.25
a!b/c 31.5Q 22.19 High Density 1,500 48 68 40,000
Res
d/e 38.30 26.40 Campus 2,000,000 1.20 1.74 22,500 300
Office - "
F 12.20 8.73 Neighborhood `~_N/A ~ N/A
Park `
plsp 8.65 7.93 Public/Semi- NlA. 7,500
Public ~
Staqe 2 Development Plan ~ ~
Most of the standards and requirements of a Stage 2 Development Plan required by Chapter
8.32.030 B. of the Zoning Ordinance were adopted in .2002 with the Stage 1 Planned
Development Zoning for alf of Dublin Transit Cenfer. The Stage .1 Planned Development zoning
established the permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory land uses; site areas and
proposed densities; maximum number of residential units and non-residential square footages;
and a Master Landscaping Plan.
The approved development standards contained in the Stage 1 Development Plan provide for
development standards such as building height, number of stories, building setbacks and a
parking ratio of 1.5 parking stalls per unit and suggested high-density residential development in
4 or 5~ stories either over padium parking or with the units "wrapped" around the parking
structures as is the case with this project and;Avalon's first project. . .,. ,. .
The adopted Planned Development zoning also limits ancillary retai! and services to.the ground
floor frontage along Iron Horse Parkway. The proposed development of Site C complies with
the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for the Dublin T~ansit Center as it is compatible with.
the Dublin Transit Center land use concept to maximize transit opportunities presented by the
adjacent Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit {BART) Station and will contribute to an
accessible and pedestrian-friendly environment in proximity to the BART Station. The Stage 2
Development Plan for Avalon Transit Center, Site C has been designed to be consistent with the
Stage 1 standards as proposed to be amended. The proposed Site Development Plan is
reflective of the Stage 2 standards in terms of lot area, lot dimensions, lot coverage, type and
number of units, location and number of parking spaces, setbacks, architecture, and affordable
housing.
4of11
A Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Stage 1 Planned
Development Amendment and a Stage 2 Development Plan is inciuded as Attachment 5. ~g^~ o.FpZ$-3
Site Development Review
The Site Development Review includes: site plan, architectural design, landscape plan, and
streetscape improvements. The site layout and design is intended to create an image
consistent with an urban lifestyle and encourage pedestrian circulation.
Site Plan
The overall site plan for the
project will not change from the
2010 project. Please refer to the
September 14, 2010 Staff Report
(Attachment 2) for a discussion
of the site plan. The additiona!
units are all integrated within the
existing structure by minor
modifications to the building and
tucking units up under roof
elements in the previously
approved building facades. (See
Attachment 6, pages A-00.07, A-
10.01, A-20.01. L-2 and L-3). ,
Architecture/Design Standards
_ ; _~
,
"'_ _ I J
. . . . _ ~.,..
` I , I L -... ~~! ' -: ~ -, ~ Lr-i
' ~ ' .~ ~~~i,• ...'\ ~ :
!q ~ ~. : ' . :'~:. _ ' ~ ~ ~
'~f{. UJ~PBELL IAIJE .. . : CFMVBELL GREfN ; ~ ` .
. ......... ._. i
'~ _..~ f L -------- l 1 ._
F
~ ~+e • `'~r i i ~ ~ ' ~~ ` ~ / ~i : i ~
i ~ \ '~\ ~ /;' '~ ;; '
~• ~~~ : -, ~ ~ ~, ~~~ . ~ I `, . j ~,~~a % ~~
AVALON DUBLIN . '~ - ~ \` \ ~J'/' ' i / ;~ I C
STATION- SITE C ~.\ \ ~~ ; ~~ ~~ ~~; / : /~/;~ I !
. • , .-,\
~I ~~ ./.~'
, ~ ~.
~ ~~\, ~/y ~ -- -
~~~", , 'Q/ '
~ ' ~
~------__...__~_---- . ,;
~~~ ' ` ~'"~
vxo.2~[Nnwn~rrtotxw.tn \ ~~• `MORSE /~% ' 0MTP11WUN(f:
; ,~ti,~,~~.,~~.~ , ., ,
; e~ox ;n~rawowu~wC~s~ra : `\\`~-~!'i . . ~ ~ ~
; ~,o~~a,~„~ . ~.. ,,--.~'/
: ..~~.,~.~a~, _. ,
..'-_.__._.._'___ :.::..,._._.__: , . . ~ `BMT~ EHfRY ' -~ .
. _--_ _..-- -_ _ _._ ..... _.__.
;. ~ ~«~o.~~w,~.. -
f I w.~rernmsrrasrwm~onur ~. . . _..--.-"----.
' ~ ..nc~snrn~r.w~y ^_ . " . . ~ . ..._.."_"
- . ~Mau 3: Pronosed Site Plan
The Stage 1 Planned Development zoning adopted .for the Transit Center Village addressed
design standards for building heights, number of stories, building setbacks and parking ratio.
The proposed architecture of the two structures .is: •consistent with the Avalon and Horton
projects constructed to date on Sites B-1 and 6-2: `. Building exteriors ~have exterior articulation
and variable color palette to minimize visuat mass and "scale. 'The proposed revisions from the
2010 project are revealed in the building elevations described below. For a detailed description
of the architectura! elements previously approved please see~ the Staff Report from the
September 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 2).
Building Elevations
The building elevations are mostly unchanged with the notable exceptions of the parking
structure. Due to a redesign and the reduction of garage parking spaces, a large portion of the
parking structures were able to be lowered for•a~-Portion of ~the elevation (Attachment 6 pages A-.
01.01 and A-01.02). Where once there had been 5 bays of four-story architecture on the Iron
Horse elevation, there are now 4 bays of four-story architecture and one bay of 5 story
architecture. This adds to the roof articulation and provides additional undulation in the
structure mass. A similar look is achieved on the DeMarcus elevation.
The remaining changes to the architectural elevations as a result of accommodating the
additional 19 units consist of varying the roof planes and making minor modifications to the
building elevations {Attachment 6 pages A-30.03 thru 30.06). Refer to page 6 of the previous
Staff Report for architecture discussion.
Sofll
Floor/Unit Plans
18a. ~,~~3
The proposed project continues to offers studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom
floor plans in different floor plan configurations that vary in size and layout depending on the
placement of the units within each building. All plans are singfe level with the exception o# the
one two bedroom 2 story unit and one three bedroom 2 story unit in Building C-1 and 4 three
bedroom 2 story units in Building C-2. The units would range in size from approximately 593
square feet for the smallest studio apartment to 1,558 square feet for the largest 3-bedroom unit
excluding private decks, balconies, or patio areas. Decks occur on the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom plans.
(See Attachment 6, pages A-22.01 through A-22.04)
The Applicant has proposed to revise the floor plan in the plaza area facing the BART station.
Previously this area was to house the Leasing Office and Fitness Center. The Applicant now
proposes to reconfigure this area to living units, however, the overall look of the exterior of the
units will continue to maintain the "commercial" look (Attachment 6 pages A-30.05). There is no
change in the architecture. Additionally the area previously designated for the retail component
at the northeast corner of the project at the intersection of Iron Horse Parkway and Campbell
Green is proposed to be converted to the fitness center (Attachment 6 page 20.01). The
architecture previously approved will not change in the App{icanYs current proposal.
The distribution of units by floor plan generally is shown in the following table:
Table 1: Unit Total by Floor Plan
Unit Size!# of bedrooms No. of Units ;~ % of.Total~- :; Unit s ft Deck s. ft.
Studio 41 units ~ 8.1 ~ ` 593-685 ' n/a
One-bedroom 226 units 44.6 764-991 55
Two-bedroom ~ 204 units 40.4 1066-1198 60 ~
Three-bedroom 25 units ~ 5.0 '~ - 1331-1418 n/a
1 bedroom Loft 1 unit <1.0 1278 n/a
2 bedroom 2-sto 1 unit <1.0 1388 ' 55
3 bedroom 2-sto 7 units ~ 1.4~ `~ '~1558~ 60 ~
Total 505 units 100% ' ~ ~
A total 438 units (or 87%) have some private open space in the form of decks, balconies, or
patios ranging in size from approximately 55 square feet to 60 square feet.
The overall massing of the structure has changed very little. In order to add. the additional 19
units space was utilized that was from previous. retail use and grouped storage. The group
storage is now 10,917 square feet where the previous square footage was 27,865.
.T. . <E.. . .r. ~ . ... ~ r .. . . .... ~. ~. .. . . .. -. ~ ._ _ ."~ ......~1,~. . .~ ' . . ~ , _ .. ' . ' ..
Ancillary Retail/Commercial Space
The Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Center notes that °ancillary ground floor
retail and service uses are strongly encouraged" and "Up to 70,000 square feet of ground floor
retail and service uses could be incorporated into the residential....fronting on Iron Horse
Parkway as long as the overall densities are not exceeded." The Stage 1 PD allows a maximum
of 25,000 square feet of commercial space in the project site. The Site C project that was
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission included 4,192 square feet of commercial
space. However, the inability to lease the existing retail/commercial space (12,750 sq ft} in
Avalon's existing project has prompted the Applicant to eliminate the ancillary commercial space
from the proposed project on Site C. The Applicant has not altered the architectural character
significantly of the buildings facing the central plaza or Iron Horse Parkway where the retail
6 of 11
1 ~ 3 0 ~~,"~,~
space was originally located. At the intersection of Campbell Green and Iron Horse the project
incorporates a 4,223 square foot Fitness Center which gives the visual impression of commercial
space. Additionally, the conversion of the retail space to residential uses facing Iron Horse
Parkway and the central plaza will maintain the commercial architectural look (Attachment 6
pages A-0.1.01, A-01.03, A-01.04 and A-01.05.).
Access and Circulation
Access and circulation has not changed from the previous approval. See Attachment 2, Page 7,
for a complete description of the access and circulation for this site.
Parking
The Planned Development zoning for the Transit Center Village established a standard of 'i.5
spaces per unit and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. Based on this
standard, a total of 758 parking spaces are required {Please refer to Table below). The Fitness
Center has not been assigned a,parking standard because the Fitness Center will be used by
residents or their guests.
The project provides 758 spaces which include: 733 spaces in the two 4 and 5-level parking
structures, and 25 spaces on private streets along Campbell Lane and Hamlet Lane. Over all, _
available parking within the structures and along the perimeter of the project will satisfy the ~
parking requirements of 1.5.spaces per unit adopted as part of the Transit Center Village master ~
plan. Th'er.efore,.:the project meets the requirements of the Planned Development. 1n`addition, ~ .
there are`40°public s#~eetside'Parking spaces adjacent~to the.project on Iron Horse Parkway and ~
DeMarcus Blv.d. ~ ~ ~ ~
- PARKING
~~ Ratio Units/S Ft Required Provided +/-
Residential
ara e 1.5:Sp/Unit
. 505
- 758 733
1.45 -25
Private On-Street . ~ ~ ~ ' -~ n/a ~ 25 +25.
Public On-Street ~ n/a 40 +40
TOTAL PARKING : 758 798"` +40
'The proposed project meets the parking requirement established by the Planned Development Zoning
even though the overall number of parking spaces has been reduced from the original project as identified
in ihe comparison table on page 3 of this Staff Report.
Most of the resident parking will be behind automatic gates. Open unrestricted parking will be.
available for guests in~the parking structures as well as parking along the public-and~,private: .~ ~~=~
streets. Parking restrictions as to allowable hours the stall can be used wili be imposed on the
public and private streets in the same manner now incorporated adjacent to the existing Avalon
and Elan project_
Streetscape, Landscaping and Fencing
Minor modifications are being proposed to the Landscape Plan, primarily at the central plaza
facing BART. The Applicant has replaced the commercial square footage with residential units.
1n order to provide separation between the residential units and pedestrians using the plaza, the
landscape architect has designed low walls and landscape buffers adding to the landscape feel
of the plaza (Attachment 6 page A-OO.Q7, A-00.08 and L-4). The additional landscape is
consistent with the previously approved landscape pallet which in turn mirrors the landscape
7of11
1$ ~{o ~~3
pallet for the existing Elan and Avalon projects in the Transit Center as well as conforming to the
Stage 1 Development Plan. The preliminary landscape plan for Site C was prepared by The
Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and the Dublin
Transit Center, Stage 1 Development Plan. Please refer to Attachmen# 2; for a detailed
description of the landscaping for this site. ~
Since the previous project approval, tf~e Applicant has agreed to name the central plaza facing
BART for Peter W. Snyder. Peter W. Snyder was on the City Council from 1982 to 1994. He
was Mayor from 1982-1986, and again from 1991 to 1994 ~first directly elected Mayar in 1992).
Mr. Snyder was a BART Director from December 1996 through December 2004. A specific
Condition of approval has been added memorializing this agreement with specifics regarding
construction and timing. (See Attachment 7, Condition 34). ~
Conditions ofApproval
Attachment 7 contains the Conditions of Approval for the Site Development Review and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map for this project. Condition 15 has been slightly modified pertaining to the
provision of inclusionary housing. Condition 34 has been added regarding the naming of Peter
W. Snyder Plaza. All other Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment 7 remain the same
except where more current dates and references to new drawings are needed as wel! as
statements acknowledging that this approval supersedes the Planning Commission: approval of
September 14, 2010. ~ .
' ~' Affordable- Housing ~
, . s ` - . . . .. . . . .i
~ ` The affordable units provided would 6e in conformance with requirements of the lnclu"sionary
Zoning Ordinance, ~as well as the terms, of the Master Development Agreement as~it pertains to.
the provision of moderate income units within the Dublin Transit Center. In accordance with the
Master DeveloPment Agreement, the Applicant would provide 10% of the 505 units proposed as
affordable to moderate level income households. Additionally, the obligation to provide ~
affordable units has been incorporated in the Development Agreement {Attachment 8, .Exhibit B)
Vestin_q~Tentative Tract Map 7929 ~ ~ _ . . ~
Although the project is proposed for occupancy as apartments, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is
" being processed to provide for condominium development. The project will be constructed to
condominium standards (Attachment 6 pages 1 through 7). Please see Attachment 7(Pages ~.
16-24) for Conditions of Approval specific to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. ,
Development Aqreement -
Projects, within theM Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ,(EDSP} require a Development Agreement, .,.
~~~~~between the Ci'ty ~ and fhe Developer. California Gove~nnient Code~ §§ 65864 et seq. an'd
Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code {hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter
into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or
equitable interest in such property in order to obtain certain commitments and establish certain
development rights for the property. The Development Agreement must be approved prior to
recordation of the final Tract Map and issuance of building permits for the development of the
property.
The previous(y approved Development Agreement has been modified to provide minor revisions
regarding inclusionary housing and is included herein for Planning Commission review
(Attachment 8, Exhibit B).
8of11
1~5 0~0`~3
A Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an 4rdinance
approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Avalon Bay
Communities, tnc. is included as Attachrimerit 8 with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A
and the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit B.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPEClFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The area within the proposed project is designated High Density Residential in the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The site is zoned PD High Density Residential.
Ordinance 21-02 (PA 00-013) approved in 2003 established the Stage I Planned Development
zoning and Development Standards. The current Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment,
Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and Vesting Tentative Tract Map request would be consistent
with the General Plan land use designation and Planned Development zoning as amended.
The proposed project~ has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and
Sustainability Element of the General Plan and correlations to several salient points in the
Community Design and Sustainability Element were referenced in the previous Staff Report
(Attachment 2). The project itseff is a portion of the larger Transit Center project already
approved that has implemented pa#hways, gathering spaces, open spaces, and a village
concept which is further defined and accentuated by this development. Avalon Bay
Communities is furthering the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the
General Plan by providing a high quality of life, interesting and unique urban open spaces and
gathering places and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. ~ ~
REVfEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: ..
The Building Division, Fire P~evention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District : reviewed the project and provided Conditions, of
Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of. Approval from these departments and agencies
have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 7). "
NOT{C{NG REQU{REMENTS/PUBLfC OUTREACH:
In accordance with S#ate law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing.
A public notice was also published in the Vailey Times~ and posted at several locations
throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: , ..
: - ' . ... . ~ . . . . .-
The project proposes to amend the existing Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan by
transferring 100 units from Site A to Site C. Both sites are designated for high density
residential and the total number of residential units across the Dublin Transit Center would not
increase. The Project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,
Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement
(SCH 2O01120395) which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated Navember
19, 2002. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amenciment, Stage 2 Development P{an,
Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement are not a
substantial change in the project or project circumstances, and do not constitute new
information af substantial importance requiring subsequent or supplemental review under CEQA
9of11
section 21166 and related Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. Therefore, pursua~t-to the°~3
California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project may be found to be exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Gavernment Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent ~'' '
with a Specific Plan for which an E1R was certified. No further environmental review is required.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Minutes from Planning Commission Study Session on December 9,
2008. ~
2) Planning Commission Staff Report - September 14, 2010.
3) Planning Commission Minutes - September 14, 2010.
4) Letter from Alameda County Surplus Property Authority.
5) Resolution recomrr~ending that the City Council adopt a Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the
Avalon Bay Communi#ies Dublin Station project on Site C of the Dubfin
Transit Center with the Draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A.
6) Project Plans, Avalon Dublin Station, Site C Stage 2/SQR Revisions,
March 22, 2011.
7) Resolution approving Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 7929 for Avalon Bay Communities, Site C, Dublin Transit
Center. ~
" 8) Resolution recorrimending that the City Council adopt an `Ordinance
' ` approving a Dev.`,etopment.Agreerrient for Dublin Station, Site C, Dublin
Transit Center, Avalon Bay~ Communities with the Draft Ordinance
attached as Exhibit A and 'the Development Agreement attached as
, Exhibit B. . :
, -, : . ;,~ .
10of11
I ~ ~ o ~~-~2
GENERAL INFORMATiON:
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.
400 Race Street, Suite 200
~ San Jose, CA 95126
LOCATION: Northeast of Demarcus Boulevard, northwest of Iron
Horse Parkway, and south of Campbell Green (village~
greenbelt) and the extension of Campbell Lane [the
extension of Martinelli WayJ
APN: 986-0034-005-02
Parcels 2& 3 of Parcel Map 7893
EXISTiNG ZONING: PD-High Density Residential
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 8~
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: High Density Residential
11 of 11
~`y~ ~-!.~%b~
:.;~ y
~it~ ~~~~~ . . . .
';~~~~ f Planning Commzssion Minutes
`'~C~~`~'l Tuesda March 22 2011
y~ ~
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
188 o~F o'~3
•
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 22,
2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting
to order at 7:05:31 PM
Present: Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning .
Manager; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair,
Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Wehrenberg
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm.~ Schaub, seconded. by Cm.
Bhuthimethee the minutes of the March 8; 2011 meeting were approved. ; .
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE ~ ~
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE , . ~
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Comrnunities, Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review,
Vesting Tentative Map 7929, and Deveiopment Agreement.
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlineci in the Staff Report.
Cm. • Schaub ~asked what the areas A-1 & A- 3 will be. : .. S _ <:- ~ . . ~ .: ,_ : > ~. .
Mr. Porto answered that both areas are designated for high density housing.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, mentioned that a letter was received, through email, late this
afternoon from the law firm of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld who represent the Carpenters
Local Union Number 713 regarding the CEQA review of the project. He introduced Tim
Cremin, City Attorney who was to speak to the letter.
Tim Cremin, City Attorney, spoke regarding the letter relating to the CEQA review for the
project. He stated that his office reviewed the letter in detail regarding the objections raised
which relate to the CEQA review that is being done for the project. He continued they found
~L'lannin~ ~'ommission ~tfarck 22, '1011
4~ggufar :d~feet.ing
51
ATTACHMENT 9
~
nothing in the~ letter that establishes a basis for changing the Staff recommendahon~ ~or t e
appropriate CEQA review for the project. He stated the City Attorney remains comfortable
with the Staff recommendation and stated it complies with CEQA requirements. Therefore, if
the Planning Commission decides to move forward on the project the City Attorney would
support that: He stated that this is a project for which an EIR was done for the overall Transit
Center project. He stated that under CEQA, wlien that is done, there is a very narrow standard
for when further environmental review is required. He continued that under CEQA there is a
presumption that no further review is required unless certain standards are met. He stated this
residential project qualifies for an exemption under the law because it is under a certified EIR
for a Specific Plan and in addition none of the narrow basis for requiring further environmental
review has been met. He stated that a number of the facts in the letter are inaccurate and
evidence of the misunderstanding of the original approvals. He stated.from a legal standpoint
the City Attorney is comfortable with the Staff recommendation for the project.
Cm. Schaub stated that the CEQA document is not part of the project that is under review
tonight. . .
Mr. Cremin stated that the Resolution has a statement of CEQA environmental determination
which is; since an EIR has already been certified for the project and since this is a. residential
project. under a. Specific Plan it is exempt from further environmental. review. He stated no .
further environmental review is ~required and also none ,of the standards that would otherwise.
;~ .
-trigger further review are met: He stated it is a finding on reliance of an already certified
document. - ~
Cm. Schaub understood that the finding has already been made and nothing has changed in
thatregard.
Mr. Cremin agreed and stated that all the mitigation measures are still applicable from that
document.
Cm. Schaub stated that a Development Agreement that is signed today puts into,place the codes
under which the City is required to work at that time. He asked if the codes changed what
effect would that have on the Development Agreement and would it still be in effect.
Mr. Porto deferred the question to the City Attorney.
. . ._ . ~.. . . . . , . . . .
Mr. Cremin responded that Cm. Schaub's question is how changes in law would apply to an
already entitled project. He stated that, in the case of the State Building Code, the code in effect
at the time the building permit application is complete is the code that applies to the project.
There is no vesting of a code standard existing today just because the project is approved today.
He gave an example of the CalGreen project that took effect January 1, 2011 therefore projects
that did not have a complete building permit application before that date would be subject to
the current codes.
Chair Brown stated that in reviewing the Planning Commission meeting minutes from
September 14, 2010 several of the commissioners brought up the issue of traffic and they
~PlnnninH (,'ommissinn
4Qfy~Gtr!Meeting
.`Murch 2'l, "1,01.1
52
lG O e~ ~ ~'j
recommended in the Conditions of Approval that the traffic situation should be reviewed by the ~
Traffic and Safety Committee. He asked if there were any results from that review.
Mr. Porto stated that he spoke with Jaimie Bourgeois, City Traffic Engineer, who reviewed the
issue with the Traffic and Safety Committee, toured the site, and then created a response to the
property owners who had brought up the issue. The result was that the City painted "Keep
Clear" zones in front of both driveways (Iron Horse Parkway and Demarcus) so that the people
coming out of the garage from the existing project had a clear pathway to. the street. The issue
was resolved and both property owners were responded to in writing.
Chair Brown stated that there were also concerns by the Commissioners that they felt there was
not enough appropriate signs directing traffic into the area and to BART and asked if that issue
has been resolved.
Mr. Porto responded that the issue was addressed with the City Traffic Engineer but he was
unaware of the resolution.
Chair Brown stated the Commission had mentioned public art which was commissioned by the
City Council and asked if that is still a viable project for the median area. ~
Mr•. -Poxto~ answered that the Applicant has been very involved with the Public Art Committee. ~~~'.
and both pieces of„ public art at the Transit Center. He suggested allowing the Applicant to ~
answer regarding the status of the public art project. . ~
Chair Brown stated there was a concern by another Commissioner regarding bicycle storage. .
He asked what the status of the bicycle storage area is now that there is Iess storage space in the
project.
Mr. Porto answered that there is more storage in this project than in any other project in the
Transit Center and stated there is more than ample room for bike storage in the project. ~
Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
Tom Sheldon, GGLO Architects, spoke in favor of the project. He pxesented a fly-over video
that depicts the changes to the project.
Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke in favor of the project regarding the public art. He stated there
are two components of the public art. The first comes from a commitment that Alameda
County Surplus Property Authority made as part of the original entitlement to contribute
$200,000 for public art at the Transit Center. He stated a committee was formed of Staff,
property owners, and residents in the area. He stated the process took two years to select an
artist and have them finish the work. He was just informed that the artist had applied for the
Building Permit to instail the art. He felt that by fa112011 the art project should be underway or
possibly complete.
Mr. Porto showed on the slide where the public art will be located at the project.
~Ylanning ('ommzs~irm
~sgular ;t2ectirzg
5'Ka~t'h 2', 2O1.1
53
la ~ ~~~~~
Mr. White continued that there will be another public art project that is an additional
contribution that will be undertaken by Avalon Bay separately.
David Gold, Avalon Bay Communities Attorney, Morrison and Forrester, spoke regarding the
project. He supported the views of the City Attorney and felt the project remains in CEQA
compliance. He stated the letter raises issues regarding changes in the project and that those
changes would require a new EIR. He stated that CEQA rewazds projects that have prepared an
EIR for a Specific, Plan. He continued that development over the last 5-7 years has not boomed
as anticipated when the EIR was created. The EIR analyzed very substantial impacts, made
assumptions for growth that did not occur and because these changes do not meet the CEQA
threshold of substantial changes, it did not trigger major revisions. He stated that the revisions
to the project were made to reduce tlie impacts and felt the logic that those changes should
trigger a need to redo CEQA cloesri t hold. He felt there is no merit to their request. He
continued there is an incentive created by State law for Specific Plans allowing minor
adjustments within the Specific Plan area. He felt tlie letter misconstrues the goal and purpose
of the State law and felt the CEQA exemption for this project is appropriate.
Scott I.ittlehale, representing Carpenters Local LTnion 713 and a Dublin resident, Bobby Klein.
He stated he wanted to ensure that written comments of Richard Drury, Weinberg, Roger &
Rosenfeld, were entered into the record. He stated it is the view of the Union's attorney that the
exemption claim by'the City is legally improper, that the-exemption' is not offered without any
sort of qualifications or reservations if there are subsfantial changes to the'project as proposed at
the time of the creation of the 8 year old EIR. He continued there has been movement of a
substantial number of units from one site within the project area to a site closer to the freeway
potentially impacting. traffic and air quality for the residents of the project. He felt there have
been substantial changes of circumstances under which the project is undertaken and felt that
the physical envirorunent has changed along the I-580 corridor since the certification of the Final .
EIR for the Transit Center. He felt that new important information has arisen ~that could not.
have been known at the time of the original certification. He stated that it is the argument of
their attorney that these conditions do apply, such as; it was not known at the time of
certification that there is risk of cancer from roadways; they could not have foreseen AB32 and
the green house gas program; or reactive organic gases, etc. He thanked the Planning
Commission for their time and for accepting the letter and hoped they would cazefully consider
his remarks. ~
John Dalrympl, Political Director for the Sheet Metal Workers Union, spoke~.regarding the .~
project. He requested permission~ to ask Staff questions. Chair Brown answered yes. Mr.
Dalrymple asked since . the refail component was removed, how faz of a walk will it be to the
closest amenities and will there be any at this project.
Mr. Porto stated there is sti1112,000 square feet of retail space available that has not been leased.
He stated that west. of the Iron Horse Trail and along Dougherty Road there are retail
establishments.
Mr. Dalrympl asked what percentage of the project will be affordabie housing and at what level.
~l=(nnnin~ (,'ommission
4Ze~ufar:Meeting
:if¢n:h 22, 201.1
54
~~~ ~~~~
Mr. Porto answered .that 10% will be provided for inclusionary housing and all inclusionary
units are at the moderate level.
Mr. Dalrympl stated that he is speaking for the Sheet Metal Workers Union oniy and that they
are not part of the issue stated in the letter from Richard Drury, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.
He stated that the Sheet Metal Workers Union supports these types of projects and felt they
provide many economic benefits for the community. He stated he is meeting with the school
district, Mayor Sbranti and the principal of the continuation school to discuss the creation of a
construction trades career pathway in the apprenticeship trades. He continued the Avalon Bay
project could provide an opportunity for students in an apprenticeship program. He stated that
the Planntng Commission has the ability to add almost anything to the Developrnent
Agreement (DA).. He suggested that the Planning Commission could add to the DA a
requirement that local Apprentices from State approved apprentice programs be used in this
project. He felt this program would provide a lifetime career for the students in their own
neighborhood. He stated the Union has an agreement with Avalon Bay at Pleasant Hill where
they used all Union employees with apprentices being used as well. He suggested this could
be a private understanding bettiveen the developer and the Union and felt it would serve
everybody's interests. He stated he. hoped to work with Staff regarding economic benefits
derived from projects that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He felt the City should be
thinking about how to capture, those wages and reinvest them into the community and train >
local.kids in a career path. .He.felt.the:Planning.Commission could suggest to the City• Council ,
that they consider using apprentices from: a State approved program and he stated he would
work with the developer and coordinate the:program with the school district.
john Rennels, Principal Property Development Officer.BART, spoke in favor of the project.
Cm. Schaub asked if the project is approved, :when would construction begin.
Jeff White, stated they are proceeding with. design in anticipation of approvals, with a goal to
start by fall 2011. He continued they have not received all the internal approvals to begin but
have been authorized to proceed with design for the eastern portion of the site.
Cm. Schaub asked if the project will be funded. ~
Mr. White answered A~alon is internally funded and the project needs to be approved
internally and they are competing with other;,projects.,across the US but felt they were on tract to
receive those approvals.
Cm. O'Keefe was concerned regarding the safety of the tenants in light of the assault incidents
at the transit center near Pleasant Hill BART in the last 24 months.
Mr. White answered their Pleasant Hill project is directly adjacent to the complex where the
incidents occurred which is an older project and not as secure. He ~stated the Avalon Pleasant
Hill project did not have any problems. He stated there is security on evenings and weekends
and fully staffed during the day.
~Ylanning (;ommi,ssian
~~ular ~lr.cting
a~a~h Zt, lo~.t
55
Iq 3 0 ~F~B-3
Cm. Schaub asked if the ground floor units that were retail and were converted to residential
would be able to lie returned to retail space in the future.
Mr. White answered yes and stated that in their Pleasant Hill pro}ect they had retail spaces
converted to residential and some have been converted back to retail. He felt it was actually a
function of the market.
Cm. Schaub felt it was good to have that possibility.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Cm. Schaub stated he has been with the project for the last 6 years and does not see anything
different and felt the project has not been changed. He felt the CEQA document was approved
more recently and at that point it was deternuned that the CEQA document was valid.
Mr. Baker responded that there were two recent Transit Center. projects reviewed by the
Planning Commission; the Esprit projert in August 2010 and this project in September 2010.
Both projects were based on the same environmental document.
. Cm. Schaub stated that the Planning Commission reviewed .the environmental document and
,> s; ,.-.... determined ~it was still valid. and nothing has changed. He felt there;was no ~need to.re-evaluate
, ,_ the documenfi and added there will , be more projects under : the same . document. '.: He was in
support of the apprentice program but felt it was not appropriate to change the development
Agreement or recommend any changes to the Council. ,
~ Cm. Schaub stated that he liked the project now more than the first time: it was reviewed. He.
, felt the . colors chosen axe much more colorful and would make ~~for ~ a better looking
~ ~ development. , .
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it would be beneficial to reserve some of the retail spaces for retail
and not convert them to residences.
Mr. Porto stated that the Applicant's basic project description removed the retail from the area
and they have 12,000 sq ft of retail space that has not been leased after 4 years. He stated the
units can be converted back to commercial and the two-story look of the area will remain in the
,.. ,, ~;_: event there is an opportunity to. return those spaces. to a retail component, .4 , . ,
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt with the project's proximity to the BART station it would be a unique
opportunity for commercial.
There was a discussion regarding retail vs. residential at the Transit Center.
Cm. Bhuthimethee referred. to Mr. Dalrumple's suggestion regarding an apprentice program
and felt it was a great opportunity for the Commission to provide opportunities for young
people and felt it builds on the quality of life. She asked if there is something the Planning
Commission could do to support that.
2'(nnnsng (,'ommi,rsicm iKarch 2:,', "101.!
~g~jular~Lfectirrg
56
~q ~-l o~ 0~3
Mr. Saker stated that Mr Dalrympl is asking that the Planning Commission add a term to the
DA to address his suggestion. He continued that what is before the Commission is to review
the DA and make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that this is not something .
typically included in a DA but it could be included but the Council has the ultimate decision.
He stated that the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the City Council if
there is a consensus.
Chair Brown responded that he has been involved with the education system in Dublin and
while he supports Mr. Dalrympl's suggestion and would like to hear more about the
opportunities, he felt it was not appropriate to add it to the DA or mandate it in an agreement.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation to the City
Council to include this type of program in the DA, is the appropriate time.
Mr. Cremin responded that development agreements are voluntary agreements between both
sides who have agreed to the terms. He stated the Cify's ability to add a term unilaterally
would be constrained because the other side would need to agree to it. He continued that the
Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the current DA, but if there .is a
motion that the Conrunission supports you could make a recommendation that this program be
considered as~,a message from the Commission. He stated there would need to be the support• of ..
~:= at least 3 votes-from tlie Cornrnissiori: He added that the recornmendation would be an add-on~:, -;;~
to the 'DA, which means fhe agreement would riot be amended but ask the City Council to
consider whatever term it might `be. ~' ~
Mr: Baker added that the concept of the program may need some additional studying and may
not be practical to have in this particular Development Agreement. He stated tlie Council
receives the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings and will hear what Mr. Dalrympl
had to say as well as the Commission's discussion: He also referenced the fact that Mr.
Dalrympl indicated he`has some meetings set up to discuss future implementation.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that improving the quality of life was not totally out of the realm of the
Planning Connmission.
Cm. O'Keefe felt the program needs to be worked through and could be considered in the
future. He stated he is in support of the Avalon Bay project overall. He liked the new roof
pitches but was not pleased that~niore o£thesparking structure will be exposed to the site but felt- .. ..
at build-out of the entire area it should not be a concern. He thanked the Applicant for
addressing his concerns regarding tenant safety.
Chair Brown was in support of the project and felt the 5 concerns that were discussed by the
former Planning Commission were improved. He stated he supports Staff's position on the EIR.
Cm. Schaub felt the Cornmission should address Cm. Bhuthimethee's issue. He felt that they
could simply state that, as a group, they listened and discussed the issue and recommend that
the City Council address it. He felt that the apprentice program is a good idea but felt the
Commission should not recommend to amend the DA.
~Yranning (,'ommxrsimt 54furck 2'l, 'l(11.'1
9~gular;~fectrng
$~
Cm. Schaub asked to take a straw poll regarding the issue.
I G15 o-F~
Chair Brown asked that all in favor of making a recommendation in the minutes for future
discussion and consideration by the City Council as opposed to making a recommendadon to
add something to this development agreement.
Chair Brown: Aye
Cm.O'Keefe: Aye
Cm. Schaub: Aye
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if taking the straw poll meant that the suggestion would not be
included to this development agreement.
Mr. Baker stated he wanted to clarify that the Commission was taking a poll on where each of
the members stands on including in the minutes information for the City Council regarding the
Planning Commissiori s general support of the program in the future, but the Commission was
not voting to recommend including such Ianguage in this development agreement.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it could be added to the Deyelopment Agreement in the future.. ~.
. , . . . ~ - , ~:~ . . .
Chair Brorwn agreed -with _ the City. Attorney that this is a mutual agreernent bettiveen, the .City ,, .;:,; .~;.
and.the Applicant and felt if,anything~were,added it would liave•to be through that process. .~-.. .,,
Mr. Baker stated it would have to be an amendment because the Development Agreement will
be moving forward. - . .
~ Cm. Bhuthimethee: Aye• „ . , ,
Cm. Schaub . wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission reviewed Attachment 5 .
(Resolution recommending the City Council adopt...) the WHEREAS statement regarding
CEQA and that the project is found to be exempt.
Mr. Baker stated what; Cm: Schaub is referring to is in Attachment 5 a Resolution
recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Stage 1& 2 Development
Plan there are statements which are repeated in the other Planning Commission resolutions in
, . support of the reco~nmendation regarding the enyironmental. review. . ., : ;. ,; , ,,; ; ;;; , ;,;,;r.;;
Cm. Schaub also mentioned the Planning Commission made the findings that the project is
consistent with the Specific Plan to which an EIR was certified and the project is exempt from
further CEQA review.
Chair Brown stated he can make all the findings in the resolution approving the Site
Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Chair Brown, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
Wehrenberg being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
~f'fanning (;`ommissime
9~gutar Meeting
~fastFt 2?, 201.1
5g
lG1Cp o~~~
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7929
FOR AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
. (APN 986-0054-045-02)
PA 06-060
RESOLUTION NO. 11 -10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING.THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN F~OR
THE AVALON;BAY COMIVIUNITIES DUBLIN STATION PROJECT ON SITE C OF '
. r:,. ,. . . . , ;. _ . ~•~. i.
~~ .. THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER ~ ~ ; ~ ~
_ . . , , ' ~ ~PA 06-060 . , ,
RESOLUTION NO.11-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR DUBLIN STATION, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER, AVALON BAY
COMMUNITIES
PA 06-060
y ~ ~ .. . ~ , . ~ . ~ . . %G '~` : r~ . • . . ~ . ,
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was a discussion regarding the total number of units at the Avalon Bay, Dublin Transit
Center project; the remaining projects; retail/commercial spaces and the reasons why there are
problems finding viable tenants. They discu~ssed the vision for the Transit Center and the hope
that the commercial spaces would be viable. They discussed parking for the commercial areas
and the BART parking structure.
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
~'Cannittg ('omm~:ssime
~'~yu(ar JKeeting
7Karcle 22, 'lD1.l
59
. ~ q -r n ~~$.3
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). There were none.
ADjOUIZNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30:38 PM
Res ec lly s ' ed,
Alan Brown
Chair Planning Cominission
ATTFS
Jeff Bakei~/
Planning Manager
G: ~ M/NUTES ~ 20] 7 ~ PLANNING COMMISSIDN ~ 0322.11 FINAL PC Minutes.doc
• r ' ~
' ,. ^f,' . .. .. ., .
. ~ .. -r.t.~ _ , _ -, ,;
~tYanning (;ammissimr
~~yular 1Yfeeting
~Yfuith 2'l, 2U77
60
/
_., ._ ~ lq ~'o~F ~~
- UNITED BROTHER~-IOOD O~ CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA
Carpenters Loca1713, Alameda County
. Mailing Address ~~--~~•o~ 4, ~~ ~ Meets:
~
~ 1050 Mattox Road ~.,,,~ ~~` ~~~; Second and Fourth
~Hayward, California 94541-1298 Thursdays
' S10-581-7817
Business Fax: 510-581-1267 • E-mail: carp713@hypersurf.com • Dispatch FaJC: 510-733-2509
Web Site: carpenters713.unionnet.org ~~~~~~~
~~N
March 31, 2011
Caroline P. Soto
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Reference Planning File: PA 06-060
Dear Ms. Soto:
A PR 0 Z 2011
~~ oF ~us~ar~
C~'1' MARte4GER'~ ~FFgC~
RECEE~lED
~~i I !
~ 1 2011
CE~'~ OF DUBLIiV
CI~YY NlANAGER'S OFF%CE
On behalf of myself - a resident of the City of Dublin since 1968 - and
Carpenters Local Union No. 713, which includes members who live and work in
and around the City of Dublin, I am writing in order to appeal to the City Council
the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin on
March 22, 2011 endorsing the "Dublin Station (Dublin Transit Center Site C)"
project (applicant: Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.). _
A Final EIR for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning,
Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2O01120395) was
certified by the Dublin City in 2002. The Planning Commission specifically
endorsed the statement that since 2002 there have been no substantial changes
to the project or its circumstances and no substantial new information that would
require preparation of a Supplemental EIR for the "Dublin Station" project. The
Commission accepted the recommendation of staff that the proposed project
may be found to be exempt. from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section
65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan for which an
EIR was certified. ~
As discussed in detail in the attached comment letter from our Attorney, the
members of Local 713 and I believe that it is a mistake as a matter of public
policy and as a matter of law to forgo additional environmental review. The.
exemption that the City relies upon does not apply if any of the conditions
specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs after
Attachment 10
~qq~~F ~$3 ~
UNITEI) BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA
Carpenters L.ocal 713, Alarneda County ~
~.
Mailing Address ~~-~,~~ •oa Q, ~~- ~ Meets:
1050 Mattox Road •.,.,,~"''~~` ~~~~~ ,_ Second and Fourth
Hayward, California 94541-1298 Thursdays
~ ~ 510-581=7817 ~ ~ ~
Business Fax: 510-581-1267 • E-mail: carp713@hypersurf.com • Dispatch Fax: 510=733-2509
Web Site: carpenters713.unionnet.org
~.~
certification of the Specific Plan EIR. It is our contention that almost all of the
circumstances specified in Section 21166 have occurred in the decade since the
Specific Plan EIR was prepared, rendering this Specific Plan Exemption legally
inapplicable. For example, mitigation measures unimagined in 2001 now have
been identified that would substantially reduce one or more of the Project's
significant effects on the environment.
We look forward to the opportunity to present to the Council additional evidence
and argument.
Please find attached to this letter a check written in the amount of $175 for the
requisite appeal filing fee.
i
Respectfully, f~ O
' ~~
Robert M. Klein
Senior Field Representative
Carpenters Local 713
Dublin Resident
RMK:ans
opeu #29
afl-cio
enclosures: Letter from Richard Drury written on behalf of Robert Klein and Carpenters Local Union No. 713
Check for Filing Fee
2
..~
i ~ov D~-c~3
STEWART WEINBERG ~
, DAVIDA.ROSENFELD '
WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD LORI K AQUINO ••
ANNEI.YEN
WILLIAM A. SOKOL 7 NICOLE M. PHILLIPS'
VINCENT A. HARRINGTON, JR. ~ ' ~
A P
C CONCEPCION E. LOZANO-BATISTA
W. DANIEL BOONE ROFESSIONAL
.
ORPORATION G1REN P. SENCER
BLYTHE MICKELSON . MANJARICHAWLA
BARRY E HINNLE ~ '
°
'
~ • ~7 ~
1001 Marina Village Parkway
'SU~Ie G~0 KRISTIWI M.2INNEN
~,NO~~E
~
~NS
oN ~
~ MqN ELABOGUES~•
~ CHRISTUW L RAISNER Alameda
-1091 ~
CA 94501 ~R~~NE R. sTEE~E...
JAMES J. WESSER , ANA M. GALLEGOS~
rHeoooReFr~NKUr, TELEPHONE 510
337
1001 GAftYP.PROVENCHER
MATTTHEW J.IGAUGER .
.
- FAX 5~ 0.337. ~ OZ3 . PATRICIA M. GATES, Of Counsel
ASHLEY K IKEDA ••
'
ftOBERTq ~. PERKINS, OI Counsal ~
LINDA BALDWIN JONES ~ RICHARO T. DRURY, OI Caunsal .
PATRICIA A. OAVIS , -
AIAN G. CROWIEY ~ ~
KRISTINA L HILLMAN ••• ' .. • PJso aEminetl In Anzana ,
ANDREA LAIACONA , . •• AEmitteE in Hnwaii '
EMILY P. RICH ' . ... Nm admittad in Navada
BRUCE A. HARLAND . .... q~o admitled In Illinois
BY ELECTR01~1IC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
March 22, 2011
Honorable Members of the Planning
Commission
City of Dublin
c/o Debra LeClair
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
925.833.6310
debra.leclair cr,dublin.ca~ov
( RE: Comments on PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station
~ (Transit Center Site C). Request for CEQA Review and Objection to
CEQA Exemption. _
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Carpenters Local Union Number 713 and its many
members living in and around the City of Dublin, and Dublin resident Robert Klein
("Commenters") concerning PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station
(Transit Center Site C) ("Project" or "Avalon Bay Project"). In particular, we request
that the City of Dublin ("City") conduct review of the Project to mitigate its impacts
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The City has improperly
determined that the Project is exempt entirely from CEQA review due to an EIR that was
prepared for the Specific Plan for the broader area in 2002 - almost a decade ago
("Specific Plan EIR"). As discussed below, the Project is not subject to the Specific Plan
EIR exemption because it is substantially different than the project analyzed in 2002. In
particular, the City proposes to build 1800 units of housing in the Specific Plan Area,
while the 2002 EIR analyzed the impacts of only 1500 units of housing - 300 units less..
As a result of this substantial increase in size, the Project will have individual and
cumulative impacts much more significant than those analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The
Project will have new significant impacts never analyzed under CEQA, including impacts:
on air qualiiy, greenhouse gases, traffic, hazardous materials, diesel particulate emissioris
LOS ANGELES OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE HONOLULU OFFICE
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 428 J Street, Suite 520 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 1602 .
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1907 . Sacramento, CA 95814-2341 Honolulu, HI 96813-4500
TEL 213.380.2344 FAX 213.381.1088 TEL 916.443.6600 FAX 916.442.0244 , TEL 808.528.8880 FAX 808.528.8881
;,.
!
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) . Zp~ ~~ ~~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011 ~
~, Page 2
from nearby roadways, and many others. Therefore, the CEQA exemption is legally
improper and CEQA review is required. We request that the City prepare and circulate
an EIR for full public review and comment to analyze the proposed Project, and to
consider feasible measures to mitigate its adverse environmental impacts.
PROJEC'T DESCI2IPTION
Avalon Bay Communities is proposing to develop 505 apartment units on a 7.2
acre site known.as Site C within the Dublin Transit Center Planning Area. The Project is
located northeast of Demarcus Boulevard and northwest of Iron Horse Parkway, south of
Campbell Green and the extension of Campbell Lane.
The City contends that the Project is exempt entirely from all CEQA review
pursuant to Government Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent
with a Specific Plan ("Specific Plan Exemption"). The City contends that the Project is
within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Specific Plan EIR") for the
Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and
Development Agreement (SCH 2O01120395) which was certified by City Council
Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002 ("Specific Plan").
As discussed below the Specific Plan Exemption does not apply to the Project
because the Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan, in that it is much larger than
the Project analyzed in the Specific Plan. Also, the Project will have significant new
adverse impacts never analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR.I
STANDING
Loca1713's members live, work and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the
Project site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately
mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association;
community group or environmental group. Hundreds of Loca1713 members live and
work in areas that will be affected by traffic, air pollution, and water pollution generated
by the Project. Robert Klein lives in the City of Dublin and will be directly affected by
the Project's environmental impacts.
1 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings and proceec~ings for this
Project. See, Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109.
,.~ . . ~83
, Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~~' °~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
~ Page 3
LEGAL STANDARDS
The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.,
requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed
actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") (except in cerfain limited
circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA.
(Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQII~ID (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652) "The `foremost principle'
in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the
fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
language." (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002)
103 Cal.~App. 4th 98, 109)
CEQA applies to agency projects that may have an adverse environmental impact.
(Friends ofMammoth v. Board ofSupervisors, 8 Ca1.3d 247, 259 (1972); Friends ofB
Street v. City ofHayward, 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003 (1980) (project that included
removal of trees caused significant effect on environment)) CEQA has two broad
purposes: 1) avoiding, reducing or preventing environmental damage by requiring
alternatives and mitigation measures (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(2)-(3) (hereinafter
"Guidelines"); and 2) providing information to decisionmakers and the public concerning
the environmental effects of the proposed project (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(1)):
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered
structure. (14 CCR §15002(k); Comm. to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City
ofLos Angeles (2008) 161 Ca1.App.4th 1168, 1185-86) First, if a project falls into an
exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not
have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required.
(Id.) Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the
environment, the agency must perform a threshold initial study. (Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a))
If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may cause a
significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. (Id.,
14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070) Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on
the environment, an environmental impact report (`BIR") is required. (Id.) Her.e, since
the City proposes to exempt the Project from CEQA entirely, we are at the first step of
the CEQA process. ,
CEQA exerript activities are either expressly identified.by statute (i.e., statutory
exemptions, Pub. Res. Code § 21080.01 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15261-15285) or
those that fall into one of more than two-dozen classes deemed categorically exempt by
the Secretary ofResources (i.e., categorical exemptions, Pub. Res. Code §§
21080(b)(10); 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15300). Public agencies utilizing CEQA
exemptions must support their determination with substantial evidence. (PRC § 21168.5)
s
1
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~~3 e~"~~?
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
Page 4
Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and exemption categories are not to be
expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language. (Mountain Lion
Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 125.) A reviewing court must
"scrupulously enforce all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements." (Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) Erroneous reliance by
the City on a categorical exemption constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a
violation of CEQA. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin
Watermaster (1997) 52 Ca1.App.4th 1165, 1192)
Here, the City relies on the CEQA exemption for residential projects that are
consistent with a Specific Plan that has undergone CEQA review. Gov. Code § 65457.
That section provides as follows:
(a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning
change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for
which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is
exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)
of the Public Resources Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an
event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the
exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a
supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and
certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental
impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to
projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.
The Specific Plan CEQA exemption has numerous exceptions and conditions.
First, the project must be a"residential" project. Since the Avalon Bay Project includes
both residential and non-residential components, the exemption does not apply on its
face. ~
Second, the project must be "consistent" with the Specific Plan. Here, the Avalon
Bay Project is much larger than the Project analyzed in the Specific Plan, and has a
significantly different mix of residential and commercial uses. Since the Avalon Bay
Project is inconsistent with the Specific Plan, the exemption does not apply.
Finally, the exemption does not apply if any of the conditions "specified in Section
21166 of the Public Resources Code" occurs after certification of the Specific Plan EIR.
As discussed below, almost all of the circumstances ~specified iri Section.21166 have
occurred in the decade since the Specific Plan EIR was prepared, rendering this Specific
Plan Exemption inapplicable. -
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) 20 ~' c2'~ ~~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
Page 5
. Government Code section 65457 does not apply if any of the circumstances
identified in CEQA section 21166 apply, including:
a. substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or ~
c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or negative declaration;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce
one or more significarit effects of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different .
from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
As discussed below, all of the conditions set forth in Section 21166 exist in this
case.
.
ZoSe~~
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
Page 6 _
ANALYSIS
A. The CEQA E~emptaon Does Not Apply Because the Project is Not Consistent
with the Specific Plan.
The Government Code section 65457 exemption does not apply because the
Avalon Bay Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Section 65457 expressly
limits its application to projects that are "consistent with a specific plan for which an
environmental impact report has been certified." Although there is no case law under
Section 65457, courts have held that a prior CEQA documerit may only be relied upon for
a later project that is "essentially the same project" as was analyzed in the prior
document. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th 1307, 1320; American
Canyon Community v. American Canyon, 145 Ca1.App.4th 1062.
The Avalon Bay Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Most obviously,
the City proposes to allow Avalon Bay to construct 100 more units on Parcel C than was
analyzed in the Specific Plan. Although these units will allegedly be offset by a
reduction of 100 units on Parcel A, the movement of these units will inevitably affect
traffic patterns, air quality and other impacts in ways that were not analyzed in the 2002
EIR.
Also, the 2002 Specific Plan analyzed a"mixed - use" project that included a mix
of commercial and residential uses within the same buildings. The 2002 EIR heralded
mixed use development as a way to reduce traffic and other impacts by placing stores and
businesses within walking distance of residences. The Avalon Bay Project abandons this
mixed use plan entirely, eliminating all of the commercial development within the Project
area, and replacing it with housing. This makes the Avalon Bay Project flatly
inconsistent with the "new urbanist" design analyzed and described to the public in 2002.
As a result, the Avalon Bay Project will have additional traffic and other impacts not
analyzed in the 2002 EIR.
. Finally, the 2002 EIR analyzed a project for the Specific Plan Area with 1500
- units of housing. The City now proposes to allow the construction of 1800 units of
housing - an increase of 300 units. (E~ibit A) This is a significant increase iri the
overall cumulative size of the Project area that will result in vastly increased Project
impacts, including traffic, air pollution, greenhouse gases,~ and many other impacts.
Since the Avalon Bay Project is inconsistent with the 2002 Specific Plan, the City
may not exempt it from CEQA review. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze all of
the Project's impacts arid propose mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. .
~ Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Z~ ~,~.. ~3
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
Page 7
B. The CEQA Exemption Does not Apply Because Substantial Changes Are
Proposed to the Project.
The Specific Plan CEQA exemption does not apply if "substantial changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." (Pub.
Res. Code 21166)
As discussed above, the City proposes to approve "substantial changes in the
project" which will result in substantially increased environmental impacts. Most
obviously, the City proposes to increase the number of residential units from the 405
units analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR to 505 units.
1. The Avalon Bay Project Will Have Greater Traffic Impacts than
Analyzed in the 2002 EIR. _
The increase in the size of the Project from 405 to 505 units will inevitably
increase the traffic impacts in the Project area. Numerous residents of the Project area
complained at the September 14, 2010 Planning Commission hearing that traffic is
already at unacceptable levels, particulaxly near the BART station. (E~ibit B) Adding
another 505 units of housing to the area will certainly make traffic even worse. (Id.) .
Furthermore, even though the City is allegedly reducing 100 housing units on Parcel A
and moving those units to Parcel C, Parcel C is much closer to the BART station than
Parcel C. Therefore, the transfer of the units will likely exacerbate traffic problems over
those analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR.
2. The Avalon Bay Project Will Have Greater Impacts Related to Roadway
Pollution Than Analyzed in the 2002 EIR. ~
Parcel C is directly adjacent to one the Bay Area's major freeways - I-580.. Parcel
A is located farther from I-580. The Project map indicates that Parcel C is approximately
200 feet from I-580. Parcel A appears to be about 1000 fee from I-580. Thus, the
transfer of 100 units from Parcel A to Parcel C will place 100 additional housing units
much closer to I-580. As discussed below, this movement will create a significant health
risk for residerits that would not exists or would be greatly reduced, if the units remained
at Parcel A. This will result in significant additional impacts from hazardous pollution
from the nearby freeway.
1~
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~o7d~~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
~~ Page 8
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQIVID") and California Air
Resources Board ("CARB") have both recognized that freeways pose significant healtli~
risks to nearby residences. As a result, both advise against placing residential units near
heavily travelled roadways. The California AiY Resources Board ("CARB') Air Quality. -
and Land Use Handbook (p.4) advises that residential development not be placed within
500 feet of major road. In Apri12005, CARB released the final version of the Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which is intended to
encourage local land use agencies ~to consider the risks from air pollution prior to making
decisions that approve the siting of new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution.
CARB recommends that where residential uses are proposed within 500 feet of a
freeway, that a health risk assessment be conducted.
The cancer risk from the nearby I-580 is a highly significant impact. Diesel
exhaust has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air
contaminant and is identified by the State as a known human carcinogen. Studies have
demonstrated that children living near major roadways are exposed to high levels of
diesel e~aust and have poorer lung function than children living in cleaner areas2.
~' The BAAQNID has established tools to screen projects for impacts associated with
major roadways and stationary sources for compliance with the District,'s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.3 The City has failed to conduct this screening and therefore has
failed to identify and mitigate potential impacts to the project occupants (residents and
workers) associated with PM2.5 and to evaluate cancer risks from adjacent roadways and
stationary sources. The courts have held that the lead agency must use duly adopted
environmental assessment tools to analyze risk. (Endangered Habitats League v. Orange
(2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777) By failing to implement the BAAQMD analysis or any
other methodology to analyze the risks posed by vehicular pollution on future residents of
the Project, the EIR fails to comply with CEQA.
By moving 100 residential units from Parcel A, which is 1000 feet from I-580 to
Pa.rcel C, the City is placing those units within the 500 foot health risk zone established
by CARB. Thus, the City is creating a new public health risk that does not exist, or is
greatly reduced, with the Project as approved in 2002.
2 Pekkanen, et al., Effects of ultrafine and fine particles iri urban air on peak expiratory flow
among children with asthmatic symptoms. Environ. Res (1997).74(1):24-33
3 http://~v~vw.baaqmd.aov/Divisions/Plannin~and-Rese~rch/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-
, Methodolo~v.aspx
h
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~pa~' p~'~` ...~`~
Comments of Local 713
~ ~ March 22, 2011
Page 9
The 2002 Specific Plan EIR did not analyze cancer risks related to the nearby I-
580 because at that time, this health risk was not widely recognized, and the relevant
regulatory agencies had not yet developed CEQA guidance on tlie topic. That situation is
now changed, and CEQA analysis must be conducted to analyze and mitigate this risk.
The revision of the Project moving 100 residential units from Parcel A to Parcel C will
exacerbate this signif cant impact that was never analyzed in any prior CEQA document.
3: The Avalon Bay Project Will Have Greater Greenhouse Gas and Ozone ~
Impacts Than Analyzed in the 2002 EYR.
The Avalon Bay Project will have significantly greater Greenhouse Gas ("GHG")
and ozone impacts than analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR. Most obviously, the
City proposes to add 100 units to the Project above the number analyzed in the EIR.
In June 2010 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD")
updated its CEQA Guidelines.4 BAAQMD's CEQA Guidance adopts a CEQA
significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of C02-equivalent greenhouse gas
emissions (C02e/year). Projects that generate this level of GHG emissions would have
significant impacts under CEQA. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines p. 2-2) .(E~ibit C)
The BA.AQNID CEQA Guidelines contains a table with a detailed list of project
uses and sizes that would generate 1,100 metric tons of GHG. Those thresholds are
summarized in Table 3.1 of the BAAQNID CEQA Guidelines, attached hereto. (Exhibit
C) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a mid-rise apartment project with
more than 87 dwelling units ("du") would have significant GHG impacts.
The 2002 EIR did not analyze GHGs at all. The Project, with more than 500 du's
exceeds the BAAQNID CEQA significance threshold for GHGs by almost five times.
The City may not rely on a CEQA document that ignored this impact entirely. Now that
a CEQA significance threshold exists for GHGs, a supplemental EIR must be prepared to
analyze the Project's GHGs. (See, Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond
(Chevron) (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70 (CEQA document must analyze significant GHG
impacts and propose specific mitigation measures))
Furthermore, even if the 2002 EIR had analyzed GHGs (which it did not), the
Cify now proposes to add 100 new dwelling units above the number analyzed in the 2002
4 The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are incorporated herein in their entirety.
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~~~ ~~~3
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
,Page 10 -
EIR. Since a significant impact is created by 87 du's, this change to the Project itself
creates a significant GHG impact that was not analyzed in the 2002 EIR.S
5 The City may argue that the 100 du's at Parcel C are offset by the reduction of 100 du's at
Parcel A. However, this analysis uses the wrong "baseline." Currently, Parcel A is
undeveloped. Thus, the reduction of 100 du's from Parcel A is purely hypothetical. The CEQA
"baseline" must analyze the "actual environment" not a hypothetical environment that has been
permitted but not built. The real environment is that there is no development at either Parcel A
or Parcel C, and the City proposes to allow construction of 505 units at Parcel C. Any
"reduction" at Parcel A is purely illusory.
As the Supreme Court recently explained, every CEQA document must start from a"baseline"
assumption. The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which.to
compare a project's anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Environment v. So Coast Air
Qual. Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14
C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency's environmental review under
CEQA:
~~ ". ._ must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of
the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a
local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the
baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is
significant."
(See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Counry ofMonterey (2001) 87 Ca1.App.4th 99, 124-125)
As the court of appeal has explained, "the impacts of the project must be measured against the
`real conditions on the ground,"' and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our
Peninsula, 87 Ca1.App.4th 99; 121-123.) As the court has explained, using such a skewed
baseline "mislead(s) the public" and "draws a red herring across the path of public input." (San
Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County ofMerced (2007) 149 Ca1.App.4th 645, 656;
Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Ca1.App.4th 683, 708-711.)
Here, the City repeatedly makes the same mistake as was rejected in the Woodward Park case.
In Woodward Park, the City concluded that a new project would have no adverse environmental
impacts because it was less intensive than the project already analyzed in the specific plan for the
area. The court rejected this analysis because the parcel was undeveloped. The court held that in
analyzing a specific project proposal, the CEQA baseline was the actual level of development on
the parcel - no development - not the level of development hypothetically approved by never
realized on the property in a general or specific plan. For the same reason, the City's entire
CEQA analysis in the Avalon Bay Project is skewed by the use of the wrong CEQA baseline.
The CEQA baseline for Avalon Bay should be an undeveloped parcel of property, as in
Woodward Park. -
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) -~`~ ~„~' ~ Q~
Comments of Local 713 °`~
~• March 22, 2011
Page l l
Finally, the Project will have significant cumulative GHG impacts. The 2002 EIR
analyzed a Project with 1500 du's. The City now proposes to allow construction of 1800
du's in~ the specific plan area. (Exhibit A) This increase of 300 du's exceeds the
BAAQNID CEQA significance threshold for GHGs (87 du's) by over 3 times. This
impact has never been analyzed in any prior CEQA document and must be analyzed and
mitigated at this time.
The Project will also have significant ozone impacts. According to the BA.AQMD
CEQA Guidelines, a mid-rise apartment complex of 494 du's will have significant _
impacts from reactive organic gases ("ROGs"), one of the two primary components of
ground-level ozone. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Table 3.1 (E~ibit C)) Thus, as
originally proposed the Project of 405 du's would not have had significant ROG impacts.
However, the change to the Project now proposed, which pushes the Project to 505 du's,
results in an exceedance of the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for ROGs of 494
du's. Thus, the Project alteration now proposed for the first time results in a significant
air quality impact that must be analyzed in an EIR.
4. The Project Will have Significant Cumulative Impacts Not Analyzed in
the 2002 Specific Plan EIR.
The City proposes to add 100 dwelling units to the Avalon Bay Project above the
level analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR. As discussed above, this alone will result
in significant Project - specific impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Furthermore, the
Project will also have significant cumulative impacts.
On November 2, 2010, the City Council approved an amendment to the Specific
Plan to rezone the adjacent Parcel E from "campus/office" to residential, and allowing
construction of up to 300 units of housing on the parcel. (E~ibit D) It appears that the
City failed to conduct any CEQA review for this major change to the Specific Plan. The
additiona1300 units of housing, together with the additional 100 units at the Ayalon Bay
Project, will result in highly significant cumulative impacts never analyzed in any prior
CEQA document.
As discussed above, under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project of greater .
than 87 du's results in significant GHG impacts requiring CEQA review. The cumulative
addition of 400 du's to the Project over the level analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR
exceeds this level by over four times. The additiona1400 units of housing also will cause
an exceedance of the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for construction-related
ROGs. None of these impacts have been analyzed in any prior CEQA document. The
400 new units will likely create or add to significant adverse impacts in the areas of
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ~~ 1 0.~ °`63
Comments of Loca1713
March 22, 2011
Page 12
traffic; stormwater, hazardous materials, health risks, from nearby freeways, and almost
every other impact analyzed under CEQA. A new CEQA document is therefore required.
Recognizing that several projects may together have a considerable impact, CEQA
requires an agency to consider the "cumulative impacts" of a project along with other
projects in the area. (Pub. Resources Code §21083(b); CEQA Guidelines §15355(b)) If
a project may have cumulative impacts, the agency must prepare an EIR, since "a project
may have a significant effect on the environment if `[t]he possible effects of a project are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable."' (CBE supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 98,
114; Kings County Farm Bur. v. City ofHanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 721) It is
vital that an agency assess "`the environmental damage [that] often occurs incrementally
from a variety of small sources ..."' (Bakersfield Citizens For Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Ca1.App.4th 1184, 1214 ("Bakersfield Citizens")) The addition of
400 du's to the specific plan area above the level analyzed in the 2002 EIR will clearly
result in significant cumulative impacts that were not analyzed in the 2002 EIR, including
GHG's, ozone precursors, traffic, and almost all other impacts. These impacts have
never been analyzed in any prior CEQA document.
C. The City May Not Rely on the 2002 Specific Plan EIR Because New
Information Shows that the Project Nday Have Significant Impacts.
The City may not rely on 2002 Specific Plan EIR because there is new
information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the prior
document showing that significant effects of the Project will be substantially more severe
than shown in the prior CEQA document. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3)) (See,
Sierra Club v. Gilroy (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 34 (presence of rare species on project
site identified after prior EIR certified necessitated preparation of new EIR).)
For example, when new scientific data indicates that toxic chemicals will pose
greater health risks than believed at the time the prior EIR was certified, a new EIR is
required to analyze the subsequent project and its health impacts. In Security
Environmental Systems v. South Coast Air Quality Management District ((1991) (SES v.
SCAQ1l~) 229 Ca1.App.3d 110, 124), an EIR was prepared for an incinerator. After the
EIR was prepared, new scientific information was published showing that dioxin
emissions from the incinerator would be far more hazardous than previously believed.
The court held that a new EIR was required for re-permitting of the same incinerator to
analyze the new toxicity data, and to evaluate whether any additional mitigation measures
were appropriate in light of the new data.
In this case, there are numerous impacts that must be analyzed that could not have
beeri known in 2002 with the exercise of reasonable diligence. In particular:
~ ~Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) 2 d~ ~p~,&3
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011 ~
I Page 13
Greenhouse Gases: In 2002, the risks of GHGs was largely unknown. No
CEQA significance thresholds existed in 2002 for GHGs, and CEQA
documents generally igriored this impact entirely. The 2002 Specific Plan
EIR was no exception. It failed to analyze GHG's entirely. In 2010,
BAAQMD adopted CEQA significance thresholds for GHGs. A project _
with more than 87 dwelling units is presumed to have significant GHG
impacts. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Table 3.1) The Avalon Bay
Project's 505 units exceed this threshold by almost six times. This impact
must be analyzed in a new EIR, where mitigation measures can be
proposed and considered.
• Cancer Risks from Roadways: In 2002 it was not well-known that
placing residences close to major freeways posed significant health risks.
Now, both the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") and the
BAAQNID have adopted guidance recommending against placing
residential units near major freeways due to significant cancer risks from
diesel particulate matter and other hazards, In Apri12005, CARB released
the final version of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective, which is intended to encourage local land use agencies
~ to consider the risks from air pollution prior to making decisions that
approve the siting of new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution.
CARB recommends that where residential uses are proposed within 500
feet of a freeway, that a health risk assessment be conducted. The cancer
risk from the nearby I-580 is a highly significant impact. Diesel exhaust
has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air
contaminant and is identified by the State as a known human carcinogen.
Studies have demonstrated that children living near major roadways are
exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust and have poorer lung function than
childreri living in cleaner areas. This risk was not analyzed or mitigated in
the 2002 EIR because it was not widely recognized at that time. A new
EIR is required to analyze this impact and propose feasible mitigation
~ measures. ~
Traffic: At its hearing of September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission
admitted that traffic is much worse in the Specific Plan area tlian calculated
in the 2002 EIR. (E~ibit B) Pat Cashman of the Alameda County Surplus
Land Authority commented that traffic conditions and patterns have
changed significantly since 2003, creating worse traffic than predicted.
Planning Commission Chair King admitted that the area already ~
experiences significant traffic congestion, and questioned whether the
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) 2~~°~-~"~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
Page 14
Avalon Bay Project would exacerbate this congestion. These concerns
were echoed by numerous residents of the Specific Plan area. (See,
minutes of Sept. 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting) Ultimately, the
Planning Commission approved the Project proposal with the "caveat" that
the traffic problems be forwarded to the Traffic and Safety Commission for
analysis and mitigation.6 (E~ibit B, p. 108) Since the traffic problems
have over time proven to be greater than predicted in the 2002 EIR, this is
an impact that was not known in 2002 and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence. It must be analyzed now, prior to the
construction of 505 new units that may exacerbate this problem even
further.
Since there is new information of substantial importance that was not known at the
time of the 2002 EIR showing that significant effects of the Project will be substantially
more severe than shown in the prior CEQA document the City may not rely on 2002
Specific Plan EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3)) An EIR is required to analyze
these impacts and to propose adequate mitigation.
D. A New EIR is Required Because New Mitigation Measures Exist that Were
~. Not Analyzed in the 2002 EIR.
The Specific Plan CEQA exemption does not apply if initigation measures or
alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIlZ
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the
6 This is also an example of prohibited deferred mitigation. CEQA disallows defening the
formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. (CEQA Guidelines §
15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County ofMendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296, 308-309; -
CBE v. Richmond, supra) An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures
when it possesses "`meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of
compliance." (Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of
Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only
"for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible").) A lead agency is
precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all
uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on
mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford (1990) 221.Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate
mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available).) This
approach helps "insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn
problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa
Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Ca13d 929, 935.)
_ Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) 2~ y~~~ ~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
'i Page 15
projecf proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or altematives. (CEQA
Guidelines 15162(a)(3)(D))
1. The Project will have significant hazardous materials impacts that have
not been adequately mitigated in the prior EIR.
The Avalon Bay Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts due
to hazardous soil and groundwater contamination. The 2002 Specific Plan EIR admits
that soil and groundwater at the Specific Plan are may be contaminated with hazardous
chemicals. This may be due to the fact that the site was formerly used by~ the military.
As mitigation for this significant impact, the EIR states:
Phase I and, if required, Phase II level environmental investigations shall be
performed for each individual development project within the proposed Transit
Center prior to any grading or construction activity. Individual developers shall be
responsible for performing any necessary cleanup, as recommended in the -
envirorunental investigations and as required by regulatory authorities. (less than
significant after mitigation). (2002 Specific Plan EIR, Mitigation 4.6-1)
In an electronic mail message dated March 21, 2011, Mr. Scott Littlehale requested a
copy of any Phase I or Phase II reports prepared for the Project analyzing toxic
contamination. Mr. Mike Porto of the Dublin Planning Department responded that no
such reports had been prepared, and that any reports would be prepared after project
approval by the developers. Mr. Porto stated:
Scott:
In researching your request further, the Mitigation Measure states that each
individual site is responsible to conduct their own Phase 1 Assessment at the time
of grading activity. There has been no grading activity on the subject site, in fact
the site is currently operating as a parking lot. The Phase 1 will be conducted once
the grading activity begins.
Mike Porto
(E~bit E)
This is clearly deferred mitigation, which is prohibited by CEQA. CEQA does not
permit deferral of the development of mitigation measures until after project approval.
~ The overall effectiveness of the proposed mitigation must be evaluated in the Draft EIR
and subj ected to public comment. (CEQA. Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v.
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Z 1~j p.~- C~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
' Page 16
County ofMendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296, 308-309; CBE v. Richmond, supra) ..
An agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.
(Kings County Farm Bureau v. City.ofHanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 727) This
approach helps to "insure the integrity of the process of decision-making by pr~cluding
stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned
Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 929, 935)
By deferring approval of the clean-up plan until after certification of the CEQA
document, the EIR "sweeps under the rug" questions concerning the effectiveness, and
potential adverse impacts of the measure in violation of CEQA.
Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the
Applicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures.
In this case, the developer is placed in charge of developing any mitigation measures -
taking the issue out of the hands of government officials entirely. CEQA prohibits this
approach, and requires that significant impacts be mitigated through a public process in
which the public and governmental decision-makers can analyze the impact and ensure
that adequate mitigation measures are imposed. Here, the City proposes the leave the
entire analysis and mitigation to a private developer, outside of public scrutiny. As
explained by the Sundstrom court:
An EIR "[is] subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This
requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest
assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." The final EIR must respond with
specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process." ... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use
permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny.
(Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 308.)
The post-approval surveys, studies and plans required in the EIR would suffer
from the same fatal flaw. Interested parties would be precluded from commenting on
their adequacy, even though CEQA requires that they be permitted to do so.
The Project has an admittedly significant impact related to hazardous materials.
An EIR must be prepared at this time, prior to Project approval, to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures are imposed pursuant to an open public process.
2. T'he 2002 EIR Admitted Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Which
Can Now Be Mitigated.
The 2002 Specific Plan EIR admitted that the project would have numerous
significant unavoidable impacts. Mitigation measures now exist, that may not have been
•.' Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Z~~'~~ C~
Comments of Local 713
March 22, 2011
~.. Page 17
feasible a decade ago, to reduce or avoid many of those impacts. For example, the 2002
EIR admits that the project will have "significant unavoidable impacts" in at least the
following areas: ~ - ~
• Regional cumulative air quality impacts;
• Cumulative(Year 2025) traffic impacts;
• Mairiline freeway operations near the project area.
(Specific Plan EIR, p. 201)
Despite these significant impacts, the EIR contains what are very weak mitigation
measures by today's standards. (See, 2002 Specific Plan EIR, section 4.2) For example,
the 2002 EIR incorporated the basic construction air quality mitigation measures then
proposed by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD adopted new CEQA Guidelines in 2010,
with much more robust construction air quality mitigation measures. The Project should
be revised.to require implementation of these new measures.
;~ In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency
~ (2002) 103 Ca1.App.4`~ 98, 122-125, the court of appeal held that when a"first tier" EIR
admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare
second tier EIRs for.later phases of the project to ensure that those unmitigated impacts
are "mitigated or avoided." (Id. citing CEQA Guidelines § 15152( fl) The, court reasoned
that the unmitigated impacts were not "adequately addressed" in the first tier EIR since
they were not "mitigated or avoided." (Id.) Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier
EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been "adequately addressed,"
in a way that ensures the effects will be "mitigated or avoided." (Id.) Such a second tier
EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of
overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, "The requirement of a
, statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA's role as a public
accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental
~ projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other
benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support." (Id. at 124-125)
Since the 2002 Specific Plan EIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated
impacts, a second tier EIR is required to determine if mitigation measures can now be
imposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. If the impacts still remain significant and
unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations will be required.
Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Z' ~~ ~~~
Comments of Local 713
~ ~ March 22, 2011
Page 18
Feasible mitigation meastires for air quality impacts. during the construction phase
of the Project would include: ~
o Require on-site electrical service for hand tools;
• Require preparation of a traffic control plan;
e Demonstrate proper inspection and maintenance of construction equipment;
• Limit idling to 5 minutes;
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference;
e Consolidate truek deliveries when possible;
~ Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment
on and off site;
• Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog
alerts;
e Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at
the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have
minimum impact on abutters and the general public; and
• Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air
intakes to buildings, air conditioners and operable windows.
' • Provide on-site lunch, e.g., a lunch wagon;
• Implement a carpool program for construction workers.
• Require all deliveries to the construction site to be made with trucks that meet
clean engine standards or are otherwise equipped with post-combustion controls
that reduce emissions compared to uncontrolled equivalents by 50% for NOx, 90%
for ROG and CO, and 80% for PM10/PM2.5.
~ Prohibit the use of conventional cut-back asphalt for paving and restrict the
maximum VOC content of asphalt emulsion;
• Use low-ROG paints and other low-ROG construction materials;
s Employ a construction site manager to verify that engines are properly maintained
and keep a maintenance log; -
e Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference;
• Consolidate truck deliveries when possible;
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment
on and off site; ~
o Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog
alerts;
• Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at
the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have
minimum impact on abutters and the general public;
~~ Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) 2 t g~,~-~~
Comments of Loca1713
March 22, 2011
Page 19
~ Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air
intakes to buildings, air conditioners and operable windows;
• Require all diesel trucks used by construction contractor(s) at the site, or for on-
road hauling of construction material, to be post-1996 models; and
• Diesel portable generators less than 50 hp shall not be allowed at the construction
site. ~ ~
Feasible air quality mitigation measures that should be considered for the
operational phase of the Project include:
• LEED platinum certification.
• A local employment requirement to reduce vehicle miles travelled by construction
workers during the 30-year construction phase of the Project.
e Include onsite solar photovoltaic systems on building roofs.
• Reduce the urban heat island effect by using "cool" roofs with the highest
commercially available solar reflectance and thermal emittance; use lighter-
colored pavements; plant shade trees.
e Use tlie most efficient commercially available heating and heating and cooling
systems; use solar heating.
• Design and locate pedestrian routes and bike paths and minimize road crossings to
allow safe walking and bicycling.
• Provide bus service to and from the Project from local population centers and rail
stations.
s Establish free parking spaces in retail/commercial areas reserved for electric and
hybrid cars and free parking spaces at the transit station reserved for carpools.
e Include charging stations in the parking facilities for electric and plug-in hybrid
electric cars.
~ Develop and follow "green construction guidelines" that require the following: use
lowest-emitting off road construction vehicles; use cement blended with the
maximum feasible amount of flyash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions
from cement production; and recycle construction and demolition waste.
o Develop and follow a"green streets guide" that requires LED street lights and
traffic lights, minimal amount of concrete and asphalt, permeable pavement (i.e.,
"Ecocreto" pervious concrete), and incorporating shade trees where feasible.
• Install gray water systems.
- z~q~~3
~lvalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Ceflter. Site C)
Comments of Local 713
~~ March 22, 2011
Page 20.
~ Consider the feasib.ility af wind turbines and/or solar farms to meet a portion of
the Project's electricity needs. °
• ~ Require the developer to subsidize a car-share "pod(s)" (i.e., "Zipcar"), using
hybrid, electric or ultra-l~w emission vehicles.
These are all feasible mi~igation measures that would substantially reduce the
Project's admittedly significant an unmitigated air quality impacts. These mitigation
measure5 were not considered in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR, most likely because the
measures were not well-developed or widely known at the time. This is precisely the
situation where a new EIR~is.re~uired to analyze and impose new feasible mitigation
measures to reduce significant <<dverse impacts. While this list is not intended fo be
e~austive, it contains measures that should be considered and evaluated for this Project.
COI~TGLLTSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City may not exempt the propc~sed Avalon Bay
Project from CEQA reviet~. Ttie City may not rely on the 2002 Specific Plan EIR
because the Avalon Bay Project is substantiall}~ different from the project analyzed in the
2002 EIR. It will have 100 more units than the project analyzed for this site in2002, and.
th~re ~vill be currzulative impacts fi•om an additiona1300 units more than analyzed in the
2002 EIR in the Specific Plan area. As a result, the Avalon Bay Project will have
additional air qualiry, traftic, greenhouse gas, roadway health risics, hazardous materials,
and many other environmental impacts that were neither analyzed nor mitigated in the
2002 EIR. A new EIR must therefore be prepared and recirculated for full public
comment to analyze and propo5e mitigation for these impacts.
. 2 Zo ~~~3
~ ~ ~ c~~g3
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - XX
A RESOLUTI(~N OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
UF THE CITY OF DUBLIP!
RECOMMENDiNG THAT THE C:ITY~ COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVIMG A
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AP1D STAGE 2 DEVELOPiViENT PLAN FOR
THE AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES DUBLIN STATION PROJECT ON SITE C OF
. THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CEMTER
PA 06-060
WHEREAS, the Applicant, ~~valon Bay Communities, submitted applications for an area
of approximately 7.21 acres known as Dublin Station, Site C within the Dublin Transit Center
(PA 06-060) and the Eastern Dubliri Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the application:~ include: a) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and
Stage 2 Development Plan; b) Site DeveEopment Review; c} Vesti.ng Tentative Tract Map 7929;
and d) Development Agreement. The applications collectively define this "Project;" and
WHEREAS, the project site generally is iocated north of the East Dublin BART Station,
east of Iron Horse Traii, generall~~ west of Iron Horse Parkway, and immediately south of
Campbell Green within the previou~~ly approved Dublin Transit Center; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Transit Center project (PA 00-013} was approved by the City
Council on December 3, ~ 2002, by Ordinance 21-02 adopting a PD-Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezone for an area of 91 acres. The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezorie
provided for various land uses including the development of 1,500 units; and
NVHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 14, 2010, rev'iewed
a 486 unit project on this site inclu~~ing a Stage 1 Developrnent Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Developrnent Review, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7929 and a
Development Agreerrment; and
WHEREAS, The Planning ~~ommission approved the Site Development Review and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 792~- and recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance
amending the Stage 1 Development Plan and the Stage 2 Development Plan and an Ordinance
approving the Development Agreerr~ent; and
WHEREAS, the complete application submitted is available and on file in the Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, Staff has recommended that the project be found exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Government Code sec~:ion 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a
specific plan. The Project proposes to transfer 100 units from Dublin Transit Center Site A to
Page 1 of 2
Zz°~~~~
~ ""' AL.~~4.F.DA C~:)L?I~TI' CU~•iMt!:~1~T1'' DE~`~-:I.OPl1tEN'r AC~E\(;1'
- ~ SUR°lUS PRQOER7Y AU7HO~NITV ~
.' .i."SY~`~~'~V ~ . . , .
ct,~is o,Z~; Fchru~ry ?~. 2011
,.~ .,:,:._..,
' Jeri Ram -
Cominunity Ucvelo~~ment Dircctor
!'':tlri[:i~_d5hn'~an ~~11y O~ UU~)~111 .
=i•~, ~+: ci r^r
~oo c~~~~~ r~i;~~~ .
,.- Uublin. Cr~ 9456R
.. ...I .~ . .. .~ . ~ -
`~ ~ RF: AvalonBay Site C' Lnit Count
: ~ ~ Dear Jcri:
'. '1„ ~, ~~s reyuestcd by A~alorBay, this letter is prc~~~ided as c~~nfirmation that the nCSPA
has agreed to transter aiti aclclitional 19 units ti~um its current entitlemcnt ~~f' 1~U units
i~n Sit~ A- l to Sitc C'. l~his is ii1 a~idition to the ;~ 1 units prc~'iously trantiferrcc{ froin
Sitc A-l tu Sitc C:, pcr the attachccl Icttcr from f'at Cashm.~,~ e~~ y~u. d~c~~ !une'2.
- ..~::.: . :.... Zuio.
ACSPA is entitled, pcr the Dublin ~fransit Center General Plan:~Specific Plan
Amcndmcnt a~~d Stabc 1 Pn Rc~onine, ti~ lransfcr units ti~c~m t~~~e sitc to anothcr. as
lon~ as the total unit a~unt of I,~OU units is not e~c~eecicd•
11~'ith this translcr ~~f an additic~nal 19 units tn Site C, thc unit allocarx>n~ ~ir~: 1; l units
to Sitc A-I (ACSPn), : 12 unitti W Site A-3 (EAH), l9~ units t~~ Site A-? (~iano~'er).
257 unils to Sitc B-l (l~lt Horton). ~~5 units to Site B-2 (r'1~'d1~nBay), 5(>> units to
Site C(AvalonF3ay), ard 3U0 units to Sit~ E-l (DR 1(orton), fi~r a tc~lal ot~ 1,b00 units.
Should you havc any yucstions. you can con[act mc at ~ IU-G70-6~34.
Sinccrely,
~-----
,~-'~~ _ 1 ~'~ , ~ ,, ~,L . ~
Stuart C'ook
Directc~r
rlttachnient
cc~ ~~t~i whsc~, ~~~~~~~~~y
tilikc Porto, Cit.~ i>f~Dublin
Z Z~ t~~` 02~~
~z~~~--~3
There was a discussion regarding open-view fencing and possible view issues with the HOA or
the surrounding developinents. Chair King urgeci the Applicant to ensure that view
restrictions are addressed in the CC&R's and that homeowners are aware of the restrictions
when buying their home.
Mr. Montgomery stated he would ensure that all homeowners read and sign the CC&R's at the
time of purchase. . ~
Chair King closed the public hearing.
Cm. Swalwell stated he liked that there are 3 plans, he felt it was a nice balance with Positano,
and noE too dense. He mentioned the Applicant is exceeding the requirements of the Green
Building Ordinance. He also encouraged the Applicant to incIude information regarc~ing views
in the CC&R's. He complemented Mr. Porto and the Applicant for a wel] done project.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she liked the architecture and attention to detail and is in support of the
project. ,
Chair King stated he was in support of the project.
On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm.
Brown and Cm. Schaub being absent, the PIanning Commission approved:
RESOLUTION N0..14- 40
A RESOLZJTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CIT~' OF DUBLIN
" APPROVING A SITE DEVIELOPMENT REV~EW
. FOR LIVORNO AT POSITANO, FOR
69 SdNGi~~ FAMILY DETACHIED RESIDENTIAIL UNYTS ON
APP~OXIMATELY 16.7 ACRES WITHiN TRACT 8036
~ ~ PLPA-2010-00043
8.3 PA Q6-06Q, Avalon Bay Communities, Dublin Station (Transit Centei Site C) for Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review,
Vesting Tentative Map 7929, and Development Agreement submitted by tlvalon Bay
Communities, Inc.
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presenEed the project as outlined in the StafE Report.
Cm. Swalwell asked what type of security the project will have.
Mr. PorEo answered the buildings will be secure with gated parking and each resident will have
an FOB for entrance into both the parking garage and the residence buildings.
'1'l:~ar,rnr, (~o7rrui.ccic~~t ,S~'f>tr.~;r:brr!!~ 30(()
~q{r1.tl~r.'!'~t~f.Ci 1'.It~ ~ oo . .
.. ^~=~3
Czx~. Swalwell asked what type of restrictions will be on the 25 on-street parking spaces~
Mr_ Porto answered there will be a maximum 2 hour parking limit oii the public streets
throughout the Dublin Transit Center development. He continuea this is consistent with the
Elan.and Avalon 1 projects. _ . .
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the glass area on the top floor is livable space.
Mr. Porto answered yes, and stated it is a compiIation of an urban look and the traditional
elements of the Avalon I building:
Cm. Wehrenberg felt it was a good change from the original project and liked how they
~ addressed lighting on the garage and security which were the two main concerns of the
Commission. She also liked the garage access and that they eliminated the Commissiori s
concern regarding bike storage.
Mr. Porto responded there is a significant amount of storage in the project. He stated the
increase in storage came from increasing the architectural elements to create the different roof .
planes that the Commission had requested.
Cm. Swalwell asked if Mr. Porto felt that increasing the residents in the development would
help to increase the retail in the project.
Mr. Porto answered there are 12,000 sq ft of vacant retail space. He continued there have been
various retail users brought forward but nothing has worked. He stated the way the PD was
written the retail component is anciIlary which gives some flexibility. He continved this
deveIoper located commercial adjacent to other commercial to.gxoup them together which could
be a way to activate the retail/commercial area.
Cm. Swalwell asked what type of retail is anticipated for the development.
Mr. Porto answered the types of uses would be food, coffee, dry cleaners; establishments that
would have more service oriented uses, which would work with the livability of the area, plt~s
the proximity to the BART garage.
Mr. Porto felt this commexcial space would become successful over time and mentioned the
Fairway Ranch development at the Groves, where there are 5,000 sq. ft, of anciIlary commercial
still vacant. He mentioned the Tralee project where it has worked with the same type of
elennent and similar types of uses.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated this deveIopment is designed to eliminate cars and create an area where
residents can waIk to most conveniences. She asked if in the future when the economy and the
City are back on track would there be a possibility of converting some of the units to retail.
Mr. Porto suggested asking the Applicant but he did not feel it would be easy to do.
'i';,rr,rir,~' C'r.r.rnric~i:,n ~ ~~~~t ~r,tbcr I-1, 3UI0
:~.i ; ri%r.- 3~, :~ riu,; I. Q~
2 z~ ~~-~3
Mr. Porto mentioned there is atso additional retai[ available across the street in front of the
BART garage. .
Chair King asked about the circular area in the middle of the project.
Mr. Porto answered that is the end of Hamlet Lane. He stated that street is for Fire truck access,
private on-street parking and trash collection trucks.
Cm. Swalweli asked if there~ are any PG&E gas lines that the City should be concerned with in
the project area. . •
Mr. Porto answered the Public Works Department is currently doing inspections on all gas lines
in the City and making a report to the City Manager.
Chair King opened the public hearing.
Torn Sheldon, GGLO Architects, spoke in favor of the project and presented a Power_Point that
showed a comparison of the previous project submittal and the current project which took into
consideration the PIanning Commissions comments from the earlier submittal. He stated the
Commission's concerns were: the sense of arrivaI, a reduction of the horizontal appearance in
the roof lines, more variety of materials with more texture, more variety in the elevations, and
more colors.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were any bike paths pIanned for the deveIoprnent.
Mr. Sheldon mentioned the City's bike path plan.
Mr. Porto mentioned .the Bikeways Master Plan and the Iron Horse Trail which is to the west of
the project, but does not intersect with it.
Cm. Wehrenberg feIt it was unfortunate there were no bike paths in the project because it is so
close to BART.
Cm. SwaIwell agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg.
Mr. Porto stated the streets are all built and the infrastructure is in place_ He stated as part of
the original plan there are no paths, other than the lron Horse Trail, in the area. He felt this
issue should have been thought out a bit more thoroughly back in 2000-03, but with these
individual projects it is hard to rettofit streets and it becomes the City's responsibility.
Jeff Baker, PIanning Manager mentioned the City has a Bikeways Master Plan which shows a
circuIation rnap with existing and proposed facilities. The concepts of the Bikeways Master Plan
have been incorporated into the Multi-Modal maps in the General Plan. He continued there are
proposed Class 2 facilities included in the Transit Center, as weIl as, the Arnold Road faciIity
which provides pedestrian and bike access to the site. ,
'~(rr-thr:? C'an~mis;iu„ .;.i~!rmbc: 1-l, °i1!0
J~F;,"R~'H:i1r,P~t~q , 1~0~
- ~ a-~ o-F- ~ 3
Mr. John Rennels, BART, Principal Property Development Officer, spoke in favor of the project.
He felt the project was a good example of a creative public/private partnership. I-Ie stated
BART entered into the partnership in order to increase parking at the station and create a sense
of place and community.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how Dublin can have BART add a story to their parking garage.
Mr. Rennels stated BART anticipated the~addition of parking would be needed. He stated
BART has environmentally cleared an adjacent parking garage to accommodate an addiEional
500 spaces: _
Fatimah Rambo, resident of Avalon I was concerned about traffic and asked if there was a plan
to alleviate excessive traffic in the Dublin Transit Center area with this new project. She stated
there is only one _lane in each direction on Iron Horse Pkwy with only a STOP sign for control.
She felt that with an additional 486 apartments, getting out of the Avalon I garage will be even
more difficult.
Mr. Porto stated Iron Horse Pkwy is built to its ultimate improvement. He stated there are two
access points out of the Avalon Bay Apartrnents. He discussed Ms. Rambo's chosen path out of ~
her garage and felt there were other access points that could make it easier to exit the complex.
He stated there are no plans to widen Iron Horse Pkwy.
Crn. Swalwell asked if a signal wouId be better then the stop sign.
Mr. Porto answered t here were no signals plaruned for any of the intersections, the traffic
analysis indicated the stop improvernents would serve the pedestrian and traffic needs in that
area. He stated signalization was not considered at that time.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt a signal in that area could create problems on Dublin Blvd.
Mr. Porto continued no signalization was considered at the intersection of Martinelli and Iron
Horse Pkwy because of the type of tra#fic patterns and urbanization that the developer was
trying to achieve. He stated there was one intersection primarily regulated by stop control
instead of signal control.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about striping on the streets to keep an area clear at the exit points.
Mr. Porto stated the streets are public streets at this point and should be addressed with the
City's Traffic Engineer. ~
Mr. Porto asked Ivls_ Rambo if she had spoken to anyone at the City to address this problern.
Ms: Rambo answered no and Mr. Porto asked her to speak with him after the meeting so that he
could give her contact information.
Chris Page, resident at,Elan spoke regarding the traffic problem. He felt the traffic would be
worse with the number of units in the area being doubled. He is adjacent to DeMarcus ~81vd
,~.}•t:tcr.:f~r/ I:t~ 3U10
~Pf~7rt:n9 (~n,aru_~~i~.~n - r ~.
iF;~y~if.CliT ~•SJLL'Ilily^ IO.J ~
= ' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°2&~3
and has experienced back-up's of up to IO mznutes to get out to D,ublin Blvd. He wanted to
understand how this development will mitigate the traffic problem.
Chair King felt the traffic is a problem and might become worse and would Iike the City to
address the traffic problem at the Dublin Transit Center area. ~
Mr. Baker felt some of the traffic concerns were directly related to the operation of BART. He
stated that the projecE may help to alleviate some traffic by eleminaEing $ART surface parking
spaces with the project. Project residents would trave] in the opposite direction, leaving the
Transit Center when BART patrons arrive in the morning. He stated the City has a TrafEic and
Safety Committee which reviews tra.ffic concerns, intersection delays and that sort of thing,.he
offered to relay this information to that committee and ask them to take a. look at the
functionality of the intersections and determine if there is a need for improvements. He
mentioned Mr. Page and Ms. Rambo should talk to Mr. Porto to get contact information and he
will relay their concerns to the Traffic and Safety Committee.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated there is a Condition of Approval regarding traffic on Iron Horse Pkwy
and DeMarcus regarding frontage improvements, she asked if the Commission could add a
condition to study the traffic problems at this project. ,
Mr. Baker answered the Commission could do that as part of the City's process. He stated the
streets have been designed for the assumed capacity of the areas, but the City can look at the
functionality and determine if there are improvements that can be made as part of the Traffic
and Safety Committee.
Cm. Swaiwell felt the project is more pedestrian friendly, safer and more secure, but is st~ll
concerned with traffic. He wants to support the project but traffic is an unforeseen issue that he
would want more information about
Cm. Wehrenberg stated the Planning Commission reviewed the traffic study as a whole for the
Dublin Transit Center and felt the traffic was overlooked with the expectation that a lot of the
residents would be taking BART versus using their cars.
Mr. Porto stated the project was originally evaluateci as the Transit Center in 2000 and approved
in 2003. He continued there was an EIR with an extensive traffic analysis as part of the
document. He stated there are no additional units being added anywhere in the Transit Center
that were not considered with the original PD and the streets were des.igned in accordance with
the traffic analysis at that time. He continued that time has passed, people have moved in and
the project has been developed exactly as it was anticipated at the time. He stated public .
improvernents need to be reviewed from time to time to ensure proper operation. He felt the
Traffic and Safety Committee is the proper body to look at the concerns and detErmine what can
be done. He stated these are public streets at this point and not something the developer has
any control over because the irnprovements have already been constructed.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the Commission can add a Condition of Approval that would make the
Commission's approval subject to the Traffic and Safety Committee's approvaI.
4':ar.nl:^~j ( c~;run~s.~ii~rs .1%'/!:~:;un~r : i. _'QIO
104
;~~~;,~,rr,; ~a,r:~t,:r.,r~
- aa~ ~- ~3
Mr. Baker answered they could ad~~i a condition to have the ~I'rafEic and Safety Coinmittee
review the adequacy of the streets in the project.
Cm: Swalwell felt he would like to have the Traffic and Safety Committee co-sign on the project
because they are the experts. ~
Cm_ Wehrenberg asked if the cost associated with any improvements would fall on the City of
DubIin. -
Mr. Baker answered yes since they are public streets that have been accepted by the City in
anticipation of the development in the area. He stated the City would need to look at how the
intersections are functioning and what impact this project would have on the traffic.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if signage to the BART parking garage wouId be a good idea and aIso
felt improving signage couid redirect the traEfic. .
Mr. Baker stated that would be some of the .many things the Traffic and Safety Committee
would look at to~see what kind of options are available.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt striping the intersection to keep it. clear would be a big improvement.
Cm. Swalwell felt the traffic was an unforeseen problem that is not tlie developer's fault_ He .
stated that since the problem falls to the City we must find a way to handle it. He asked what
the consequences would be if the Commission held up the project to have the Traffic and Safety
Comrnittee evaluation it.
Chair King asked if. the Commission approved the project would that stop any opportunity to
rxutigate the traffic problems. _
Mr: Porto answered no.
Chair King asked that whatever can be done can still be done if the Commission approves the
project.
Mr. Porto answered yes; the streets are the City's responsibility.
Pat Cashman, Alarneda County Surplus Land Authority spoke in response to the traffic issues:
He stated these issues were anticipated in 1999, 2000 during the traffic studies. He stated that as
traffic conditions change, people shift behavior. He stated that most of the traffic is coming.onto
Iron Horse Pkwy instead of Martinelli which is the back entrance to the garage. He stated
Campus Drive, which hasri t been built yet, will further serve the garage. Ne stated he ~agreed
with Mr. $aker, the fact is that the 486 residential units will repIace 1,000 units of surface
parking which will make the traffic flow completely di#ferent. He continued eventually. the
hope is to replace 500 of the 1000 parking spaces that wiI] be lost. He felt that. the West DubIin
BART Station will help. when it opens. He felt the project is still in development and he can
appreciate that with almost 3000 parking spaces that there is an influx in the nnorning and an
outflow in the afternoon that is severe and he sympathize with residents. I-3e felt this change
~P~~i:tni:i.~ ('um;.,:,sior .. . . ~ ,S~:f~;::n:h,.'Y.l ~i, ~(?i (!
:}' ~ ai_:; ~.Fler1 rrt,l - 1 ~5 ~
,~;r
~ ~. a ~ o n~-°~3
will actual reduce the traffic in the morning and afternoon anci there will be more circulation
and Uetter signage to the BART garage.
Chair King asked Mr. Cashman if his view was that this_project will heIp mitigate the traffic
problem.
Mr. Cashman answered yes, because currentiy there are 1000 cars every morning going into the ..
surface parking lot all flowing in one direction from Dublin Blvd towards Bt1RT. This wiil
reverse the flow, rather than 1,000 coming in there will be 500 going out. He stated it will
reverse the f~ow and change the character of those intersections and they will function better.
An audience member asked how this project could reverse the traffic flow.
Mr. Cashman answered in the morning the cars are coming into the BART station and as a
result of this project, 900 surface parking spaces on lot C will be replaced with residential and
there will be approximately 504 units leaving the Transit Center in the mornings. He stated that
reverse flow takes advantage of an intersection without putting a burden on it.
Mr. Cashman felt the signage in the area is inadequate. He stated most drivers don't come in on
Martinelli, Arnold or Altamirano which is the back entrance that was projected that most people
woul d~ use.
.Cm_ Wehrenberg agreed that the signage is inadequate and she felt that traffic on DeMarcus
Blvd would be used only to drop of# and pick up BART passengers.
Crn. Swalwell felt the Planning Commission could znake a recommendation to the City Council
and create a record of the Commissiori s concerns and also referring those concerns to the
Traffic and Safety Committee.
Mr. Porto showed a znap and pointed out the access points to the paxking garage and discussed
the reverse traffic flow.
Cm. Swalwell felt that the West Dublin BART Station will help as well.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt the key issue is the signage and would like to see that addressed on the
pro}ect now and asked if the Commission could do that.
Mr. 8aker stated these are public streets providing access to the BART station and tliat the City
has already accepted so signage is the City's and BART's responsibility. He continued the.
Traffic and Safety Corrtmittee would need to address those concerns.
Chair King felt there are four ways the traffic problem may be relieved: 1) Campus Drive will
be built; 2) reduce the number of parking space available to the, public; 3), more signage to
encourage people to use the.back entrance; and 4) the West Dublin BART Station opening. He
asked that if the Commission approves the project as submitted it will not foreclose any of the
options to help alleviate this traffic issue.
c,7~;ur.rlitr 1.F, .'_D'iJ '
!';:rr.;7ir:y (1r.rr;:t~sioe - .
a;.,;; .: r, r ~, ~~ _ , :, ;~, ~ 10 G
Mr. Porto answered yes.
~ 3 [ o~ a$3
Chair King felt this issue is within the Commission's area o# concern but he would like to go
forward and vote on the project and then suggest adopting a motion urging the City to address
the traffic issue arid create a record of their concerns. .
Steve $rophy, resident ak Elan spoke regarding the project. He stated he lives on the south side
of the development which looks directly at the new project. He stated he lives on the 6~ level
and currently has a view of the hills. He asked about the height of the new project and if it will
block his view.
Mr. Porto stated Mr. Brophy will be a bit higher then this project. He stated the project will be
approximateIy 5 stories_ He stated this project was anticipated at this type of density and
buiIding height at this location. He continued it was originally anticipated that the project
would be higher, up to 8-10 stories. . °
Mr. Brophy asked how high.the floors are for this project.
Mr. Porto answered the project is a little less than 10 feet/floor.
Mr. 8rophy felt there will be some obstruction of view such as chimneys that might obstruct his
view. ~
Robert Johnson, resident at Elan spoke in favor of Ehe project.
Chair King closed the public hearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked what areas were included when the Commission approved the Transit
Center: ~
Mr. Porto answered the Transit Center is from Arnold Road on the east, Iron Horse Pkwy on the
west, Dublin Blvd to the north, and 1-580 on the south. He condnued all the traffic movements
and anticipated square footage for development in that area were considered at that time.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt if eventually when those other areas are built there could be a recurrent
traffic problem.
Mr. Porto responded that Martinelli and Iron Horse Pkwy are both constructed to their ultimate
improvement. He continued the City .of Dublin usually builds the full improvement when the
roads are built.
Mr. Baker stated the Transit Center was built with multiple access points to provide.traffic relief
and some of this access ways have not yet been constructed.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt there should have been other things added originally. She stated she
wouId be satisfied if the Traffic and Safety Committee would review the Commission's concerns
at their earliest possible opportunity. She felt it would be better to address the problem during
`i'(~nnrrr,!(;~r,trri.c;r•te .(',~:r:±,ti.~.': (i,31J1~
Yt;Rr Lt r'' 1~sc'f ir. , ~ ~7
a 3 a. a-fi-~3
construction. She stated she could make all the findings and found the project to Ue consistent
witll development in the area_ She continued the architecture is great, and alI issues have becn
addressed from 2008, Iandscaping and lighting are aI] good and shc is in support of the project.
Cm. Swalwell likes the project, he felt the anival point is excellent, it is safe, and felt it was night
and day different as far as esthetics; traffic is still a concern but not the developer's problem.
He felt the Planning Commission has a responsibility to address the traffic problem. He felt
comfortable making the findings as long as the Traffic and Safety Committee review the traffic
issue. He also felt comfortable that once Campus Drive is open and West Dublin open a lot of
the concerns will be alleviated. He is_in support of the project.
Chair King felt the project is beautiful and is in support of the project but is still concerned
about the traffic problems. He felt traffic is an issue that the P]anning Commission should be
concerned about but felt satisfied that approving the project won't make it worse and it appears ~
the project will help to mitigate the situation. .
Mr. Baker stated Staff has heard the Commission's concerns regarding traffic and those
concerns will be related to the Traffic and Safety Cornmittee and it will also be reflected in the
minutes.
Cm. Swalwell thanked the residents that came forward to speak on the project and talk about
their concerns. He was confident the Applicant will work with the City to alleviate traffic
problems.
Mr. Baker stated that the Comrnission's issues will be referred to the Traffic and Safety
Committee on September 15, 2010. He was unsure as to when the next meeting was but the
issue will be referred before the City Council meeting. He was unsure that they wouId be able
to research and resolve the issue before the Council meeting but it would be referred.
Cm. Swalwell stated that his preference would be that the.City Council does not act on the
project until the Traffic and Safety Committee has made their report. .
On a motion by Cm. Swa]well and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm.
Brown and Cm. Schaub being absent, TeJith the caveat that tlte iraff c issue is referred to the Tra~fic and
Safet~ Cornrniftee, the Planning Commission approved:
RESOLUT'ION NO. 10 - 41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIIV
RECOMMEiVDING THAT THE CITY COiJNCIL ADOPT A STAGE 1 DEVELOPMEIVT
PLAN AM(ENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AVALON BAY
COIV~IVIUNITIES DUBLIN STATION PROJECT ON SITE C OF
THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER ' ~
PA 06-060
'Ylanmr.~ ('cnvn,:~.a-rrn
~(~;ulrY (.; ecl:r..{ 1 ~~
;.•r~r:ri(:cr ! i, '~+;:1
a 33 a-F- ~3
RESOLUTYON N0.10 - 42
A RESOLL7TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CTTY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR DUBLTIV STATION, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSrT CENTER, AVALON BAY
COI~INIUNITIES
PA 06-060
IZESOLUTION NO.10- 43
~- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMI~YISSIOIV
OF THE CITY O~ DUBLIIV
APPROVIIVG SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
VESTING TENTATNE TRACT MAP 7929 `
FOR AVALON BAY C011RNYUNITIES, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
(APN 986-0054-005-02)
PA Ob-060
Chair King thanked the Tnembers of the community who came fozward to speak to the Planning
Commission. ~
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSIN~SS - NOIVE
QTHER BUSINESS -1VONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Mr. Baker stated that recently there was a Study Session regarding the DDSP and Staff
~ will reIease the Downtown DubIin Specific Plan Draft EIR for the 45 day public review
period this week.
10.3 Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the West Dublin BART Station and the Camp Parks
projects and their progress. Mr_ Baker stated West Dublin BART is anticipated to be
opened in 2011 and SunCal, the deveIoper for Camp Parks is still in negotiations with the
. Army.
ADYOURNII~YEI~IT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:42:37 PM ~
.ti~~~?anrF•r ' ?01O
ii'~2r,niC,1 j :~miPt~Y7~~T3 ~ ' ~
~ :~;~;rri;:• :r,:rr;~,J 109
Respect~ully suk~mittea, a 3,,~. n~`~S J
. ~. .
~ ~
~ ^ ,,~ /'
,
1'vlorg ing
Chair Planning Commi sion
ATTEST:
,}.'
--T -
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
C:~MINUTE5~2070~PL4NNINGCOMMISSION~PInnuillgCmnutissio~i 20700914-1632_01c6542n64jf3c80.doc
~ - . . ,~r ~~Pn:~~ ~ ~ ~J. _'U; t)
~l.i;~n;,,•;;j ~1....^.~_c._t:>a _ . . F..
;~F;r„'r, tr~~ri,.~c{ , 110 -
~^~
:,~`
~.~y i:
. T~~=`':u'r•.
~ ~~ ~~~
t1L~.:l2EDA COL?NTY CO~'~MLJI`~l'T~.r DEVEI.OPMENT AGENCY
S U R P L U S P R O P E R 7 Y A U T H O R I T Y
CI~fIS L321ZA7 ~ .~ ~ FChI~Uill~~ --~J. L~~ 1
%,; c;?~y ~i: _: ; ~.
Jeri Ram
Communit}~ Developme:nt Director
°~trick'=ash~r~an City of~Dublin
SP ~ G+r: cc^r
1 DO Civic Plara
<''~ Dublin, CA 9~56R
.. _.. b~ri~" i. :,.,~.~i,s ~n
~ ~~ RE: AvalonBay Site C Unit Count ,
.. ~ ~„~:~ Dear Jeri:
c~~:~~;:~ As requested by AvalonCiay, tllis letter is provided as corifirmatioii that the ACSPA
"~~ ~` ~'"' has agreed to transter an additional 19 units from its current entitlenlcnt of 1~0 units
" on Site A-l to Site C:. TIZis is ia~ acldition to the g 1 units previously transferrecl froin
Site A-1 to Sitc C, pcr the attached letter from Pat Cashman to you, dated lune ?2,
.. < ::.::.:.:::.:..: :... 2010.
ACSPA is esltitled, per the Dublin Transit Center General Plani"Specifie Pl<~n
Amendment a~1d Stage 1 PD Rezonine, ro transfer units fi-om one site to another. as
long as the total unit count of I,~UO units is not exceeded.
l~'ith this transfer of an additional l9 units to Site C, the unit. alloeatiiu~s arc: 13l units
ro Sitc A-I {ACSPA), l 12 units to Site A-2 (EAH), 190 units to Site A=3 {Hanover).
257 units to Site B-1 {DR Horton), 305 wlits to Site B-2 (A~~a]onBay), 50~ w~its to
Site C(Aw~lanBay), and 300 units to Site E-1 (DR ~~orton}, for a total of 1,800 units.
Should yau have any questions, you can contact ~ue at ~ 10-67Q-6~34.
Sincerely,
,-~ ~~.
~. ~'`~/-,' ~~ L ~i;~""~~.
'~ . ~
'Stua~t Cook
D irector
Attacl~ment
CC: Jcff Whitc, AvatonBay
1~1ike Porto, City c~f~Dublin
2 ~ c~ ~=~3
~~~ ,
~ ALAhiEDA COIJN7'Y COMMUNITY DEVF.LOPMENT AGENCY
SUR Pl.US P ROP ERTY AUTHORlTY
-~,,.
~
Chrls Bazar
Aymty Dlrec Ic:
June 22, 2010
Patrick Cazhman letl R3i1'1
saao~~~~, Community Development Director
z;.~ City of Dublin
1Vest!^;inrpn ?.vcn~~r ~ 0~ ~.IYIC P~37.3
~°°", „'' Duhlin, CA 94568
Fwy~..:a:d
~°~'~Q"'' Re: AvalonBay Site C Unit Count
•~1i~4-1.'; i . .
a',~;,~• Dear Jeri:
510.6?0.~33;
t:~;
• ~o F;o.~3 ~~:
As a follaw up to our June 8, 2010 meeting regarding the basis for AvalonBay
` increasin~ its application for Site C from 405 l0 486, this letter is provided as
-
N vw,SCULht~: (Y
C 13 confirmation tl~at the ACSPA has agreed to transfer ihe additional 81 units
from its current entitlement of 23l units on Site A-1. The remaining
entitlement of 23 ] units on Site A-1 was the batan{;e of the i 8QQ units
! designated for the Dub(in transit Center. ACSPA is entitled, per the 2001
Generat Plan/Specific Plara Amendment and Stage 1 PD Rezoning,.to transfer
units from one site to another, as long as the total unit count is not exceeded.
Given the h-ansfer of an additional 81 units to Site C ihe unit aliocatians are;
150 units to Site A-I (ACSPA), ] 12 units to Site A-2 (EAH), 190 vniLs to Site
A•3 (Hanover), 257 ur~its to Site B-l (DR Horion), 305 units to Site B-2
(AvalonBay), 4$b units ta Site C{AvalonBay), and 340 uniLs to 5ite F-1 (DR
Horton), for a total count of l 800 units.
Should you have any questions you can contaci me at 510-670-6531.
S incerely,
~/~
/
Patrick Cashman -
Director
Attachments
Cc: Jeff White, AvaldnBay Communities
Mikc Porto, City of Dublin
Stuart Cook, ACSPA
~ ~-~ n-~-~g,.~
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING Ct~MMISSIOIV
OF THE ClTY OF DUBLIN
RECOiViflAEt~DINC THAT THE CITY COUMCIL ADOPT APJ ORDINAI~CE APPROVING A
STAGE 1 DEVELOPI~ENT PLAN AiViENDi1~ENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAP! FOR
THE AVALON BAY COMiUIUNITIES DUBLfIV STATIOId PROJECT OiV SITE C OF
THE DUBLIN T'RAiVSIT CERlTER
' PA Ofi-060
WHEREAS; the Applicant, Avalon Bay Communities, submitted applications for an area
of approximately 7,21 acres known as Dublin Station, Site C within the Dublin Transit Center
(PA 06-060} and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and
1/UHEREAS, the applications include: a) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and
Stage 2 Development Plan; b) Site Development Review; c)-Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7929;
and d) Development Agreement. The applications collectively define this "Project;" and
lMHEREAS, the project site generally is located north of the East Dublin BART Station,
east of Iron Horse Trail, generally west of Iron Horse Parkway, and immediately south of
Campbell Green within the previously approved Dubfin Transit Center; and ,
Vi/HEREAS, the Dublin Transit Center project {PA 00-013) was approved by the City
Councii . on December 3, 2002, by Ordinance 21-02 adopting a PD-Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezone for an area of 91 acres. The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone
provided for various land uses including the development of 1,500 units; and
~fHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 14, 2010, reviewed
a 486 unit project on this site including a Stage 1 Developrnent Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7929 and a
Development Agreement; and
~1lHEREi~S, The Planning Commission approved the Site Development Review and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map .7929 and recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance
amending the Stage 1 Development Plan and the Stage 2 Devefopment Pian and an Ordinance
approving the Development Agreement; and
!l1~HEREAS, the complete application submitted is available and an file in the Community
Development Department; and
lNHERE~4S, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, together with State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
!!1lHEREAS, Staff has recommended that the project be found exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Government Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a
specific plan. The Project proposes to transfer 100 units from Dublin Transit Center Site A to
Page 1 of 2
~~~a~~~
Thresholds of Sipnificance
Table 2-1
Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance*
Pollutant Construction- Operational-Related
Related
P..ro~ect-Levei
Criteria Air Pollutants Average Daily Average Daily Emissions Maximum Annual
and Precursors Emissions (~b/day) " Emissions (tpy)
(Regional) (Ib/day)
ROG 54 54 10
N Ox 54 54 10
PM~o (exhaust) 82 15
PMz.S (exhaust) 54 10
Best
PM~o/PMz,s (fugitive dust) Management None
Practices
Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
GHGs - Projects other OR
than Stationary Sources None 1,100 MT of COze/yr
OR
4.6 MT COzelSP/yr (residents+employees)
GHGs -Stationary None 10,000 MT/yr
Sources
Risk and Hazards Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan
for new sources and OR
Increased cancer risk of >10
0 in a million
receptors
(Individual Project) Same as .
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or
Operational Acute)
Note: Threshold fornew Thresholds~' Ambient PMz.s increase: > 0.3 ug/m3 annual average ~
receptors is etfective Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of
January 9, 2011 source or receptor
Risk and Hazards Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan
for new sources and OR
Cancer: > 100 in a million (from all local sources)
receptors
(Cumulative Threshold) Same as Non-cancer: > 10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources)
Operational (Chronic)
Note: Thresliold fornew Thresholds~* PMZ.$: > 0.8 ~ig/m3 annual average (from all local sources)
receptors is effecfive Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of
January 9, 2,091
source or receptor
Accidental Release of Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials locating near
Acutely Hazardous Air None receptors or new receptors locating near stored or used
Pollutants acutely hazardous materials considered significant
Odors None 5 confrmed complaints per year averaged over three years
Page ~ 2-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
R~ BAY AREA
~' 1~IRQUALITY
Y~ MAIVAGEMENT
~~l
~;'i D1 STRICT
~ ~n ~° ~3
Thresholds of Siqnificance
Table 2-1
Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance''
Pollutant Construction- Operational-Related
Related
^`Plan Level ~;~ 1 ~y ~~~ ~~ ~~;, ~~ ~~ ~;;.
~...
1. Consistency with Current~ Air Quality Plan control ~
Criteria Air Pollutants and None measures, and
Precursors 2. Projected VMT or vehicle trip iricrease is less than or
equal to projected population increase
Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
GHGs None OR
6.6 MT COZe/SP/yr (residents + employees)
1. Overlay zones around existing and planned sources of
TACs (including adopted Risk Reduction Plan areas)
Risks and Hazards None and
2. Overlay zones of at least 500 feet from all freeways and
high volume roadways
Accidental Release of
~
Acutely Hazardous Air None None
Pollutants
Odors None ~dentify the location, and include policies to reduce the
impacts, of existing or planned sources of odors
Regional;;
Plans`(Transpor tation
and Air
;Qu
__. ~
J '
~
ali
'~ ~~`~~~`
fy;Plan
)
~f~'~
, ,
,
_ , ~ _ < ;
, ,
.
s
;
,.
<~,. .. _,.; ~~~ .. , .. ~. ~. ,~ ~ ,
GHGs, Criteria Air
Pollutants and Precursors, None No net increase in emissions
and Toxic Air
Gontaminants
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; CO = carbon monoxide; C02e = carbon dioxide equivalent;
GHGs = greenhouse gases; Ib/day = pounds per day; MT = metric tons; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PMZ.S=
fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM,o =
respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ppm =
parts per million; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; SP = service population; TACs =
toxic air contaminants; TBP = toxic best practices; tons/day = tons per day; tpy = tons per year; yr= year;
TBD: to be determined.
*It is the Air District's policy that the adopted thresholds apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation is
published, or environmental analysis begins, on of after the applicable efFective date. The adopted CEQA
thresholds - except for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors -.are effective June 2, 2010. The
risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors are effective January 1, 2011.
"* The Air District recommends that for construction projects that are less than one year duration, Lead
Agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts are to occur, rather
than the full year.
2.1. CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS - PROJECT LEVEL
Table 2-2 presents the Thresholds of Significance for operational-related criteria air pollutant and
precursor emissions. These represent the levels at which a project's individual emissions of
criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
SFBAAB's existing air quality conditions. If daily average or annual emissions of operational-
Bay Area Air Quality Managemerit District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
Page ~ 2-3
d ~+ l a-~- °~
Thresholds of Significance
~3 ~
~ ~,~
~' ~~ DISTRICT
related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable Threshold of Significance
listed in Table 2-2, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.
Table 2-2
Thresholds of Significance for Operational-Related
Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
PollutanUPrecursor Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy) Average Daily Emissions (Iblday)
ROG 10 54
NOx 10 54 •
PMio 15 82
PMZ.s 10 54
Notes: tpy = tons per year; Ib/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PMz.s = fine particulate matter with an
aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or ICOess; PM,o= respirable particulafe matterwith an aerodynamic
resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; tpy = tons per year.
Refer to Appendix D for support documentation. .
2.2. GREENHOUSE GASES - PROJECT LEVEL
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
o For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG
Reduction Strategy; or annuai emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of
COze; or 4.6 MT C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects
include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of COze.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate.
If annual emissions of operationai-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would
result in a cumulatively considerabie contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant
impact to global climate change.
2.3. ~ LOCAL COf1AiViUNITY RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS - PROJECT LEVEL
The Thresholds of Significance for local
community risk and hazard impacts are
identified below, which apply to both the siting
of a new source and to the siting of a new
receptor. Local community risk and hazard
impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5
because emissions of these pollutants can
have significant health impacts at the local
level. If emissions of TACs or fine particulate
matter with an aerodynamic resistance
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PMz,S)
$AY.AREA . ~~-~ ~,~~j
AIRQUALITY Thresholds of Signi~cance
MANAGEMENT
D 1 S T R! C T
exceed any of the Thresholds of Significance listed below, the proposed project would result in a
significant impact.
e Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or
acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution; or
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter {Ng/m3) annuai
average PM2.5 would be a cumulativefy considerabie contribution.
Cumulative Impacts
A project would have a cumulative considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, .
and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000 foot radius from the fence line of a source, or from
the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the following:
~ Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or
~ An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard
index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or.
• 0.8 Ng/m3 annual average PM2.5.
A lead agency should enlarge the 1,000-foot radius on a case-by-case basis if an unusually large
source or sources of risk or hazard emissions that may affect a proposed project is beyond the
recommended radius.
2.4. LOCAL CARBON fViONOXIDE If1~PACTS - PFtOJECT LEVEL
Table 2-3 presents the Thresholds of Significance for local CO emissions, the 1- and 8-hour
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) and 9.0 ppm,
respectively. By definition, these represent levels that are protective of public health. If a project
would cause local emissions of CO to exceed any of the Thresholds of Significance listed below,
the proposed project would result in a significant impact to air quality.
Table 2-3
Thresholds of Significance for Local Carbon Monoxide Emissions
CAAQS Averaging Time Concentration (ppm)
' 1-Hour 20.0
8-Hour 9.0
Refer to Appendix.D for support documentation. -
2.5. ODOR IMPACTS - PROJECT LEVEL
The Thresholds of Significance for odor impacts are qualitative in nature. A project that would
result in the siting of a new source or the exposure of,a new receptor to existing or planned odor
sources should consider the screening level distances and the complaint history of the odor
sources:
Bay Area Air Quality Managerrient District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
Page ~ 2-5
~~~
~~ ~
~ z~~
e~~~
~~
~ R
Screeninp Criteria
a ~+~
~
~ ~ i
~ ~ ~
~° ~
~:~<~~
, Table 3-1
Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes
Land Use Type Operational Criteria.
Pollutant Screening Size Operational GHG
Screening Size Construction-Related ;
Screening Siie ,
Single-family 325 du (NOX) 56 du 114 du (ROG)
Apartment, low-rise 451 du (ROG) 78 du 240 du (ROG)
Apartment, mid-rise 494 du (ROG) 87 du 240 du (ROG)
Apartment, high-rise 510 du (ROG) 91 du 249 du (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, general 451 du (ROG) 78 du . 240 du (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, high-rise " 511 du (ROG) 92 du 252 du (ROG)
Mobile home park 450 du (ROG) 82 du 114 du (ROG)
Retirement community 487 du (ROG) 94 du 114 du (ROG)
Congregate care facility 657 du (ROG) 143 du 240 du (ROG)
Day-care center 53 ksf (NOX) 11 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Elementary school 271 ksf (NOX) 44 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
E~ementary school 2747 students (ROG) . - 3904 students (ROG)
Junior high school 285 ksf (NOX) - 277 ksf (ROG)
Junior high school 2460 students (NOX) 46 ksf 3261 students (ROG)
High school 311 ksf (NOX) 49 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
High school 2390 students (NOX) - 3012 students (ROG)
Junior college (2 years) 152 ksf (NOX) 28 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Junior college (2 years) 2865 students (ROG) - 3012 students (ROG)
University/college (4 years) 1760 students (NOX) 320 students 3012 students (ROG)
Library 78 ksf (NOX) 15 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Place of worship 439 ksf (NOX) 61 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
City park 2613 acres (ROG) 600 acres 67 acres (PM10)
Racquet club 291 ksf (NOX) 46 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Racquetball/health 128 ksf (NOX) 24 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Quality restau~ant 47 ksf (NOX) 9 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) ,
High turnover restaurant 33 ksf (NOX) 7 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)'
Fast food rest. w/ drive thru 6 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Fast food rest. w/o drive thru 8 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Hotel 489 rooms (NOX) 83 rooms 554 rooms (ROG)
Motel 688 rooms (NOX) 106 rooms 554 rooms (ROG)
Free-standing discount store 76 ksf (NOX) 15 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Free-standing discount superstore 87 ksf (NOX) ' 17 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Discount club 102 ksf (NOX) 20 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Regional shopping center 99 ksf (NOX) 19 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Electronic Superstore 95 ksf (NOX) 18 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Home improvement superstore 142 ksf (NOX) 26 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Strip mall 99 ksf (NOX) 19 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Hardware/paint store 83 ksf (NOX) 16 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Supermarket 42 ksf (NOX) 8 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Convenience market (24 hour) 5 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Convenience market with gas pumps 4 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Bank (with drive-through) 17 ksf (NOX) 3 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
General office building 346 ksf (NOX) 53 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Page ~ 3-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
~' °~..3
BAY AREA
A1 R QUAL ITY
MANAGEMENT
D! S T R 1 C T
BAY AREA
1~IR.QUALITY _
~~
~~~,3 MANAGEMENT.
~~
~~z ~~* D 1 S T R 1 C T '
a ~ ~ ,~-~3
Screeninq Criteria
Table 3-1
Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes
Land Use Type Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size Operational GHG
Screening Size Construction-Related
Screening Size
Office park 323 ksf (NOX) 50 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Government office building 61 ksf (NOX) 12 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Government (civic center) 149 ksf (NOX) 27 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Pharmacy/drugstore w/ drive through 49 ksf (NOX) 10 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Pharmacy/drugstore w/o drive through 48 ksf (NOX) 10 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Medical office building 117 ksf (NOX) 22 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Hospital 226 ksf (NOX) 39 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Hospital 334 beds (NOX) 84 ksf 337 beds (ROG)
Warehouse 864 ksf (NOX) 64 ksf 259 ksf (NOX) .
General light industry 541 ksf (NOX) 121 ksf 259 ksf (NOX)
General light industry 72 acres (NOX) - ~ 11 acres (NOX)
General light industry 1249 employees (NOX) - 540 employees (NOX)
General heavy industry 1899 ksf (ROG) - 259 ksf (NOX)
General heavy industry 281 acres (ROG) ~ - 11 acres (NOX)
Industrial park 553 ksf (NOX) 65 ksf 259 ksf (NOX)
Industrial park 61 acres (NOX) - 11 acres (NOX)
Industrial park 1154 employees (NOX) - 577 employees (NOX)
Manufacturing 992 ksf (NOX) 89 ksf 259 ksf (NOX)
Notes: du = dweliing units; ksf = thousand square feet; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Screening levels include indirect and area source emissions. Emissions from engines (e.g., back-up generators) and
industrial sources subject to Air District Rules and Regulations embedded in the land uses are not included in the screening
estimates and must be added to the above land uses.
Refer to Appendix D for support documentation.
Source: Modeled by EDAW 2009.
3.2. COI~fViUMITY RISK AND HAZARD 11ViPACTS
Please refer to Chapter 5 for discussion of screening criteria for local community risk and hazard
impacts.
3,3. CARBON MONOXIDE IMPACTS
This preliminary screening methodology provides the Lead Agency with a conservative indication
of whether the implementation of the proposed project would result in CO emissions that exceed
the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-3.
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations
if the following screening criteria is met:
1. Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management pro~ram established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways,
regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page ~ 3-3
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
Screening Criteria
~ '~ ~o
~
~~
~ ~~ .
~
~~ ~~~
~'L ~:
2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially
limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street
canyon, below-grade roadway).
3.4. ODOR IMPACTS
Table 3-3 presents odor screening distances recommended by BAAQMD for a variety of land
uses. Projects thaYwould site a new odor source or a new receptor farther than the applicable
screening distance shown in Table 3-3 from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively,
would not likely result in a significant odor impact. The odor screening distances in Table 3-3
should not be used as absolute screening criteria, rather as information to consider along with the
odor parameters and complaint history. Refer to Chapter 7 Assessing and Mitigating Odor
Impacfs for comprehensive guidance on significance determination.
Table 3-3
Odor Screening Distances
Land UselType of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility)Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1. mile
Metal Smelting Plants 2 miles
Refer to Appendix D for support documentation.
Facilities that are regulated by CalRecycle (e.g. landfill, composting, etc.) are required to have
Odor Impact Minimization Plans (OIMP) in place and have procedures that establish fence line
odor detection thresholds. The Air District recognizes a Lead Agency's discretion under CEQA to
use established odor detection thresholds as thresholds of significance for CEQA review for
CalRecycle regulated facilities with an adopted OIMP.
Page ~ 3-4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District .
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
9-°' 02-~3 .
BAY AREA
A1 R QUAL ITY
MA[VAGEh4ENT
D t S T R I C T
~ BAY AREA
~::
~~ AIRQUALITY
MANAGEMELVT
~
~ ~ Disraicz
~ ~t C.~ ~~3
` Screening Criteria
3.5. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS
3.5.1. Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors "~ -
This preliminary screening provides the Lead Agency with a conservative indication of whether
the proposed project would result in the generation of construction-related criteria air pollutants
and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-4.
If all of the following Screening Criteria a~e met, the construction of the proposed projecf would
resuit in a less-than-significant impact from criteria air poilutant and precursor emissions.
1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1; and
2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and
implemented during constructiori; and .
3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
a. Demolition;
b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and
building construction would occur simultaneously);
c. Simialtaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would
develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high
density infill development);
d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban
Land Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or
e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than.10,000 cubic yards of soil
import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.
3.5.2. Community Risk and Hazards
Chapter 5, Assessing and Mitigating Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts, contains
information on screening criteria for local risk and hazards.
Bay Area Air Quality Management.District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
Page ~ 3-5
a ~+~ ~-~3
G~~~` °;~ °~~~ a ~ $ ~ a-~ 3
~9~d'~~ ~~ - STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
`~<'~~l/
~~LI~ ~° ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCf L F'ile #^~05 0- 3~~
~0 0 0 ° (0 0
DATE: November 2, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJE • Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 (Esprit at Dublin Station) - Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan and an Amendment to the Development Agreement for the
Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 Project. (PA 09-002)
Prepared By: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner ~j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
D.R. Horton, Inc. is proposing to construct a multi-family residential townhouse community with
10~ units. on ± 4.1 net acres of land within the Dublin Transit Center project on Site E-1. A
Planned Development Rezone will allow the development of either the 105-unit Esprit at Dublin
Station Project (proposed) or the 300-unit Metropolitan at Dublin Station project (previously-
approved). The proposed amendment to the existing Development Agreement for the project
site relates to the allowed density of uses (to permit the 105-unit project), an extension of the
existing Agreement term by seven years, an amendment to the affordable housing obligations
for the property, and a provision on a public art fee.
FINANCIAL IIViPACT:
None.
RECO1VinlIENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: a) Waive the reading and adopt an Ordinance
approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Esprit at Dublin Station project; and b)
Waive the reading and adopt an Ordinance approving Amendment 1 to the Deyelopment
Agreement for Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 (Esprit at Dyrt~}in Sta~on).
~. ~
~~
ubmitted By R ie ed By:
Community Development Director Assist t ity Manager
Page 1 of 3
~ ~r ~ ~3
DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The 4.13-acre site, referred
to as site "E-1" in the Transit
Center Stage 1 Development
Plan, is located within :the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area. The site has a General
Plan land use designation of
Campus Office and is in a
Planned Development Zoning
District. The site is currently .
vacant and is surrounded by
the Avalon Dublin Station
residential project to the
west, vacant land to the
south and the east, and
Camp Parks to the north
across Dublin Boulevard, as
shown on the Figure 1 to the
right.
The site is rectangular and flat, and is located iess than a quarter. ,mile from the East
Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station.
In December 2002, the City Council approved a General PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment (Resolution 216-02); approved a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning (Ordinance
21-02); and approved Tentative Parcel Map 7892 (Resolution 02-40), for the ,Dublin Transit
Center.
A Master Development Agreement for tlie Dublin Transit Center was adopted in May 2003
(Ordinance 5-03) and together with the approved General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map,
established the land use approvals for the future development of the site. The Master
Devefopment Agreement was then amended to set forth affordable housing obligations in the
project area (Ordinance 25-05). -
In March of 2006, D.R. Horton received approval of a 300-unit condominium project
(Metropolitan at Dublin Station) with approximately 15,000 square feet of ground floor retail on
fhe E-1 project site. The approvals included a Planned Development Rezone with a related
Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Site Development Review, and
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement vested the project approvals for five
(5) years, which are set to expire in March 2011.
Project Proposal:
The Esprifi at.Dublin Station project includes 105 residential condominium units at a density of
25.4 units per acre. Thirteen individual buildings will be constructed-on the property along with
a private drive (Esprit Way) that will bisect the property and provide internal vehicular access to
the units. Residential parking is provided in private garages and guest parking is provided on
site as well as on the adjoining streets. Pedestrian portals occur at the ground level of most
Page 2 of 3
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
a~o ~~''~
buildings and allow for pedestrian connections from Martinelli Way through to 7,300 square foot
space adjacent to Dubiin Boulevard that includes a grass and garden area.
The Applicant is seeking approval of a Planned Development Rezone with an-amendment to
the Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Develbpment Plan and an Amendment to the
Development Agreement for the project site to permit the 105-unit Esprit at Dublin Station .
project to be built.
This project proposal is unusual in the fact that the accompanying Stage 1 Development Plan
amendment for the Esprit at Dublin Station project will permit the construction of either the 300-
unit Metropolitan at Dublin Station project (approved March 2006) or the 105-unit Esprit at
Dublin Station project (current proposal). Both of the projects will have entitlements for the
same piece of property and it will be up to the Applicant or a future developer to determine
which project will eventually be constructed.
On October 19, 2010, the City Council held a public hearing on the project, waived the reading,
and introduced two Ordinances: 1) an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone
with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan~for the
Esprit at Dublin Station project (Attachment 1); and 2) an Ordinance approving Amendment 1 to
the Development Agreement for the Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 (Esprit at Dublin Station}
(Attachment 2}.
For a detailed analysis of the Project, please .refer to the October 19, 2010 City Council Staff
Report (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONNIENT,4L REVIEIN:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council finds that the
Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457 because it is a
residential project that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified.
The Project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact.Report (EIR) for the Dublin
Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1
Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcef Map, and Development Agreement (SCH
2001120395) which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19,
2002. The City Council finds that no further environmental review under CEQA is required for
the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any
of the standards under CEQA section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 for
the preparation of a subsequent or supplementa! E!R are met.
ATTACFii1~EfVTS: 1) Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a
related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Esprit at Dublin Station~project
2) Ordinance approving Amendment 1 to the Development
' Agreement for Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 (Esprit at Dublin
` Station), with Amendmen~ 1 to the Development Agreement
includecl as Exhibit A
3) October 19, 2010 City Council Staff Report (without
attachments)
Page_ 3 of 3
a ~ ~ ~-~~
ORDINANCE NO. XX.-10
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**********~*~
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPf1AEPVT REZONE dNITH A RELATED STAGE
DEVELOPfUiENT' PLAN AINIENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMIENT PLAN
FOR THE ESPRIT AT DUBLIIV STATION PROJECT
APN 986~0034-01'i-00
PA 09-002
THE CITY COURICIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ~RD~-Iftl AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~ RECITALS
A. The Esprit at Dublin Station project site is 4.13 acres bounded by Dublin Boulevard and
Martinelli V1/ay between Iron Horse Parkway and Campus Drive. City Council Ordinance No. 21-
02 rezoned the approximately 91 acre area known as the Dublin Transit Center ("the Transit
Center") to a Planned Development Zoning District and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan
for the entirety of the site. The 4.13 acre Esprit at Dublin Station project site is within the 91=
acre Transit Center, and is referred to as site E-1 in the Stage 1 Development Pfan.
B. In 2006, the Applicant received entitlements for a 300-unit residential project on the site with
up to 15,000 square feet of commercial space. The project approvals included the Metropolitan
at Dublin Station Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan (City
Council Ordinance 04-06), a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 7667 (Planning Commission
Resolution 05-68), Site Development Review (City Council Resolution 06-06) and a
Development Agreement (City Council Ordinance 05-06).
C. The Applicant is seeking approval for an Alternate Project that could be constructed in place .
of the Metropolitan at Dublin Station project should market conditions warrant. The Esprit at
Dublin Station Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, as proposed, would permit the future development
of up to 105 residential units on the project site. The Stage 2 Development Plan establishes the
permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory uses, site plan, site area~ and maximum
proposed densities, maximum numbers of residential unifs by type, development regulations,
architectural standards, and preliminary landscape plan for the 105-unit development.
D. The Pfanning Commission recommended adoption of the Planned Development Rezone
with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan through
Resolution 10-36 following a properly noticed public hearing on August 24, 2010.
E. The City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation at two properly
noticed public hearings on October 5, 201 Q and October 19, 2010 at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered the prior environmental
documents, and all above referenced reports, recommendations and testimony to evaluate the
Project, including the Planned Development zoning. .
a~a ~'~3
Section 2. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows:
1. The Esprit at Dublin Station Planned Development Zoning, including the Planned
Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and
Stage 2 Development Plan, meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in fhat the
development plan contains a desirable use of land .that complements surrounding
land uses, in particular that it provides a new type of residential unit to the Transit
Center areas while continuing the concentration of high-density residential
development envisioned in the Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan.
2. The Planned Developmenf Rezone wifh a related Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with
existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the Project will
implement the high-density scale of development envisioned at the Transit Center in
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Project is generally similar to
the character and density of existing development in the surrounding area and will
create a good transition between the higher density residential units built in the Transit
Center and potential future residential development across Dublin Boulevard at Camp
Parks. It wil( provide attractive and interesting buildings and will provide pedestrian
and bicycle connectivity between the BART station and Dublin Boulevard.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council
finds as follows: -
The Planned Development Rezone with a re/afed Stage 9. Development Plan
Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible wifh
existing and potentral developmenf in the surrounding area in that: 1) the proposed
development is consistent with the approved development for this property as
approved under the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning (as amended); 2) the
proposed project is compatible witf~ the surrounding area which is comprised of
residential and commercial development; 3) the residential development will be
compatible with the approved adjacent Avalon Bay development because the
development consists of high-density townhouse units; 4) as designed, the
architecture of the building including roof forms, colors and materials is compatible
with the roof forms, colors and materials of the existing and approved buildings in the
vicinity; and 5) as shown on the Landscape Plans, the proposed landscaping is
compatible with the existing and approved landscaping in the area incfuding
landscaping along Dub4in Boulevard and street trees which conform to the
requirements of the Dublin Transit Cenfer Plan.
2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district
being proposed in that: 1) the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning identified this
property as having the potential to be developed with office, housing and/or retail and
the proposed project will have high-density residential units which will conform to the
approved land use for the property; 2) the proposed development will result in a
density of 25.4 dwelling units per acre which is compatible with the High-Density.
Residential land use designations in the surrounding neighborhood; 3) the proposed
2
~ ~.~ n ~~3
density and height of the buildings (three stories) will be compatible with the height of
buildings in the surrounding area and will be compatible with the site which is located
near the Dublin/P(easanton BART station and a higher density is warranted to
encourage use of the station and to take advantage of the close proximity to the
public transit center; and 4) fhe proposed lot coverage of 47% is compatible with the
approved and future Dublin Transit Center deveiopments. _ -
3. The Planned Development Rezone wifh a related Stage 1 Development Plan
Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan will not adversely affect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to fhe public
health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed project will result in a high-
density residential project that is compatible with existing and future development in
the area as identified in the Dublin Transit Center Plan; 2) the site layout and design
of the proposed buildings (project site) is compatible with tfie site layout and design of
buildings in the neighborhood; and 3) as conditioned, the buildings will be operated in
such a manner as to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
4. The Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 9 Development Plan
Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan is consistent wifh the Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: 1) the proposed 105 townhouse units
are compatible with the approved uses for the site; 2) the overall.design of the project
is consistent with the design requirements discussed in the Dublin Transit Center
Plan; 3) the proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
because the Plan states that the Transit Center area should have a mix of uses and
should have a pedestrian friendly environment which the proposed project achieves
through the design of the residential project, site layout, and landscaping which
together promote the use of the street and create a more pedestrian friendly
environment; 4) the Proposed Project provides a new housing type that is not yet
present in the Transit Center area to serve the needs of residents and employees in
the neighborhood; 5) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Campus Office that allows for the flexible use of the property
as high density residential; 6) the proposed project is compatible with the General
Plan Implementing Policy 2.1.1.B which encourages high density residential projects
where higher density is compatible with the surrounding uses and the density of the
project is compatible with surrounding developments and a higher density in this case
is warranted due to the location of the BART station which is less than one quarter of
a mile from the property; and 7) the proposed project meets the intent of the Dublin
General Plan that discourages projects that do not relate well to the surrounding
developments and the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood which
includes office, high density residential and retail uses including mixed-use
developments which are ,located across the street from and adjacent to (future) the
property.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds that the
Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457 because it is a
residential project that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified. The
Project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dublin Transit
Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned .
Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2O01120395)
which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002. The City
3
a~~~= ~3
Council finds that no further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed
Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the
standards under CEQA section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 for the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met.
D. All of the above referenced resolutions and ordinances are incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours.
Section 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the folVowing property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development
district:
4.13 acres at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway
{APN 986-0034-011-00).
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
~'`~' "
F` AU11dE[1t
~,~y, ~( E t
fJ7~"'~~~O,l1ti'~ / \ CQUHI'Y
CRYOF „&3r• J ~
SAN RIWON !af-.- /
/ ~! ' " TI~S31-Y5M ~
CR~%X
~ . . CAS~PARI~ P~
Project Site ~ ~ !---J ~
~ e~w.
3 a
~" Da ~16 wa H
~ Jp.
pQ ~ ~ ~ G~ DUBLU) ~W. ~ .. - .
6 ¢mo~~ ' ~ ~, ouau a~vo.
CfTYOF ( WAY~ Y
- PIFJ.SIWTON 19ART. ~ ~
STATION '~
$ $~ ~ owvE
b - ~
~ a'
a
a ~ i
_ ~ ~p,s ~~,,,~p.
P~
LOCATION N9AP
Section 4. STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
The Stage 1 Development Plan is amended in the following locations:
Page 1.12: Add a- paragraph under the heading "Campus Office Uses": "!n order to
permif development on Site E;9 that responds to residential market conditions, it is
permissible for the site to have dual entitlements and for two separate . and distinct
projecfs fo recerve approvals for fhe same site. Should this situation occur, both projects
would need fo. be consistent with this Stage 9 Development Plan and the Development
Agreemenf prepared for. the project(s) would need to address fhe potential for either
project. Once_ a Developer commences with developmenf of one of the projects on Site
4
a 5 5~. ~ a2Q3
. -- i.
E-9, the rights relating fo the other projecf not developed shall be terminated. The term
"commences with development" shall mean the issuance of any building permit."
Pages 2.22 and 2.25: The project street frontage along Iron Horse Parkway is proposed
to change from a 18' wide sidewalk with 5' tree grate to a 16' sidewalk with a 5' tree
grate. The text on Page 2.22 and Street Section A-A on Page 2.25 will need to strike the
reference to 18' and replace with 16'.
Pages 2.28 and 2.29: The building setback along Martinelli Way is proposed to change
from 16' to variable. The text on Page 2.28 and Street Section E-E on Page 2.29 will
need to strike the reference to 16' and replace with "variable".
Pages 2.30_and 2.32: The project street frontage along Campus Drive is proposed to
change from a~ 2' sidewalk with a 6' tree grate to a 10' sidewalk with a 5' tree grate. The
fext on Page 2.30 and Street Section G-G on Page 2.32 will need to strike the reference
to 12' and replace with 10' and strike the reference to 6' and replace with 5'.
Section 5. STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the subject
property are set forth in the following Stage 2 Development Plan, which is hereby approved.
The Stage 2 Development Plan permits the developmerit of up to 105 townhomes pursuant to
an approved Site Development Review. Any amendments to the approved Stage 2
Development Plan shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
The Stage 2 Development Plan consists of the items and plans identified below.
1. Sfaterv~ent of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan
The project proposal includes an amendment to the existing Stage 1 Development Plan that was
appraved by the City Council in December 2002 via Ordinance 21-02. The 105=unit Esprit at
Dublin. Station project is consistent with the allowed land uses as well as the design
requirements discussed in the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan. Once the
amendment is approved through the adoption of this ordinance, the Stage 2 Development Plan
will be compatible with the Stage 1 Development Plan (as amended).
2. Sta4ernent of uses.
The Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Accessory, and Temporarily Permitted land uses
allowed under the Esprit at Dublin Station Planned Development zoning district include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Permitted Uses: .
Accessory uses (As permitted by Ordiriance 21-02, the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1
Planned Development Zoning Development Plan (PA 00-013) and with Chapter 8.40
(Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations) of .the Dublin Zoning Ordinance)
Community Care Facility/Small ,
Home Occupations (per Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance)
Multi-Family Dwel{ing
Private Recreation Facility (for homeowner's association and/or tenant's use)
Small Family Daycare Home ~
:~ ~ . a Sloo'~: p~-~..~: .
i
Temporarv Uses: ~ ~
Temporary Construction Trailer in accordance with Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Uses Permit
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Tract and Sales Office/Model Home Complex in accordance with Chapter 8.108 (Temporary
Uses Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
3. Stage 2 Site Plan
The Stage 2 Development Plan is shown below and is alsa included as Sheet SP-1 in the
Project Plan Set, dated received June 28, 2010, on file at the Community Development
Department. The site plan illustrates potential building envelopes.
~ • ~--~~--~-- --~--~-- ---=---~___..: T--=---- ----~--~--==--- --==--~~ _ _ ,: .
~---~ `'~---~.Zr~J- ~J
__= % = ~e1
~ ~o;1~r0C '
+3-I:0 la~pp vC0 ~ Ifia~: ' Ii+!:0 1Bsfp ~9~;Y 21 0~
~ _ - IRON INtSE PARKWAY ~ 1
1 ~; ~
~ ~ ~' i~
; ~ ,~~
~~ ~
~ ,
I ' ~
~ i ~ ~ty.
~ ~ L; ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
i ~ ~ ,~t~,
i ; ~ 3 ~:.:
~ ;1t.~
~ I ~
, I ~ ~.:.
~
~ ; i i'{-
~ ~ ,f~
~ 1t' ; ~1
l ~ ~~ ~"
~ ~~ i l,
~ ~ i ~ ,f<
~ S: ~
~
~ ~ r''~ ~
; I ~ ~; C 1~
i ~ li' ~ ~
i ~~ ~~,
i ~ . I~ ~
i
i ', I~ '
i
1~~ Ii r~ ~~
~i ~
l ' ~~i i
~~, ',~ i
U
;~i ~ ~
y ~t
! / / 1`
d_ _=..n k
4. Site area, proposed densities.
1~
~~
t
~~
~
,1
D
C
~
Y
O
~
~ o.
i
,i
`,i
,~
~
i
Land Use Designation Sife Net Number of Units Net Densify
A cres
Campus Office 4.13 105 25.4 du
(flex arcef)
6
_ ~ ~-~~~-~~
5. Development-Regulations.
The Development Regulations for the future development of the Esprit at Dublin Ranch project
are included below. ~
Develo ment Standard
Lot Area: +4.13 acres (net)
Setbacks: 8-20+ feet varies) alon Dublin Boulevard
varies feet alon iron Horse Pa~kway
varies feet alon Martinelli Wa
varies feet alon Cam us Drive
Sidev+ralk width 16 feet alon Iron Horse Parkwa
10 feet alon Cam us Drive
14 feet alon Martinelli Wa
17 feet alon Dublin Blvd
Hei ht Limits: 3 stories and 40 feet
Re uired Parkin :
Parkin re uired 158 s aces
Guest Parking (included
in total re uired 24 spaces
Lo# Covera e: 47%
Unit Summary:
Unit Type Sq. Ft. No. of Units
Plan 1- 2 Bedroom 1,174 5
~ Plan 2- 2 Bedroom 1,208 19
Plan 3- 2 Bedroom 1,440 23
Plan 4- 3 Bedroom 1,547 13
Plan 5- 3 Bedroom 1,610 45
Total Numbe r of Units 105
6. Architectural Standards.
The architectural concept for the project was to create a design that, when integrated with other
projects in the Dublin Transit Center, would create an "Urban Village," that would encourage
pedestrian movement and activity throughout the Transit Center. To achieve this, considerable
attention was focused at the base of the building. Residenfial stoops have been located~along
Iron Horse Parkway, Campus Drive, and Martinelli to activate the streets. Each stoop directly
ties to the sidewalk and has a porch located 3 to 4 feet above street level.
All of the units are three-story town-homes and are joined togetfier to form large buildings
around the site perimeter. This concept creates a strong street presence that contributes to the
project's urban character. Wood rafter tails, stacked stone, and trellis elements accent a mostly
stucco body and concrete roof tiles provide some weight to the building and help emphasize the
pedestrian portals that run through the buildings. ~
Pedestrian portals occur at the ground level of most building types and allow for pedestrian
connections from Martinelli Way through to the recreation facilities adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
7
~~~ ~ ~~3
Connections are also formed from Iron Horse Parkway and Campus Drive to the site's interior.
The pedestrian po~tals are provided to create both a visual fink to the interior of the project, as.
well as #o encourage pedestrian movement throughout the Transit Center.
Since Dublin Boulevard is a major thoroughfare, pedestrian connection to the street is
minimized. There are no units fronting this street. Instead, buildings and a six-foot screen wall
designed to compliment the architecture form this edge layered by landscaping. The
architectural design of the base of the building was alsa developed to encourage a pedestrian
scale. In addition to the stoop units and entry portals, the building was designed with a series of
arched openings at the base of the building to create a strong rhythm at the pedestrian level.
The pedestrian level is further complimented with ornamental railings and decorative light
fixtures to create human scale at the buildings' base.
The proposed architecture is compatible with the approved buildings in the Transit Center and
buildings in the area. Architectural detailing on the building is reflective of styles that are
prevalent in the City of Dublin. The massing and form of the buildings are also compatible with
the surrounding buildings. The proposed colors and materials include stucco siding with stacked
stone accent walls, tile roofs, wrought iron stair and porch railings, and decorative metal grills
over the pedestrian portals. The proposed stone and earth tones are compatible with the design
of this project as well as the adjacent buildings.
7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan
The Preliminary Landscape Plan is shown below and is also included as Sheet L-1 in the Project
Plan Set, dated received June 28, 2010, on file at the Community Development Department.
U! ~4 KatK!. ~Y~:tA':<-'
::.4nw ~:f.t
~~-t ~~~a
8. Other information
Inc(usionary Zoning regutations: The Inclusionary Zoning requirements for this
Project shall be as set forth in the Development Agreernent as_amended.
Section 6. Pursuant to fhe Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C, the use,
development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the
provisions of the closest comparable zoning district (R-M Mufti Family Residential Zoning
District) except as provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan. ~
Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dubfin shall cause the 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, APPROVED AND /~DOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 2"d
day of November 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
fVOES:
,4BSEfVT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
~-TTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#i2009\PA 09-002 Site E-1\CC 11 02 2010Wtt 1- PD Stage 2 Ord.DOC
9
~ ~ c~ ~-~3
ORDINANCE NO. XX -10
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING AIViENDMIENT 'i TO THE DEVELOPMEIVT AGREEMENT FOR DUBLIN
TRAfVSIT CENTER SITE E-1 (ESPRIT AT DUBLIN STATION) PA 09-002
THE CITY COUfVCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBL(iV DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOIIVS:
Section 1. RECITALS .
A. The_ proposed Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 ("Project") is located within the
boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") in an area, which is designated
on the General Plan Land Use Element Map, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map
for a combination of High Density Residential, Campus Office and Public/Semi Public land uses.
B. Pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Project is exempt
from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65457 which exempts residential projects
that are consistent with a specific plan from further environmental review. Additionally, the
,Project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transit
Center Generaf Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned
Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2O01120395)
which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002 (Transit
Center EIR). Furthermore, there are no supplemental impacts that would require preparation of
a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
C. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Western Pacific
Housing (doing business as D. R. Horton) was approved in March 2006 (Ordinance 5-06).
Amendment 1 to the Development Agreement has been presented to the City Council. The
Amendment is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A.
D. A public hearing on the proposed Amendment 1 to the Development Agreement
was held before the Planning Commission on September 14, 2010, for which public notice was
given as provided by law. ~
D. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for
approval of Amendment 1 to the Development Agreement (Resolution 10-39, incorporated
herein by reference).
. F. Public hearings on the proposed Development Agreement were held before the
City Council on October 5, 2010 and October 19, 2010, for which public notice was given as
provided by law.
~ G. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission
who considered the item at its September 14, 2010 meeting, including the Planning
Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in
writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. "
i'
a~ 1 ~-~~
Section 2. FlNDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein; (b)
the City of Dublin's General Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; (d) the
Specific Plan; (e) the Transit Center EIR; and (f) the Staff Report, and on the basis of the-
specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that:
1. The Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/Genera! Plan in that: a) the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan land use designation for the subject site is proposed to be
Planned Development and that the proposed Site E-1 residential development is consistent with
that designation; b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of
infrastructure and public services of the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan; c) the
Agreement sets forth the rules the Developer and City will be governed by during the
development process which is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2. The Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations
prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project
approvals include amended Planneci Development Rezone, Site Development Review and
Vesting Tentative IVlaps.
3. The Agreement is in conformify with public convenience, general welfare and good
land use practice in that the Developer's project will imp~ement land use guidefines set forth in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1
Development Plan. .
4. The Agreement will nof be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare-in
that the development will proceed in accordance with the Agreement and any Conditions of
Approval for the Project.
5. The Agreement will nof adversely atfect fhe orderly development of the property or
the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with the City of
Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan.
6. Pursuant to the California Environmental. Quality Act, the City Council finds that
the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457 because it
implements a residential project that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been
certified. The Project is within the scope of the certified Transit Center EIR. The City Council
finds that no further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project
because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards
under CEQA section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 for the preparation
of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met
Section 3. APPROVAL
l"he City Council hereby approves the Amenciment No. 1 to the Development Agreement
(Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it.
a~a~-~3
Section 4. RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement is fully
executed by ail parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for
recordation.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of
its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the 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 2~d day of
November 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
MOES:
ABSENT:~
A~STAIRI:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:1PA#120091PA 09-002 Sife E-11CC 11 02 20iD1Att 2-DA Ord.DOC
~~~ ~~3
}_ ,-
~ 0~°
~~ ~
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
C1TY OF DUBLIPV
When Recorded Mail To: `
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza - •
Dubiin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorder's use
AMENDMENT N~. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
WESTERN PAC1FiC HOUSING, INC.
FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER E-1 PROJECT
~
z c~ ~ o ~~3
THIS Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement Between the City
of Dublin and Western Pacific Housing ("Amendment") is made and entered in
the City of Dublin on this _ day of , 2010, by and between the City of
Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), and Western Pacific Housing,
Inc, a Delaware corporation, doing business as D.R. Horton (hereafter
"Develope~"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California
~ Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapte~ 8.56. City and Developer
are from time-to-time individually referred to in this Agreement as a"Party" and
are collectively referred to as 'Parties".
RECiTALS
1. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of
the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter
into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a
legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain
development rights in such property. -
2. Developer desires to develop and holds legal interest in certain real
property consisting of approximately 4.1 acres of land, located in the City of
Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly
described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
and which real property is hereafter called the "Property". The Property is
generally known as the "Transit Center Site E-1" and is part of the Transit Center
Property located adjacent to the Dublin BART station.
3. Pursuant to that authority, City and Developer entered into that
certain "Development Agreement Between the Gity of Dublin and Western Pacific
Housing, Inc for the Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 Project", dated February 7,
2006 and recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County ("official Records")
on March 10, 2006, as document number 2006-090936 ("the Agreement").
4. Developer previously proposed the development of the Property
with 300 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of ground floor
retail. The City approved various land use approvals in connection with the
development of the Property, and the Agreement referred to the proposal and the
associated development approvals as, respectively, "the Project" and "the Projeet
Approva4s." The "Project Approvals" included, without limitation, a Stage 2.
Development Plan (Ord. No: 4-06), Site Development Review (City Council
Resolution No. 6-06) and a vesting tentative parcel map (Planning Commiss'ion
Resolution No. 05-68). The Project Approvals remain in effect.
5, Developer now proposes the development of the Property with .105
~~ residential units as an alternative approval ("the Alternate ProjecY'): Th'e
Developer has applied for, and the City has approved or is processing, various
' land use approvals in connection with the development of the Alternate Project,
Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Western
Pacific Housing for the Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 Project Page 2 of 5
Z~'~ ~ ~' ~-.3
including, without limitation, a Planned Development Rezoning (Ord. No. ),
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan Amendments (Ord. No. _), Site Developmenf
Review (City Councii Resoiution No. ), and a Vesting Tenta#ive Tract Map
(Planning Commission Resolution No.lo 3. All such approvais collectively,
together with any approvals or permits now or hereinafter issued with respect to
the Alternate Project as referred to as the "Alternate Project Approvals". Under
the proposed entitlements, the Developer will have the option of proceeding with
development under either the Project Approvais or Alternate Project Approvals.
6. Section 9:3 of the Agreement requires that the Agreement be
amended where the density or intensity of uses or term of the Agreement are
amended. Developer requests amendments to the Agreement regarding the.
density of uses under the Alternate Project Approvals, an extension of the
existing term by seven years, an amendment to the affordable housing
obligations for the Property, and a provision on a public art fee. The Parties
agree that these revisions require an amendment to the Agreement.
7. The City Council has found that, among other things; the
Agreement, as amended, is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with
Chapter 8,56.
8. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express
herein an Amendment to the Agreement that wili facilitate development of the
Project subject to conditions set forth herein; and
9. On , 2010, the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopted Ordinance No. approving this Amendment. The ordinance took
effect on , 2010 ("the Amendment Effective Date").
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in
consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein
contained, City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
Section 1. The terms of the Agreement are amended as follows so that
all terms applicable to the Project and Project Approvals, as defined in the
Agreement, shall apply to the Alternate Project and Alternate Project Approva(s
as defined in this Amendment. All ~eferences to "ProjecY' in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 14.2, and 20 of the Agreement are amended to read "Projecf or Alternate
ProjecY'. All references to "Project Approvals" in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14.2,
and 20 of the Agreement are amended to read "Project Approvals or Alternate
Project Approvals". Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Agreement and
Amendment shall not create any right for Developer to proceed with development
of both the Project and Alternate Project on the Property. Once the Developer
Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Western
Pacific Housing for the Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 Project ~ Page 3 of 5
zc~ ~ ~~3
commences with development of either the Project or Alternate Project, the rights
under the Agreement relating to the other project not developed shall be
terminated. For the purposes of this Agreement, "commences with development"
means the issuance of any building permit.
Section 2. Section 4.2 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
"4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the
Approvai Date and shall terminate twelve (12) years thereafter on
March 9, 2018, unless said term is otherwise terminated or
modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement."
Section 3. Section 10 of the Agreement is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
"10 Term of Proiect Approvals and Alternate Proiect Approvals.
The term of the Project Approvals and• Alternate Project Approvals are
extended for the term of the Agreement subject to the provisions of
Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, once the
Developer commences with development of either the Project or Alternate
Project, the extension of the term of the project approvals under the
Agreement for the other project not developed shall be terminated. For
the purposes of this Agreement, "commences with development" means
the issuance of any building permit.
Section 4. Amendment to Exhibit B. Exhibit B to the Agreement is
hereby replaced in its entirety with Exhibit 2 fo this Amendment.
Section 5. Counterparts. This Amendment is executed in two (2)
duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.
Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Westem
Pacific Housing for the Dublin Transit Center Site E-1 Project Page 4 of 5
a t~7 r~ ~o~~,
,
Section 6. Recordation. City sliall record a copy of this Amendment
within ten (10} days foliowing execution by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be executed as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF DUBLIN:
By: Date:
Tim Sbranti, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jofin Bakker, City Attorney
Date:
WESTERN f'ACIFIC HQUSING INC.
a Delaware Corporation
~Y~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ., ,~ ~ k .i~t _ ..,. Q~te: i ' ~ t c:~~ ..
.~'~ ___ _... __
[aean {<. UliNs,./lssistant Vice F'resident
(NOTARl~ATl~N A7~TACHEU)
Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement Between fhe City of Dublin and Western
Pacifiic Housing for the Dublin 7ransit Center Site E-1 Project Page 5 of 5
_ Exhibit 1
Legal Description of Dubiin Transit Center Site E-1 Property
Real property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California,
described as follows: ~
Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map 7892, filed April 14 2005, in book 280 of
Parcel Maps, Pages 83 85 in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County,
Assessor's Parcel Number 986-0034-011-00. ~
Z ~ ~c~3
Print
h[tp://us. rng4.mai I.yahoo. con~/dc/I aunch?.gx=1 &. rand=7s7933 rc i 87Gv
F'rom: odhill~)aol.com (odhill u,aol.com)
To: ~slittlehale(u~nccrc.or~;
Uatc: Mon, March 21, 201 1 5:20:40 PM
Cc: jcff.baker@ci.dublin.ca.us; richard(u~lorcaudrury.com;
Subjcct: Re: Dublin "I'ransit Ccnter I Iaz mat Pliasc I(and 1I, it~ applicablc)
Scott:
In researching your request further, the.Mitigation Measure states that each individual site is responsible to conduct their own Phase 1 Assessment at the
time of grading activity. There has been no grading activity on the subject site, in fact the site is currently operating as a parking lot. The Phase 1 will be
conducted once.the grading activity begins.
Mike Porto
-----Original Message----- .
From: Scott Littlehale <slittlehale@nccrc.org>
To: odhill <odhill@aol.com>
Cc: jeff.baker <jeff.baker@ci.dublin.ca.us>; richard <richard@lozeaudrury.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:37 pm
Subject; Dublin Transit Cenfer Haz mat Phase I(and II, if applicable)
Mr. Porto:
The DEIR references on the attached oaae a mitinatinn mPac~~rP fnr tha fl~iF~lin Tr~ngjt ronfor .,~,,;~,.~ ~„ ;.~ ~~,,,.„ ~,.,.,., ~:.,.,:..~._a ~~___ ,,,
r.,~ .,~...,. ~.,y^u~~ i^y^ ~ ~~QOC ~ ~ai i~., ii u n~watcu, a ri iaaC i. i ~
Environmentai Site Assessment.
Neither the staff at the counter today - nor Public Works staff - could assist me in obtaining a review copy of the Phase I study
I request by this e-mail a copy of the Phase I and the opportunity to inspect the document at the City offices.
Thank you'very much,
Scott
Scott Littlehale
Senior Research-Analyst
o/b/o Carpenters Local Union No. 713
(510) 376-9506
~
~
~
~r ~
W
> 1 of2
3/22/201 1 I I:57 Af~i
RESOLUTION NO. XX-11 °~, ~ °~~`3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*****************************
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7929 AND FINDING THE PROJECT
EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR
AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES, SITE C,
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER
(APN 986-0054-005-02)
PA 06-060
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Avalon Bay Communities, submitted applications for an area
of approximately 7.21 acres known as Dublin Station, Site C within the Dublin Transit Center
(PA 06-060) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and ~
WHEREAS, the project site generally is located north of the East Dublin BART Station,
east of Iron Horse Trail, generally west of Iron Horse Parkway, and -immediately south :of
Campbell Green within the previously approved Dublin Transit Center; and ' ~
WHEREAS, the Dublin Transit Center project (PA 00-013) was approved by tlie City
Council on December 3, 2002, by Ordinance 21-02 adopting a PD-Stage 1 Planned
Development. The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone provided for various land uses
including the development of residential units and commercial deyelopment; and .
WHEREAS, the Applicant applied for a PD-Stage 1 Development Plan amendment and
Stage 2 Development Plan in accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.32, and for
Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7929 and a Development Agreement for
505 residential units on Site C of the Dublin Transit Center. The application for Site
Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map are collectively referred to herein as the
"Project"; and
WHEREAS, the complete applications submitted are available and on file in the
Community Development Department; and. ,. . , , .. .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project on March 22,
2011; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
approve the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map subject to the findings
and conditions set therein; and
WHEREAS, staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the Project is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Government Code section
65457 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182 as a residential project that is consistent with a
Specific Plan for which an EIR has been certified. The Project is a residential project consistent
Attachment 11
a,~.~~3
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Transit Center Project (Specific Plan)
and implements the Specific Plan. The City previously certified an Environmental Impact Report
for the Specific Plan by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002 - Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Trarisit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map,
and Development Agreement (SCH 2O01120395). None of the standards under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 for preparation
of a subsequent or suppfement EIR have occurred or are met for the Project. No further
environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, the P{anning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking action; and
WHEREAS, among other actions, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 11-09
finding the Project exempt from CEQA and approving Site Development Review and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 7929 for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2011, the Carpenters Local 713 filed an appeal ("Appeal") of the
Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-09 approving Site Development Review and
Vesting Tentative Tracfi Map 7929 for the Project; and~ ' ~r"
WHEREAS, a City Council Staff Report and attachments, dated May 17, 2011 and
incorporated herein'~'by reference, analyzed and responded to the Appeal issues. The Staff
Report sets forth the basis for rejecting each ground for Appeal. In the Staff Report, staff
recommended that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission decision in Resolution 11=
09 and deny the Appeal; and ~
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project and
the Appeal on May 17, 2011; and '
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered alt said reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking action.
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 hereby makes the following Findings
of Fact, affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Review and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 7929 for Avalon Bay Communities, Site C in the Dublin Transit Center in
accordance with Resolution 11-09. The evidence supporting the findings is contained in the
record as a whole, including the Staff Report and attachments thereto which are incorporated
herein by this reference. The findings and Conditions of Approval under Planning Commission
Resolution 11-09 also are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Proiect is Exempt from GEQA
The Project is exempt from CEQA under Government Code section 65457 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15182 as a residential project that is consistent with a Specific Plan for which
an EIR has been certified. The Project is a residential project consistent with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment for the Transit Center Project (Specific Plan). and implements the
Specific Plan. The City previously certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Specific
~-~3~~3
Plan by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002 - Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and
Development Agreement (SCH 2O01120395) (Specific Plan EIR or EIR).
The Project is a residential project because it consists of 505 residential units and
ancillary parking and fitness center uses. The parking and fitness center are to serve the
residences of the Project. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan because the Plan
allows up to 1500 residential units on Sites A, B and C. The Project will result in 505 units on
Site C. The Project. includes a reduction of maximum units on Site A, so that the overall
maximum number of residential units on Sites A, B and C is 1500 units. The 1,500 unit
maximum under the PD Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment is consistent with the
Specific Plan. The reallocation of the 1,500 units between Sites A, B and C also is
consistent with the Specific Plan. Note 4 of the Proposed Land Use Table (p. 1.13) states:
"Maximum square footage and maximum units per site can be exceeded, as long as the
total square footage or units is not". (City Council Ordinance No. 21-02 Approving a Stage 1
Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Center Project (Section 3).) The environmental
review for the Project is the Specific Plan EIR certified by the City Council in 2002. ~
. There is no substantial evidence in tfie' record showing that the standards for preparation
of a subsequent or supplement EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA ~:
Guidelines Sections 15162 or. 15163 have occurred or are met for the Project. The CEQA :
~ standards for a subsequent EIR are narrow. Since an EIR has been certified for the Projecf, ~~ ~
CEQA creates a~presumption that no subsequent EIR is required unless certain limited
exceptions are met. The existence of these exceptions must be supported by substantial
evidence. An explanation of why each of the subsequent EIR standards are not met is provided
below.
There are no substantial changes to the Project requiring major revisions to the Specific
Plan EIR due to new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects than
previously identified in the EIR. The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan and no
amendments to the Specific Plan are required for Project approval. There is no substantial
evidence of substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
requiring major revisions of the EIR due to new significant or substantially more severe
environmental effects than previously identified in the EIR. The circumstances under which the
Project is undertaken are substantially the same ~and any changes do not result in a new or
substantially greater impact from those identified in the EIR. There is no substantial evidence of
new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified,
showing any of the following: (i) new significant or substantially more severe environmental
effects than previously identified in the EIR; (ii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or (iii) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative.
a-~~~~-~3
Site Development Rev,iew
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General
Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: The proposed site
design for the development of the Dublin Station project, as conditioned, is consistent with
Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, complies with the policies of the General Plan,
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Stage 1 Planned Development zoning, the Stage 2
Development Plan, and with all other requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that it will
create housing opportunities; establish ancillary retail/commercial devetopment; and allow for
proper maintenance and emergency access.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provision of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
8.104, Site Development Review of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that it provides a well
designed project in relation to BART, other development in the area, and the Campbell Green.
C. The. design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot on which the project is proposed because it is within the context of
development in the area; it is consistent with the Dublin Transit Center area development, and
continues with implementation of the plan adopted with Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone
Amendment by.; coordinating improvements, circulation, and 'housing opportunities with the ,~~
adjacent properties. .-~ ~: .. ~
~ D: The subject site is: physically suitable~for the type and intensity of the approved ~.-.
development because it.provides high-density housing, continues the envisioned development
pattern for the Dublin Transit Center which is~within the recommended density for the site.
E. Impacts to the existing slopes and topography are addressed as the site is
predominately flat and drainage has been accommodated into an underground collection
system and conveyed away from the property.
F. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the
design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials. and colors, and similar elements result in a project
that is harmonious with its .surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity,
have been incorporated into the project, and as conditions of approval, in order to ensure
compatibility with the design concept or theme and ~ the character of adjacent buildings within ~~
and adjacent to the project.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to
ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrian, and automobiles.
Vestinq Tentative Tract Map
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances.
~~5 ~-~~3
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is
consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, as it relates
to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation the Dublin Transit Center, a
community of various uses (including residential, commercial and campus office), in an area
designated for this type of development.
C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Planned Development zoning and is therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map will have
adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Dublin Transit
Center Master Plan and development in progress on surrounding and adjacent properties.
E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of
the project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map to minimize overgrading
and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable .
for the type and intensity of development proposed.
F. The Mitigation .Monitoring . program adopted with the Dublin .Transit Center.°'
Environmental Impacf Report would be applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating~?
any potential environmental impacts identified.. .
G.. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, will not result in environmental damage ,
or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns.
H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the
public at large, or access thcough or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City :
Engineer has reviewed the maps and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of
this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City ~Council hereby denies the Appeal of the
Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-09 approving the Site Development Review
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7929 for the Project. The particular grounds for denying the
appeal are set forth in the record as a whole, including the staff report and attachments thereto
:- ~ which are incorporated.herein by~this~reference: ~~':-~i~~~ ~ ~' ~-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ° . ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ '~ ~r~~ ~ ~~~
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
~`~ cv ~~$ 3
STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 12
AVALON BAY - VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
CEQA EYEMPTION
RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL BY CARPENTERS LOCAL 713
The Appellants raise numerous objections to the use of the California Environmental
Qualiry Act (CEQA) exemption under Government Code section 65457 for the approval of the
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review (Project). Each of the main grounds
raised in the Appeal are addressed below. None of the issues raised in the Appeal have merit.
The Project qualifies for the exemption under Government Code secrion 65457.
1. Project i.r con.ri.rtent zvith the Dublin Tran.cit Center Specific Plan
The Appellants claim that the approval of the Project is inconsistent with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Transit Center Project (Specific Plan) because (1) the
Project will result in 1,800 residenrial units in the Specific Plan area which are allegedly in excess
of the 1,500 units autlzorized under the Plan; (2) the transfer of 100 units from Site A to Site C is
not authorized under the Specific Plan and is a substantial change in the Plan; and (3) the Project
results in a change to the rnixed use project under the Plan because it does not include
commercial development.
The Specific Plan allows up to 1,800 residential units -1,500 units on areas designated
High Density Residential (Sites A, B and C), and up to 300 units on Sites D-1 and E-1 which are
designated "flex" sites for office or residential development. Under the Specific Plan, Sites D-1
and E-1 could be developed with up to 300 units consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan policies which allow areas designated for Campus Office uses to be developed for
residential use. In 2010, the City approved a dual entitlement on Site E-1 that allows the
development of a project of either approximately 105 units or a ma~mum 300 units on the Site
(the Espirt Project).
The Project is consistent with the overall 1,800 units allowed in the Transit Center ~site. `'
The maximum total amount of residential units allowed on Sites A, B and C under the Specific
Plan is 1,500. Consistent with the Specific Plan, the proposed Project is within the 1,500 unit
allowance. It reallocates 100 units to Site C from Site A. The ma~mum 1,500 unit total is
maintained by reducing the maxirrium units allowed on Site A by 100 units to 430 units under
the PD zoning. This reallocation of units on Sites A, B and C is specifically authorized . Note 4
of the Proposed Land Use Table (p. 1.13) states: "Maximum square footage and maxirrium units
per site can be exceeded, as long as the total square footage or units is not". (Ciry Council
Ordinance No. 21-02 Approving a Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Center
Project (Secrion 3).) The PD amendment is consistent with the Specific Plan because it
maintains the 1,500 unit total maximum by reallocating the 1,500 units between the Sites.
The Project does not change the miYed use nature of the Specific Plan. The primary
component of the mixed use development under the Specific Plan is the designation of certain
1
ATTACHMENT 12
~~~r ~'~3
areas for residential use and certain areas for office uses. Consistent with the Specific Plan
designation for Site C, it is being developed as a High Density Residential use. The fact that the
proposed Project does not include ground floor retail uses is not inconsistent ~vith the Specific
Plan. Ancillary retail uses along Iron Horse Parkway are "encouraged" and may be permitted,
but are not required under the Specific Plan. (Specific Plan, Section 4.9.10; See also, Ciry Council
Ordinance No. 21-02 Approving a Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Center
Project (Section 3), p. 1.13.) Although retail spaces are not included as part of the Project at this
time, several of the ground floor residential units along Iron Horse Parkway and all of the units
fronting the Central Plaza have been designed so that they may be converted into a retail use in
the future depending on market conditions. So; the Project does not preclude future retail uses
along Iron Horse Parkway. The PD Zoning (which implements the Specific Plan) recognizes
that "retail uses in the Transit Center will not be economically viable until much of the
development is in place and workers and residents are occupying the new development". ( Ciry
Council Ordinance No. 21-02 Approving a Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Transit
Center Project (Section 3)„ p. 1.13.) Therefore, it allows uses other than retail on the ground
floor in spaces that may be converted to future retail uses.
,. Overall, the Project is consistent with the Specific Plan and does not come close to
~ : substantially changing the project under. the Specific Plan. ~
' 2. Project avill not result in nezv .rignific•ant im~iact.r than tho.re disclo.red in Speczfic Plan EIK
The Appellants claim that the Project will result in new or greater significant impacts
than those disclosed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan cerrified by City
Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002 (Specific Plan EIR or EIR).
Therefore, Appellants argue that a suppleriiental or subsequent EIR is required. However, the
CEQA standards for a subsequent EIR are narrow. Since an EIR has been certified for the
Project,. CEQA creates a presumption that no subsequent EIR is required unless certain limited ~
eXCeptions are met. The e~stence of these exceptions must be supported by substantial
evidence.
The exceprions are:
(1) ~ Subsfantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the previous ~EIR
due to new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects than previously
identified in the EIR;
(2) Substantial.changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
requiring major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant or substantially more
severe environmental effects than previously identified in the EIR; or
(3) New informarion of substanrial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the rime the previous EIR was
certified, shows any of the following:
(i) new significant or substanrially more severe environmental effects than
previously identified in the EIR;
(u) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasiUle
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but tlle project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
2
a~~rro~ ~S3
~~1 ~t c~ .~ ~"~
(iii) Mitigation measures or alternarives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative:
The Appellants have not presented substantial evidence to show that any of these exceptions
e~st. Each of the alleged grounds raised by Appellants for triggering the requirement for a
subsequent EIR are addressed below.
a. There are No Substantial Chan~es to Project from That Anal~zed in EIR That
Result in New or More Severe Significant Im~acts ,
Appellants allege that the Project will result in greater impacts due to "substanrial
changes" in the Project. The "changes" Appellants allege are the increase in units on Site C
from 405 to 505 and the increase in allowed units from 1,500 to 1,800. The Appellants alleged
project "changes". are not changes because they are specifically authorized under the Specific .
Plan. As discussed above in Section 1, the Specific Plan allows an increase in the units
allocated to Site C as long as the overall residenrial units on Sites A, B and C do not exceed
:1,500. The.505 units on Site C do not exceed the 1,500 unit limit because the 100 unitincrease •.
on.Site C is:offset by a 100 unit decrease on Site A.. Therefore, the overall unit count for Sites~~ ~
A, B and C remains 1,500 units and the impacts of 1,500 units was analyzed in the EIR. Also, as ~~
discussed above in Section 1, the Project does not.increase the overall residential units under the ~
Specific Plan from 1,500 to 1,800. The Specific Plan allowed up to 1,800 units - 1,500 units on
Sites A, B and C and 300 units on Sites D-1 and E-1. The EIR analyzed impacts of the full
development of 1,800 units .(EIR, pp. 10). In any event, the approval of the 300 flex units is not .
part of tlie Project being approved by the Ciry at this time. The 300 flex units on Site E-1 were .... .
apprdved by the City in 2010 as part of the Esprit Project. That decision is fmal and beyond ..
challenge. The Appellants are not permitted to raise issues relating to the CEQA review for the:
Esprit Project as part of this Project. Therefore, the Project does not constitute a"substantial
change" to the Project analyzed in the EIR and does not trigger the requirement for a
subsequent EIR due to Project changes.
Even if the reallocation of 100 units to Site C from Site A was considered a"substantial
change", it would not result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts. The
Appellants make'the asserrion thaf the transfer in units to Site C will result in greater traffic, air ~~' '`
quality and cumulative impacts. These assertions are not supported by any facts, let alone
substantial evidence. Sites A& C are located across the street from each other. The distance
between the Sites is about 40 feet at its nearest point. There is simply no substantial eviclence in
the record that this minor permitted change will result in substantially more severe impacts than
disclosed and analyzed in the EIR.
(i) Traffic - The alleged traffic impacts due to locating certain units on one
Site rather than the other are negligible and do not come close to meeting the substantially more
severe standard. According to the City traffic engineer, the ingress and egress routes to off-site
locations for residents on the two Sites is essenrially the same and would not charige the impacts
identified in the EIR. The minor change in unit location would also not result in substantial
new impacts to the intersections adjacent to the BART station. The issues raised at the
September 14, 2010 Planning Commission did not establish new significant impacts on the
3
~ ~n ~~~-3
streets adjacent to the BART station. Rather, the concerns raised related to access in and out of
driveways. The.City Traffic Engineer and Traffic Safery Committee reviewed the issue and
concluded that the impacts were not significant and were due to interim conditions. These
condirions will not eYist when the Transit Center site is built out as was analyzed in the EIR. See
discussion in Secrion 2b below for more detailed analysis of this issue.
(u) Air uali - The Appellants allege that the Project will have greater
impacts on ozone (ROG) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to fhe alleged greater number of
units allowed than analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR. As discussed above, the argument is
factually incorrect because the Project does not increase the number of units allowed under the
Specific Plan. It will result in the same number of overall units that was analyzed in the EIR.
The EIR identified the Project's impact on ozone (ROG) as significant and unavoidable since
the Project exceeded the BAAQMD threshold of 80 pounds per day. 'I'he Project also exceeds
the significance threshold for ozone (ROG) adopted by BAAQMD in 2010 which is 54 pounds
per day. So; the impact of the Project on ozone remains the same as identif ed in the EIR -
significant and unavoidable.
. On GHGs, Appellants argue that tlie increased units will cause greater~..
~ impacts due to GHGs which require prepararion of a subsequent EIR. However, as .discussed .
above, the Project does not increase the number of units from those allowed under the Specific .•
Plan. and analyzed under the EIR. Appellants also argue that since the number of units
approved by the Project (505 units) exceed the B~QMD screening threshold for GHG
analysis of 87 units, a supplemental.EIR is required since the Specific Plan EIR did not analyze ~
GHGs. However, CEQA does not require the analysis of this "new significant impact" unless it •
based on new information that "was no.t known and could not have been known with the ~
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time..the previous EIR" was cerrified. The EIR was
cerrified in 2002. In 2002, informarion about the potenrial impacts of GHGs was widely known.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively.
debated and analyzed tihroughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted
in the adoprion of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate
change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the
California Climate Acrion Registry for the recordarion of greenhouse gas emissions to provide
' information abouE potenrial environmental impacts': Therefore; the impact of greenhouse gases '
on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EIR in November 2002.
Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR.
No environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Even if the impact of the Project's greenhouse gas emissions was required
to be considered under CEQA, it would be less than significant since tlie Project is consistent
with the City's Climate Acrion Plan. In October 2010, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) in accordance with CEQA requirements and BAAQNID's CEQA Guidance. The GHG
emissions from the Transit Center Project were included in the Climate Action Plan. The Ciry
adopted a negative declaration for the Climate Action Plan finding the impacts of the CAP
would be less than significant. The CAP serves as the Ciry's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and
programmatic tiering document for tlie purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The Ciry has determined that the reducaon target
4
~~~o~~~
under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to less than significant
under CEQA (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact). Therefore, CEQA allows the Climate Action Plan to be used for
the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by the
Plan. As such, it satisfies CEQA review requirements for the Project. Since the Project
emissions were included in the Plan and the Project is consistent ~vith the applicable emission
reduction measures identified in the Specific Plan and included in the CAP, the Project would be
considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable
contriburion to significant cumularive impact) due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5,
15064 and 15130 and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and GHG Significance
Thresholds. In fact, the Project is exacdy the type of project which reduces greenhouse gas
emissions - an infill, transit-oriented, high-densiry residential project as part of an overall mixed
use development.
(ui) Cumularive Im~acts - The Appellants allege that the Project will
result in new cumulative impacts not analyzed in the EIR due to the addition of 400 units by the
Project (100 units to Site C and 300 units on Site E-1). However, as describecl in detail above, ~
the Project will result in the same number of units analyzed in t~ie EIR - maximum 1,800 units '-
overall. ~The Specific Plan:has always allowed~up to 1,800 units and the Project does not charige.. ~:.~ ~ •
or exceed this amount. There is no ~change in~ the Project analyzed in the ~EIR triggering the ~ 3
requirement for a supplemental EIR under CEQA. -
b. There is No New Informarion that Could Not Have Been Known in 2002 that
Shows New or Substantiall~ More Severe Significant Im~acts
The Appellants allege impacts due to new information in tllree areas: (1) greenhouse
gases; (2) cancer risks from roadways; and (3) traffic.
~ As discussed in Section 1(a)(u), the potential impacts of greenhouse gases is not new
information that could not have been known in 2002. No supplemental EIR is required to
analyze this impact.
Similarly, the health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was known in 2002. The
~~ 1999 BAAQMD CEQA ~Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter
as a toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There
were several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to
residences living close to freeways. (See, studies cited in CARB's 2005 "Air Qualiry and Land
Use Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to address impacts to
sensitive receptors (sucfi as residences) to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources
such as a high volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 47). BAAQMD said that
these impacts should be analyzed based on best available information. Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines in effect in 2002 also listed exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
levels of to~c air contaminants as a potentially significant impact. This significance threshold
was included in the EIR (Specific Plan EIR, p. 48). Since potential health impacts due to
exposure to diesel exhaust was known or could have been known in 2002, then this is not new
information that requires the preparation of a supplemental EIR. The Appellants also cannot
~~zp~~~
challenge the sufficiency of the analysis of toxic air contaminants in the already cerrified EIR
under the supplemental EIR standards. (ALARM v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 CA4th 1773.)
The recently updated informarion from CARB and BAAQMD on health impacts of
diesel exhaust and the BAAQMD CEQA significance standards do not trigger the requirement
for supplemental environmental revie`v under CEQA. These new standards not identify TACs
as a"new significant impact". This adverse health impact was already known and the new
informarion only refined the type and level of analysis. This type of information and new
regulatory standards is not new information triggering supplemental environmental review under
CEQA. In addition, the new BAAQMD significance thresholds for TACs are not applicable to
the Project because they took effect on May 1, 2011. Per BAAQMD policy, the new thresholds
only apply to projects for which environmental analysis began after the effective date of the
regulations.
Appellants allege that comments on traffic conditions within the Specific Plan area raised
at the September 2010 Planning Coinmission meering consritute new information of a new
significant impact. Appellants' argurnents fail because they mischaracrize the nature of the
comments and the Ciry Traffic Engineer reviewed the rraffic conditions and determined that
~'they do not present significant traffic impacts. The traffic comments raised at the September
meering related to an~internal circularion issue on limited.streets with the Transit Center area, in
particular; delays experienced by. residents using DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway
in the morning. The Ciry Traffic Engineer and Traffic Safery Committee reviewed the issues
raised and determined that they were due to interim condirions 'at the Transit Center. The
delays were being experience at a.time when all the roadways improvements in the Transit
Center were not completed. The new West Dublin BART station opening had been delayed
(the station is now open). The structured parking~garage.had recendy opened and some BART
surface parking lots that will be closed in the future remained open. Synchronized timing plans
along Dublin Boulevard were being adjusted. These interim conditions caused some level of
delay for residents e~ting the area in the morning. However, these conditions will not e~cist
when the Transit Center roadway improvements are completed. Based on the expert opinion of
the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Safery Committee, the limited delays on certain internal streets
at certain rimes do not constitute significant impacts under the City traffic standards and are the
result of interim conditions that are temporary in~nature.
. . . ~ ..., - ~ .. ,. •..
c. A~bellants Pro~osed Mirigation Measures Do Not Meet The CEOA
Standards for Rec~uirin~ Su~lemental EIR
~ ~.
. ~ . . ~9:: . .~. .
Under CEQA, a supplemental EIR is only required due to "new" mitigation
measures if the following elements are met: the mitigarions are based on new informarion of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise
of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified and either (1) previously
infeasible mitigation measures are found to be feasible and the.mirigarion would substanrially
reduce a significant impact and the project proponent declines to adopt; or (2) mitigation
measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects on the environment and the project proponent declines to
adopt. The Appellants "laundry list" of mitigation measures do not meet this narrow standard.
6
~`~ ~ o-F Z~~
The t~ppellants object to the sufficiency of the mitigation measure for potential
hazardous materials tliat was included in the EIR. This is an attack on the adequacy of
mitigation measures contained in an alread~y certified EIR which is not permitted under CEQA.
(ALARM v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 CA4th 1773). These issues should have been raised
at the time of the certification of the EIR. CEQA bars objections to the adequacy of analysis or
mitigation measures in already certified EIRs in implementing project approvals. The
Appellants do raise any argument that meet the supplement EIR standards for mitigarion of
hazards.
The Appellants also list a series of "new" mitigation measures to address air quality
impacts from construction or operations. However, none of these mitigations are based on new
information that could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified in 2002. None of
them are based on new technologies that were not known or available in 2002. For example,
proposed measures which were clearly known in 2002 include: prepare traffic control plan,
provide on-site lunch, implement carpool program for construction workers; locate construction
equipment away from sensitive receptors, and planting trees. The various so-called "green"
measures are based on LEED measures that were published in March 2000. In addition, some
measures are not feasible such.as crearion of wind~turbine or solar.farms for Project energy ' r~
needs. The Appellants Eails.to::provide any evidence to show;tliat the listed mirigation measures ~ ~
are considerably different from those included in the EIR or will substanrially reduce air qualiry
impacts. These are elements of the standards for requiring a subsequent EIR due to "new"
mirigation measures that must be shown. Even though the supplemental EIR standards are not
met for these mitigations, many of the measures are part of~ the construction and operation plans
for the Project or already required as condirions of approval. These include, but are not limited
to, various construcrion measures to reduce~air quality impacts and compliance with LEED
N/C and the California Green Building Standards Gode. The Project also includes the
following measures during the construction phase that are listed~in the Appellants' letter as
measures to reduce air quality impacts: on-site electrical service for hand tools; preparation of a
traffic control plan; consolidation of truck deliveries when possible; establish staging area for
trucks waiting to load and unload material at the work zone in a location where diesel emissions
from the trucks will have minimum impact on abutters and the general public; locate ~
construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to buildings, air
conditioners and operable windows; provide on-site lunch, e.g., a lunch wagon; and recycle
construction and demolitiori waste. Tlie Project and overall Transit Ceriter development include '~
the following measures during the operational phase that are listed in the Appellants' letter as
measures to reduce air quality impacts: charging starions in Project parking faciliries for electric
cars; pedestrian and bike paths located and designed to allow safe walking and bicycling; and
transit and bus service available to population and work centers. Overall, as an infill, transit-
oriented, high density development, the Project incorporates many measures to reduce its
impacts on air qualiry.
1639269.1