Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 WDub BART SPCITY CLERK FILE # 410-55 . AGENDA ,STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 21, 2000 · SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan; PA 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan; and, PA 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan, Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, and repeal of portions of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Report Prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner) ATTACHMENTS: 1)' 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) S) 9) 10) West Dublin BART Specific Plan (previously received by Council) Downtown Core Specific Plan (previously received by Council) Village Parkway Specific Plan (previously received by Council) Comment Letters from Ken and Marc Harvey; William Bums representing Crown Chevrolet with Staff Responses; Julia Hurd of the Target Corporation; Robert Enea of St. Michael Investment; Erin Kvistad of McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP representing the PFRS Dublin Corp; James Roachelle of MDM Architects; Ralph Martin of Village Parkway Properties; T.J. Albrecht, Jr., San Ramon resident Planning Commission Staff Reports from September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000, and October 24, 2000 meetings. Approved Planning Commission Resolutions Planning Commission Minutes from September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000 meetings Village Parkway Property Owner's Minutes from November 9, 2000 Meeting Memorandums from George Nickelson of Omni-Means Memorandums from Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department regarding the proposed alignment of Village Parkway RECOMMENDATION:/ 1) Open the public hearing ""ncu~des~ 2~~ Rece!ve Staff pres. entation and public testimon. y . . This application i on erati 1 i framework for revitalizing and improving the downtown area of Dublin. General Plan Amendments to add a Mixed-Use designation category, to re-designate some land uses, and to modify the maximum allowable F.A.R.'s for the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans areas, and the repeal of portions of the existing Downtown Dublin Specific Plan related to Development Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11, are also being proposed to assist in the implementation of the three proposed Specific Plans. .COPIES TO: PA File Village Parkway!Task Force Robert Enea ITEM NO. ~II~ Description of Specific Plans As noted above, three draft Specific Plans have been drafted for the phrpose of guiding the development and redevelopment of Downtown Dublin. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area includes approximately 70 acres of land and is located north of the 1-580 freeway, east of San Ramon Road, south of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of Golden Gate Drive. The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consisting of approximately 51 acres of land, is located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the 1-80 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of the Dublin Place shopping center. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres of land. A summary of the West Dublin BART, Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plan follows: West Dublin BART Specific Plan The impetus for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan is the planned development of a new Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive immediately north of the 1- 580 freeway. The station is proposed to be privately developed, but owned and operated by the BART District following completion. As an incentive for constructing the station, the firm Jones Lang LaSalle (builder of the station) has been granted development rights adjacent to the station. Development of the BART station is expected to result in a significant increase in the demand for new office, commercial, residential and similar uses based on improved regional accessibility and anticipated patronage of the new transit station. Accordingly, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan contains land use and development standards, transportation improvements, urban design guidelines and implementation programs to guide new development on properties within the Specific Plan area to create a "transit village" type of development. Currently, land uses in the Specific Plan area consist of a mix of office, commercial, lodging, entertainment (the bowling center), automobile sales and service, and restaurants. Other parcels are devoted to light industrial and warehouse uses (Cor-o-Van) or are vacant. The current intensity of use, expressed in floor area ratio (FAR), or the ratio of the square footage of the site to the square footage of · the built structure, is relatively low, averaging .31. Based on economic projections completed by EPS, Economic and Planning Systems, as part of the Specific Plan preparation and analysis, strong demand is anticipated for more intensive office uses and higher density residential, and, to a lesser extent, lodging, restaurant and specialty retail land uses to support and augment the new transit center. The maximum amount of development that would be allowed in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is 1,859,919 square feet of non-residential uses and up to 491 high-density residences at the build out of the Specific Plan in comparison to 645,108 square feet of present use (280% increase). Downtown Core Specific Plan The Downtown Core Specific Plan is located immediately north of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, and includes the part of the Dublin Place shopping center containing large-scale retailers such as Target, Montgomery Wards, and Toys R Us, and the soon to be constructed Home Depot Expo Design Center. The existing development contained within this area is 469,776 square feet. The intent of this Specific Plan is to maintain the viability of existing "big box" retail uses and to increase the appearance. and functionality of the area by promoting a mix of smaller scale specialty retail, office, mixed use, residential and similar uses. The maximum development anticipated by the Specific Plan is 1,100',110 square feet, an increase of approximately 234%. At the same time, the attractiveness of the area to visitors would be increased through the construction of more public plazas and open spaces to create a 2 tree downtown environment. Ideally, the economic vitality of the Specific Plan area would be expanded through an increase in the number of shoppers and visitors to the area. Several linkages, including auto, pedestrian and bicycle, to the new West Dublin BART station would be provided to increase the synergy between these two adjacent areas. With the introduction of a new BART transit center approximately ~/~ mile away, more people will be in the downtown vicinity and utilizing services available in this area. The urban design guidelines chapter of the Downtown Core Specific Plan establishes guidelines and standards for developing these vital linkages, gateways and streetscape improvements. A major component of this Specific Plan is an improved access way through the Dublin Place shopping center, which could stimulate small retail development along the alignment. The maximum amount of development projected for the area based on the economic analysis is 1,165,440 square feet. The Specific Plan also calls for the development of approximately 148 senior citizen dwelling units. Forty-eight of these are anticipated to be senior housing units, to be located near the City' s future senior center, in the northwest comer of the Specific Plan area. The other 100 dwelling units would be high density units in a mixed-use (retail on the ground level and residential on the upper level) designated area located at the southeast comer of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Village Parkway Specific Plan The Village Parkway area consists of approximately 31 acres of commercial services, retail, restaurant, office and automotive service type land uses. Under the Specific Plan for the area, the existing land uses would not change, but would be stabilized and enhanced. A higher intensity of development and a more pedestrian-oriented environment are encouraged by the Plan through increased floor-area-ratios (FAR), establishment of design guidelines for development, and streetscape improvements. The recommended FAR of .35 for the Village Parkway area would be consistent with the City' s present General Plan, and no general plan amendment would be needed with the adoption of the Specific Plan. The existing development contained within this area is 308,474 square feet, while the maximum development in the is anticipated to be 408,108 square feet as a result' of the Specific Plan, an increase of 32%. Unlike the other Specific Plans, a Task Force was appointed by the City Council to develop the plan and vision for this particular area. The Village Parkway Task Force met over a six month period and discussed the issues and problems facing businesses and Property Owners in the area in order to direct the future land uses along Village Parkway and to evaluate traffic and circulation issues relative to promoting increased economic growth in the area. The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force consisted of thirteen business owners, Property Owners and residents of the City that have shown an interest in the future physical and economic development of the Plan area. The names and locations of the Task Force members are shown on Exhibit 10 of the Village Parkway Specific Plan. It was decided by the Task Force that slowing traffic and providing better parking opportunities close to businesses in the form of diagonal parking would create a more pedestrian and shopper friendly environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options for the ultimate design of Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the existing roadway configuration. The Task Force has recommended an alternative, which would reduce the number of traffic lanes on the roadway with a bike path and diagonal parking. The Task Force and Staff recommended alternatives are further discussed in the analysis section of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 26, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the three Specific Plans for recommendation to the City Council. At that time, the Commission continued the public hearing and consideration of the three Plans to October 1'0, 2000 to allow additional time to review the specific plan documents and to receive further comments on the plans. At the meeting of October 10, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendments pertaining to that specific plan to the City Council, along with the Negative Declaration for all three of the Plans. Consideration of the Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans was continued by the Planning Commission to the meeting of October 24, 2000. At that meeting, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions to recommend the Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans, and the General Plan Amendments pertaining to the Downtown Core Specific Plan to the City Council. The Planning Commission resolutions are included in Attachment 6. The Planning Commission recommended changes to each Plan are discussed in the following analyses. ANALYSIS: The three Specific Plans have been prepared with the intent of implementing the goals and policies of the Dublin General Plan, as further described in the following section of the staff report. They are based on a thorough analysis of existing and projected market demands prepared by a consulting land use economist and account for regional competitive areas as well. The Specific Plans include permitted land uses that are targeted to the development of a transit-oriented environment, including smaller scale retail, entertainment, office and similar uses. Higher rise office development is anticipated to take advantage of the close proximity of the proposed BART station. Higher density residential units are also planned for those households wishing a more urban-type living environment that can be achieved in a transit-oriented area. The Specific Plans also allow for outdoor eating facilities and other outdoor uses, such as mobile vendors, to create the transit-oriented vision. A traffic and circulation section has been prepared for each Specific Plan which includes recommendations to expand the transportation infrastructure in the downtown, to include not only new and enlarged roads, but also bus, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel. The Specific Plans also anticipates the construction of the first private/public financed BART transit station within the entire BART system. Roadway improvements incorporated into the Specific Plans will ensure that major downtown intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. Urban design guidelines have been prepared and included in the Specific Plans that establish standards to direct new construction and remodels with consistenrcharacter and quality of architecture, and tailored to the desired vision of the plan for each area. These guidelines establish an approach to design that will allow and encourage diverse architectural solutions throughout the development area while maintaining a clearly recognizable overall design character and quality. Comprehensive implementation sections have been included to ensure that the visions expressed in the Specific Plans can become a reality. Specific Plan implementation relies on a public-private partnership, whereby the City of Dublin would be responsible for carrying out certain public improvements, such as street widening, enhanced maintenance and security, streetscape landscaping and overall directional Signs. The private sector would be responsible for developing properties in accordance with the standards and guidelines spelled out in the Specific Plans and the formation of merchants association for special events. The sections below are brief summaries of the analysis contained in the Planning Commission staff report for September 26, 2000, and also contain the changes to each Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Further information and details on the Specific Plans can be reviewed in the Planning Commission staff report for September 26, 2000 (Attachment 5). West Dublin BART Specific Plan The intent of the Specific Plan is to promote transit-oriented development using the proximity of the West Dublin BART station as a catalyst. Transit-oriented development is intended to include a mix of higher intensity residential complexes, primarily attached apartment and condominium dwellings, mid-rise offices, specialty retail uses, lodging and similar uses that have a pedestrian orientation rather than oriented to automobiles. From an urban design perspective, this means buildings would be located close to streets, outdoor uses (such as restaurants and cafes) would be encouraged, urban plazas would be provided and auto parking would be limited and generally located in parking garages. The Specific Plan includes references to permitted and conditional land uses that would reflect the pedestrian friendly objective of the Specific Plan. Residential uses are allowed in the mixed-use areas. Three potential plaza locations are shown on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9in the Specific Plan document, to be constructed as part of new development on the sites. Maximum F.A.R.'s are established in the Specific Plan and would range by land use type, between 0.18 for automobile oriented uses to 1.0 for mixed-use developments. The higher intensification of development is common to transit-oriented sections of cities and transit villages. To create a more traditional downtown environment, the Specific Plan establishes a greater maximum building height of six stories or 75 feet, whereas the Zoning Ordinance currently allows a'height of up to 45 feet in industrial districts and 35 feet in commercial districts. The Specific Plan includes urban design guidelines .to promote pedestrian friendly developments and to assure consistent character and quality of architecture throughout the plan area. A key part of the Specific Plan is to ensure accessibility. A Transportation and Circulation section has been included dealing with automobile access to and through the area, provision of bus, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and auto parking. Necessary traffic and circulation improvements are listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Following publication and distribution of the draft Specific Plans, the transportation consultant suggested the following additional roadway improvements: · The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach at Golden Gate Drive should be widened and restriped to include a separate right-turn lane. This may require additional property from Crown Chevrolet. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach at Amador Plaza Road should be widened and restriped to include a separate right-turn lane. This may require additional property from Enea Plaza. The eastbound approach to Regional Street should be widened and-re-striped to include a separate right-turn lane. Ultimate eastbound approach geometrics would include one left-turn lane, three through lanes and one right-turn lane. Additional property may be required at the intersection of Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard. These improvements would be completed in stages associated with the development of properties in the area. For instance, the extension of St. Patrick Way to Regional Street would be implemented with the development of the hotel and residential project proposed adjacent to the BART station and the redevelopment of adjacent industrial sites, such as the Cor-o-Van's site. Parking for on-site land uses and the planned BART station is intended to be accommodated in a 600-car parking garage located adjacent to the station. Additional parking spaces may be constructed based on actual use of the station if needed. The Specific Plan requires new uses to provide on-site parking at a rate consistent with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; however, parking may be reduced on a case-by-case basis in the following instances: 1) it can be demonstrated that sharing of parking spaces can occur due to differing peak parking characteristics of various land uses; 2) a vehicle parking district may be formed to fund and construct common parking facilities; or, 3) a Transportation Demand Management Plan is prepared for an individual project. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan sets forth several methods for making the Specific Plan vision a reality. These include: Adoption of a special zoning overlay district for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The new-zoning district would replace the standards of the regular Dublin Zoning Ordinance with land use and development requirements contained in the Specific Plan. New development projects approved after the adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan will be required to adhere to all the standards contained in the Specific Plan. Thus, the primary method of implementing the Specific Plan will be through the private sector. Capital improvement projects will also be undertaken by the City of Dublin in conjunction with new private development, primarily for public improvements. Such projects are envisioned to include new and widened public streets identified in the Specific Plan, a public signage program, new streetscape plantings, construction of public plazas and the like. Sub-regional drainage improvements are also required. The Specific Plan requires the preparation of a financing and funding plan following adoption of the plan to estimate the costs for all public improvements, determine the amount of funding necessary to complete the improvements and identify potential funding sources. It is anticipated .that the cost of implementing the public improvements will be shared by the City and private developers and/or businesses as a result of development plans (i.e. right-of-way dedication and improvements). Staff has recommended a consultant to prepare a Downtown Streetscape Implementation Program to begin this task. Planning Commission Recommended Revisions to West Dublin BART Specific Plan At the meeting on October 10, 2000, the Planning Commissioners suggested revisions to be included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and also in the General Plan Amendments for the project. Specifically, the Commission suggested modification of Table 5 of the Plan to reflect the latest development proposal submitted by Jones, Lang, LaSalle for the property owned by BART, adjacent to the Transit Center. To be consistent with the proposal, a revision in the maximum allowable building height from six stories or 75 feet to 10 stories was also needed in Section 5.4.d of the Plan, as was a change in the maximum density for residential development from 40 to 50 dwelling units per acre in Objective 7.2 of Section 1.5. These revisions are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 6). Additionally, the General Plan is proposed to be amended to add the definition of the new "Mixed-Use" land use designation. The Mixed-Use designation~ allows several land uses to be combined in such a designated area. This amendment to the General Plan Text would allow residential uses as an ancillary use in Retail/Office designated areas to encourage the creation of live/work spaces. The increased FAR for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area has been revised to allow a FAR exceeding 1.0 for the Transit Village area adjacent to BART, to further implement the goal of creating a transit-oriented center in the downtown. The revisions to the text of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan document related to minor modifications of the goals and objectives, background information, and the revisions addressed in the resolutions discussed above, will be incorporation into the final Specific Plan document following City Council adoption of the Plan. Downtown Core Specific Plan The Downtown Core Specific Plan is located immediately north of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The intent of this Specific Plan is to maintain the viability of existing "big box" retail uses and to increase the appearance and functionality of the area by promoting a mix of smaller scale specialty retail, office, mixed use, residential and similar uses. At the same time, the attractiveness of the area to visitors 6 would be increased through the construction of more public plazas and open spaces to create a true downtown structure. Ideally, the economic vitality of the Specific Plan area would be expanded through an increase in the amount of shoppers and. visitors. Several linkages, including auto, pedestrian and bicycle, to the new West Dublin BART station would be provided to increase the synergy between these two adjacent areas. With the introduction of a new BART IItransit center approximately ~A mile away, more people will be in the vicinity and utilizing services available in this area. The urban design guidelines chapter of the Downtown Core Specific Plan establishes guidelines and standards for developing these vital linkages, gateways and streetscape improvements. A major component of this specific Plan is an improved access-way through the Dublin Place shopping center, which could stimulate small retail development along the access-way alignment. An additional component of the Downtown Core Specific Plan is re-designation of the area formerly Occupied by the Copelands, as Senior Housing at approximately 29 units to the acre. In general, the same types of uses would be allowed in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area as West Dublin BART, although large-scale retailers, or "big box" retail, would be encouraged. As with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, the allowable FAR in this downtown area would increase to a maximum of .80. The Downtown Core Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission · establishes a maximum building height of 10 stories. Because the two specific plan areas are adjacent and interrelated, the improvements required for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Traffic, as discussed in the section above on the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, would alleviate the traffic impacts in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area. To offset overall development impacts and the resulting traffic in the downtown area, including BART station related traffic; Dublin Boulevard is currently proposed for widening to six travel lanes between Sierra Court and Doughtery Road. The new private access way proposed through the center of the block on the west side of Amador Plaza · Road would require improvement of the existing drive aisles in the Dublin Place shopping center. 'This could potentially be funded through a public/private partnership. This concept has been discussed with the Property Owners of the shopping center, and they may consider it to stimulate retail activity in the center. The Land Use Plan for the Downtown Core Specific Plan shows three potential plaza locations. One plaza location fronts on Dublin Boulevard at the entrance to the Dublin Place shopping center. This would provide a focal point and gateway to the Downtown Core area, and could be a civic plaza with opportunities for the introduction of public art. The. other two locations are at the intersection of the improved access way and Amador Plaza Road, and in a location between the proposed senior housing and commercial development. Planning Commission Recommended Revisions to Downtown Core Specific Plan At the meeting on October 24, 2000, the Planning Commission suggested revisions to be included in the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and also in the General Plan Amendments for the project. Specifically, the Commission suggested modification of Table 4 of the Plan to reflect a request by Kenneth and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda (Attachment 4) to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for their property on Amador Plaza Road. The change modified the FAR from 0';20 (or 22,420 square feet) to 0.79 (which results in a development potential of 87,580 square feet). This change would provide for consistency between the FAR of the Honda dealership property and that of the adjacent property, former site of Shamrock Ford, at the comer of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. The property owner also requested a revision to the land use designation of the property to permit retail/auto or retail/office type uses; however, the City does not have a General Plan designation that 7 would allow either a retail/auto use or a retail/office use to be established on the site. The Planning Commission did not change the land use designation on the property, so it remains designated for retail/auto use on the General Plan. Additionally, any further change in land use in that area would adversely affect traffic generation rates, and require additional traffic analysis resulting in, possibly, additional traffic mitigation measures. Revisions were also made to the wording of two Plan objectives and an objective was added related to permitting live/work spaces within areas designated for non-residential land uses. These revisions and those discussed above are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 6).. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment text has been revised to modify the definition of the new "Mixed-Use" land use designation to allow various land uses to be combined in such a designated area. The revisions to the text of the Downtown Core Specific Plan document related to minor modifications of the goals and objectives, background information, and the revisions addressed in the resolutions discussed above, will be incorporated into the final Specific Plan document following City Council adoption of the Plan. . Village Parkway Specific Plan In February 2000, a Task Force for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area was formed at the City Council's direction to discuss the issues and problems facing businesses and Property Owners in the area, direct the future land uses along Village Parkway and to evaluate traffic and circulation issues relative to promoting increased economic growth in the area. The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force consisted of thirteen business owners, and Property Owners with businesses or properties located both north and south of Lewis Avenue on Village Parkway) and residents of the City that have shown an interest in the future physical and economic development of the Village Parkway Specific Plan area. During the six-month period in which the Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force met to discuss the plan, the Task Force determined that there is a need to revitalize businesses along the segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south. To accomplish this and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and the City, it was decided by the Task Force that slowing traffic and providing better parking opportunities close to businesses would create a more pedestrian and shopper friendly environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options or alternatives for the ultimate design of Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the existing roadway configuration. These alternatives are described in the following paragraphs: Alternative 1, as shown in Exhibit I OA of the Village. Parkway SpeCific Plan, wouldprovide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There are approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaces along Village Parkway at this time, and 121 parking spaces could be provided with this alternative. A four-foot class III bicycle lane wouM be located between the diagonal parking and the right traffic lane. The sidewalk wouM be widened fi'om~ve feet (existing right-of- way is eight feet) to l O feet to provide enough space for increased pedestrian use. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means for the Downtown specific plans, the consultant determined that this alternative wouM create the least potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and recommended it for implementation. This determination was based on the following: 1)four travel lanes wouM be maintained,' 2) diagonal parking wouM provide additional spaces close to business frontages; and, 3) bicycle traffic would be provided on the street (however, this couM create some conflicts between motorists backing out of spaces and bicyclists). Some conflicts may occur between through vehicles and those backing out of spaces, but the bike lane should provide a buffer zone, thereby reducing the potential for conflict. The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 115feet. As the roadway ROW is currently' l OO feet, an additional seven feet six inches of ROW on ·each side of the street wouM need to be obtained fi'om Property Owners. Alternative 2, as shown in Exhibit lOB of the Village Parkway Specific Plan wouldprovide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations, and the bicycle lane wouM share the sidewalk with pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk wouM be widened to l 2 feet to provide enough space for the shared use. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane would be 12feet and the center median wouM be reduced from 16feet to 14feet in width. The total ~'ight-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 118 feet. As the roadway ROW is currently iOO feet, an additional nine feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be obtained from Property Owners. The consultant's report determined that this alternative was adequate for roadway circulation; however, maintaining the bike lane on the Sidewalk could be problematic .in the downtown retail district due to pedestrian/bicycle conflicts on the adjacent sidewalks. Additionally, the alternative does not provide a buffer area between the outside lanes and vehicles backing out of the diagonal parking spaces. This could be disruptive to traffic flows during peak hours of traffic. Alternative 3, as shown in Exhibit 10C of the Village Parkway Specific Plan would provide two lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (one lane in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. This alternative was the preferred alternative roadway design by the Village Parkway Task Force and recommended by the Planning Commission. The alternative is discussed in greater detail in the following section on the Task · Force's recommendation. Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit 10D of the Village Parkway Specific Plan wouldprovide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) and a four-foot bicycle lane. Diagonal parking would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected locations, but it would be separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A total of approximately 106parking spaces wouM be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway. Drive aisle entrances would provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane would be 12feet and the cetTter median would be reduced from 16feet to 14feet in width. The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option wouM be 128feet. As the roadwayROW is currently lOO feet, an additional ]4feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be obtained from Property Owners. This alternative would increase the distance between roadway traffic and the businesses on Village Parkway, and may not meet the objective of slowing traffic and providing a more pedestrian oriented streetscape, as the width of the ROW would be substantially increased The cost of this alternative would be extremely high due to the amount of additional land that would be need to be acquired for the ROW. Additionally, it would not meet the basic objective of providing parking close to the street and businesses with better pedestrian access, and is not recommended as a viable alternative. Another option for Village Parkway, which is discussed in the section below on the Staff recommended alternative, is to maintain the existing roadway without expansion, and continue the use of parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the streetscape and sidewalk could be provided in accordance with the related design guidelines in the Specific Plan to encourage increased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally, joint/shared parking should be encouraged between properties, with fences removed Which impede pedestrian access. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force recommendation for roadway improvements and that of Staff are discussed in detail in the Planning Commission report. The Task Force recommended a phased improvement plan for Village Parkway to gradually implement Alternative 3, as shown in Exhibit 7B of the Specific Plan document, after additional study and testing is completed. This roadway design would provide two lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (one lane in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along .the street frontage in selected locations. This would reduce the number of lanes on the roadway, as it presently contains two through traffic lanes in each direction. The amount of ROW needed for this alternative is less than that required for the other options considered, but it would reduce the number of through traffic lanes from four to two, thereby slowing traffic considerably. In slowing traffic on the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create additional congestion on Village Parkway during peak hour. periods, and traffic may be diverted to Amador Plaza Road and residential streets with less capacity in the vicinity. The traffic engineer for the project, George Nickelson of Omni-Means, prepared a brief analysis oft his issue in a memorandum dated November 13, 2000 (Attachment 9) which estimates that 225 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 270 PM peak hour vehicle trips may be diverted through the residential neighborhood east of Village Parkway. However, some motorists may tolerate delays in traffic flows on Village Parkway rather than taking a somewhat circuitous "shortcut" through the adjacent neighborhood. Therefore, a definitive estimation of the diversion rate is difficult to make. As suggested by the Task Force, the full improvement plan for Village Parkway would be developed initially to assure that improvements are only constructed once and in the right locations to facilitate the phased implementation. Under the phasing of the plan implementation, streetscape improvements would be implemented first, such as increased landscaped frontages, sidewalk improvements, and the 'addition of street furniture and lighting in a portion of the plan area. The next phase, at an interval of 12 to 18 months, would determine if noticeable improvements have occurred in business along Village Parkway, such as an increase in business and retail activity, an influx of new business and services, and a higher level of investment by property and business owners in improving the storefronts and physical appearance of properties. At that time, a re-assessment of the traffic on Village Parkway would be performed to obtain real traffic volume numbers since the opening of the new freeway on- and off-ramps. This information would be conveyed to the City Council for their assessment and review. It could then be determined if one of the alternative roadway designs with diagonal parking should be tested, along with more concise cost information and funding mechanisms. Implementation of this alternative may occur through a public/private partnership, or cooperative partnership between private Property Owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The improvements are estimated at approximately $1,050,000 (preliminary estimate), which is based on various items that would be necessary such as grading, pavement, gutters, curbs, storm drainage improvements, striping, lights, fire hydrants, traffic signals, and landscaping and street trees. This alternative requires cooperation and commitment by both the City and the Property Owners on Village Parkway to be successful. Therefore, it is essential that Property Owners agree to participate in cost sharing with the City before any. change is to occur. This would be most likely to occur when a large project is proposed or a major portion of the area is to be redeveloped. Staff Recommendation for Roadway Improvements Staff has several concerns regarding narrowing Village Parkway to two lanes of traffic and adding diagonal parking. Vehicle trip diversion may occur, as discussed in the previous section, and adversely affect the adjacent neighborhood to the east. This would affect the quality of life for that portion of the City residential area by creating safety hazards for residents and children attending the neighborhood 10 school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with the additional cut-through traffic. Memorandums have been provided from the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin Police Department as Attachment. 10. These Attachment(s) express concerns related to community safety, response time, and the creation of roadway hazards in the even that Village Parkway is reduced to two lanes of traffic with diagonal parking within the existing right-of-way. A video illustrating safety issues related to the reduction of traffic lanes has been prepared for the City Council and will be presented by the Police and Fire Department Staff at the Council meeting. Because of the concerns and issues, Staff recommends that the existing roadway shown in Exhibit 7A of the Specific Plan, is maintained and the existing parallel parking on both sides of the street remain. Improvements in the streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section related to streetscape standards, and Chapter 6.0 related to urban design guidelines, to encoUrage increased pedestrian use in the area. A Parking Authority District could be considered to fund development of joint parking areas, and may be further studied by the City Council. The district could provide an administrative unit for managing existing on-street and public parking lots, as well as fund structured parking facilities, when such facilities are necessary and financially feasible. The parking district can establish and administer a range of revenue sources including paid parking, impact fees, benefit assessments, and other private or public contributions. Other options recommended by Staff to provide needed parking in the area in lieu of diagonal parking are to provide improved access to the rear of properties adjacent to the freeway corridor, and to remove barriers such as fences between parking lots by Property Owners. Joint access between properties would encourage customers to combine trips to various businesses and improve pedestrian access. However, prior to implementation of any of these measures, further study of their implications would be needed. Planning Commission Recommended Roadway Improvements for Village Parkway Specific Plan At the meeting on October 24, 2000, the Planning Commissioners took action to adopt a resolution recommending the Village Parkway Specific Plan to the City Council. At that meeting the Planning Commission determined that Alternative 3, in Exhibit 7B of the Specific Plan (shown in the Planning Commission Resolution, Attachment 6), as recommended by the Village Parkway Task Force, was the preferred roadway alternative for the alignment of Village Parkway. This alternative would allow one through traffic lane in each direction and a 4' bic~ycle lane, along with diagonal parking in selected locations within the roadway. The Commission also suggested that this new alignment be tested on Village Parkway for a six-month period to determine its feasibility. Additionally, the Commission recommended that this be implemented as soon as possible. The Planning Commission expressed concern that all Property Owners in the Village Parkway Specific Plan area might not be aware of the changes that could occur in the area, which would affect their properties. Therefore, at the Commission' s direction, Staff held a meeting with Property Owners on November 9, 2000 to provide information on the Plan to be recommended to the City Council. Notices of the meeting were sent by certified mail to all Property Owners within the Village Parkway Specific Plan area and to the members of the Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force. Approximately 20 Property Owners and other interested parties attended the meeting and provided input on the Plan after a brief presentation by Staff. A variety of comments were received, ranging from support of the roadway alternative to decrease the travel lanes on Village Parkway and adding diagonal parking to those wanting the roadway to remain the same. Many Property Owners expressed concern regarding the cost of improvements that they might have to pay and the impact of future right-of-way dedication on their properties in the Specific Plan area. Minutes of this meeting are contained in Attachment 8 of this report. 11 Existing Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Staff recommends the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan be repealed for those Development Zones within the boundaries of the three new proposed Specific Plans, and replace with the proposed Specific Plans that essentially address the same properties. The proposed Specific Plans would not affect Development Zones 5, 6, and 9 which relate to properties in the Dublin Green Shopping Center to the west of Target and Montgomery Wards to San Ramon Road and Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard. The existing plan is based on economic and development conditions that are no longer current, whereas the three proposed Specific Plans are based on current market realities and reflect the pending development of a new West Dublin BART station. Several major roadway improvements have. also occurred since adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan which are not included in circulation or transportation components of the Specific Plan. General Plan Amendments The adoption of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans requires that certain revisions be made to the Dublin General Plan, both to the text and to the land use map. As no changes in land use are recommended for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area, General plan Amendments are not necessary for consistency with the Specific Plan: The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans propose a "Mixed-Use" land use designation, which would promote residential development and at least one other non-residential use, such as office or retail. This would most likely be lower level retail/office use, and upper level high- density residential use. Presently, the Land Use Element of the Dublin General Plan does not have such a similar designation and, to ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Element and the proposed Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment is needed to add such a designation. If approved, this new land use designation would be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Additions to the text of Background Chapter 1 of the General Plan would be required to include a paragraph under Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, providing for increased FAR's in the commercial land use categories for the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas (see Planning Commission Resolution, Attachment 6). If approved, these new FAR' s would be added to the Background Chapter of the General Plan. Additionally, the General Plan Land Use Map would require modification to redesignate certain lands in the West Dublin BART and'Downtown Core Specific Plan areas to different land use designations. In the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area, an approximately 10 acre portion of land designated Public/Semi- Public Facility would be redesignated to Retail/Office and High Density Residential (25+ dwelling units per acre) to reflect the land use changes that would result from the Jones Lang LaSalle project. Additionally, an approximately 11 -acre portion of land near the terminus of Regional Street is proposed to be redesignated to mixed-use. In the Downtown Core Specific Plan area, an area adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard and the future senior center near the northwest comer of the Plan area should be redesignated for High Density Residential to accommodate senior housing. A Mixed-Use designation would be necessary for the property located at the southeast comer of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. General Plan Consistency Approval of the West Dublin BART, Downtown Core, and Village Parkway Specific Plans furthers the goals of the Dublin General Plan by intensifying land uses in the downtown area, a key portion of the community. 12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines to identify and analyze impacts of the proposed project and will be presented to the City Council for approval at the December 19, 2000 meeting. COMMENTS RECEIVED Several letters commenting on the Specific Plans and the associated environmental document have been received and are included as Attachment 4. Two letters were received from Ken and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda regarding concerns related to the impacts on their property of potential land use changes in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area. Responses to the issues raised in the letters were given at the Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2000 (refer to minutes of October 24, 2000 meeting Attachment 7). As a result of the Property Owner' s comments, the Planning Commission increased the FAR for their property to .79, but did not change the land use on the site. A copy of a letter to the City Council from William Bums, representing Crown Chevrolet, regarding the impacts of proposed traffic mitigation measures and improvements on Golden Gate Drive contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the auto dealership's property. Staff responses to these letters are attached to the comment letter. Letters have been received from the Target Corporation and McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP representing the PFRS Dublin Corporation owning the property on which Target is located. The letter from the Target Corporation expresses concerns regarding the cost of design and physical improvements, and the potential for a loss of parking spaces with the new accessway, on the Target store and shopping center. A response to the letter was given at the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2000. The author of the letter from McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP, Erin Kvistad, also spoke at the Planning Commission hearing on October 24, 2000 and stated that the property owner was in opposition to the change in land use from Retail/Office to High Density Residential to provide Senior Housing. The Property Owner opposes the change in land use because a new tenant is working with PFRS Dublin Corporation to locate on the site. A letter has been included in Attachment 4 from MDM Architects, which provides some additional comments on this new retail business. The. Planning Commission recommends the change in land use to high-density residential remain in the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Formal responses to these letters are presently being prepared. Other letters have been received from a property owner, Ralph Martin of Village Parkway Properties, and T.J. Albright, Jr. expressing concerns regarding the alternative alignment for Village Parkway that may slow traffic on the roadway. A property owner near the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, Robert Enea of St. Michael Investment, has expressed concern in a letter that his property, Enea Plaza, is not included in the Specific Plan area and would not receive the benefits of a higher FAR, as other properties near the BART Station would. Staff met with Mr. Enea and explained that the property had been recently redeveloped and it was not anticipated that a change in use would occur over the five to seven year time life of the Specific Plan. Staff recommends that the City initiate a Specific Plan Amendment to include that area in the planning area following adoption of the Plan by City Council. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes the three proposed Specific Plans will be effective in upgrading the downtown portion of Dublin, and each plan provides guidelines and direction toward implementing the City's vision for this area. By intensifying and revitalizing the development in downtown Dublin, the City will continue to be a major factor in regional commerce and growth, containing a good balance of jobs; services and housing. 13 RECOMMENDATION: St~f recommends the City Council open the Public Hearing, receive Staff presentation and public testimony, and continue the hearing to the December 19, 2000 City Council meeting. 14 ATTACHMENT 1 West Dublin BART Specific Plan Previously Sent to City Council ATTACHMENT 2 Downtown Core Specific Plan Previously Sent to City Council ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 Village Parkway Specific Plan Previously Sent to City Council ATTACHMENT 3 Ken Harvey's DUBLIN HONDA RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2000 CITY OF DUBLIN City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,California 94568 Attn.: Guy Houston Derivered by fax, certified mail and in person October 24th 2000 Mr Houston, After further review but not complete understanding of the proposed Downtown Core Specific Plan I am now very concerned that the future growth .of my business and the potential future use and value of my property. will be negatively impacted. So far there are two issues that me and my staff have uncovered that must be addressed.. 1. The proposed, FAR (floor area ratio) for my property is proposed at .20 where the current allowable FA.R is up to ..50. Furthermore the property directly next to my property is proposed at .79. in order to maintain the flexible 'use and realize maximum property value' i must have my property FAR established at .79 under the Downtown Core Specific PLan. 2.' The proposed zoning for my property is R/A .(retail automotive) With the zoning changes proposed .for my neighboring pt'0perties (i.e..' the' Shamrock Ford property) I will need my property to be zoned for Automotive use and .allow for Office or Retail (R/O) Our futu re plans for Dublin Honda have been in place for several years and do include a major expansion/re model in its current location soon. We are excited ,about the Downtown Core Specific plan and feel that we can be a asset ,to the project. However we do not want to rule out a different use or limit the use for the property that may affect-its value ! ATTACHMEN'fZ~ Dublili Honda ~ 7099 Arttudor Plaza Road, Dublin, CA 94568-2315 · (925) 828-8030 Ken Harvey's DUBLIN HONDA · Currently Dublin Honda is one of the largest volume Honda dealers in the entire country and one of if not the largest volume Auto Dealers in Dublin. We currently sell about 3500 new' and used vehicles annually wit'h total sales of approxim~ttely 100 million dollars. By 2003 we and Honda motor .company see our sales volume increasing to 5000 vehicles' and approximately 200 million dollars. Thank you in advance for your anticipated support, Kenneth C. Harvey President Marc K. Harvey Dublin Honda Dublin Honda · 7099 Amador Plaza Road, Dublin, CA 94568-2315 · (925) 828-8030 Ken Harvgy's UBUN HONDA City of Dublin 1 O0 Civic Plaza Dublin,California 94568 Attn.: Janet Harbin Ms. Harbin Delivered by fax and in person- September 2 1 2000 RECEIVED SEP ;8 7 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING i have received and reviewed the draft of the Downtown Core Specific Plan prepared by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. This ,proposed plan appears to threaten the vitality of my Honda Dealership located within the proposed area. Pending further review I am formally notifying your office of my concerns and putting you on notice of possible legal ramifications should the City of Dublin harm my business or hamper future business plans. Dublin Honda and the Harvey family have been a major contributor to the economy of the City of Dublin and the surrounding communities for over 25 years'. Kenn,eth .~~avey Marc K. Harvey Dublin Honda Dublin Honda - 7099 Areadot Plaza Road, Dublin, CA 94568..2315 (925) 828-8030 September 26, 2000 WILLIAM F. BURNS, ESQ. 855 Main St. Suite 210 Pleasanton, California 94566-6650 (925) 461-4972 RECEIVED SEP 2 6 DUBLIN PLANN}~,~G Via Facsimile 925 833 6651; 925 833 6628 & Hand Delivered DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic PlEa, Dublin, California 94568 Re: Comments On Draft West Dublin/BART Specific Plant For Inclusion Into Record. Dear Dublin City Council & Ms. Harbin: I am general counsel for Crown Chevrolet lnc and Betty WOolverton,. individually and aS Trustee of the Woolverton Family Trust, and am in receipt or the Draft West Dublin BART Specific Plan. On behalf of Crown Chevrolet and Ms. Woolverton this letter is intended as Comment on the Draft Specific. Plan and for inclusion into the record. 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The acceptance of a negative declaration on the Draft Plan is contrary to the findings contained in the report, and a formal Environmental Impact Report is warranted. The Draft Plan concludes that "anticipated Specific Plan traffic added to existing plus approved BART traffic volumes, two of the intersections... would operate at unacceptable levels." [See page. 16 West Dublin Specific Plan] The affected intersections are adjacent to my clients' business and parcels. These unacceptable levels are the result of a significant increase in local traffic. In addition the anticipated reduction in the Crown Chevrolet's parcels [from widening Golden Gate & St. Patrick Dublin City Council & Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner September 26, 2000 page 3 CroWn dealership will be provided in proximity to the existing facility.." . Despite this promise in the County's EIR no such "temporary" or "'permanent" parking or storage was located or provided. Crown Chevrolet is currently suffering from a lack of space for both its customers and employees. The existing St. Patrick Way taking eliminated over ninety (90) parking spaces from Crown Chevrolet. Any widening of either St. Patrick Way or Golden Gate will destroy the site as a feasible automobile retail location! It seems inconsistent that the formal EIR which did not include impacts from the City's new Downtown Plan found parking impediments which were needed mitigation and which the City has not even considered in its Specific Plan.., 3 ,' WIDENING OF ST. PATRICK WAY, · It is unclear from the Draft Plan when .and how much St. Patrick Way will be widened. [Seepage 16 of West Dublin Specific Plan] Clarification of the extent of the widening is requested. 4. WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE DRIVE. It is Unclear,from the Draft Plan of where the additional land will come from to widen Golden Gate, Will the new lanes come from the east or west sides of' the street or will it be split, Clarificationon this point is requested, Regards, LA FFtCE OF WILLIAM F. BURNS F. BURNS, ESQ. WFB/tbh lTY OF DUBLIN_. November 7, 2000 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www. ci.dublin.ca.us William F. Bums, Esq. .855 Main St., Suite 210 i'Pteasanton, CA 94566-6650 Re; ;,Response to Comments on Draft West Dublin BART::'Speci~c Plan for Inclusion into ReCord Dear Mr. Bums: I would like to apologize-for an. error in my October 27, 200ff letter to you, and correct the error related to future' parking on St. Patrick Way ar~,d Golden Gate Drive. Your comments, sumhaarized as Comments 2, '4 and' 5 in my letter, concern the inadeqtia6~, of parking :and-the further elimination of parking spaces on Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way with, the' , roadWay;,improvementsdncluded4n the West Dublin BAFi-T, Specific Plan. In my response to these · .. comments~ I stated~tha~ new parking spaces will be provided. or~ St. Patrick Way to replace those eliminate&on Golden Gate Drive. In further discussio~ with our Public Works Department, I have received. information that there will be no parking along St. Patrick Way in the future when improvements are completed. All uses are to provide sufficient on-site parking for their customers and employees, unless it can be. shown that. the use of the transit facilities will reduce the need for parking in accordance witIf City regulations. New development will be required to provide adequate parking for the proposed use. As stated, in my previous letter, page' 17 of the SpeCific Plans suggests other methods which can be initiated to provide additional surface and' structured parking in the area, if needed. The measures discusse&in the Specific Plan and the Negative Declaration related to the provision of parking are adequate and an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (925) 833-6610. Sincerely, Janet Harbin ' City Councilmembers City Manager Economic Development Director Public Works Director Community Development Director Area Cbde (925); City M~iti~r 833-6650 · City Gi~Uncil 833-6650 · P~r~onnel 833-6605 · Economic Dev~lopnl~nt833-6650 Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Pi'evention Bureau833-6606 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, Galifornia 94568 October 27, 2000 City Offices, 1 O0 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 William F. Bums, Esq, 855 Main St., Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566-6650 Re: Comments on Draft West Dublin/BART Specific Plan for Inclusion into Record Dear Mr. Bums: Thank you for your comments on the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on behalf of your clients, Crown Chevrolet and Ms. Woolverton. We appreciate your concems and hope that this letter will reassure you that your clients' business is important to the City and the community. The following paragraphs respond to each of the comments .(briefly summarized for reference) in your letter dated September 26, 2000. Negative Declaration: ]. Comment - The negative declaration is contrary to the f'mdings in the report and an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. The Draft Plan concludes that "anticipated Specific Plan traffic added to existing plus approved BART traffic volumes, two of the intersections would operate at unacceptable levels." RespOnse - The draft West Dublin BART Specific Plan states on page 16, "... anticipated Specific Plan traffic added to existing plus approved BART traffic volumes, two of the intersections... would operate at unacceptable leveis;" however, it then lists a series of traffic improvement mitigation measures which would reduce the impact of the increase in traffic volumes on the intersections. In the Draft Negative Declaration for the Specific Plans, page 21, it is stated that the impacts with implementation of the improvements would be less-than-significant. level because these traffic improvements have been programmed into the Specific Plans. An Environmental Impact Report would be necessary if the impacts could not be reduced to an acceptable level. That is not the case in this instance, and an Environmental Impact Report is not required under CEQA. Comment - The reduction in your clients' parcels (from widening Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way) "will render the parcels unfit for its current use and require relocation assistance." Art. Environmental Impact Report is needed due to the traffic and economic impacts of the project. Response ~ The widening of Goiden Gate Drive would reduce frontage along the roadway by approximately six feet on either side.. This would have a minimal amount of impact on your clients' property. Additional on-street parking will be permitted on St. Patrick Way and may be used for employees and customers. As parcels devSlop in the area, some shared parking facilities may be built to accommodate several users. The alignment of St. Patrick Way has been planned for many years and the need for the roadway is based on existing conditions and the new 1-680 freeway on- and off-ramps. Additionally, the Administration (925)833-6650 · City Council (925)833-6605 · Finance (925)833-6640 · Building Inspection (925)833-6620 Code Enfomement (925) 833~6620 *' Engineering (925) 833=6630 * Parks & Community Services (925)838;6645 Economic Development (925) 833-6650 · Police (925) 833-6670 · Public Works (925) 833~6630 Community Development (925) 833-6610 . Fire Prevention Bureau (925) 833-6606 L&ter to Wm. Burns,esq. Re:West Dublin BART Spec. Plan/Crown Chevrolet October 27, 2000 Page 2 majority of roadway improvements in this particular area are necessary because of the traffic generated by the proposed BART transit center, not only the Specific Plan land use changes. As mentioned previously, traffic impacts in the area with Specific Plan identified improvements are less-than-significant level. Economic impacts on a property owner which may result from a project are not the basisfor requiring an Environmental Impact Report. Comment - The traffic siudy relied on for the improvements included in the Specific Plan is outdated (1994), and a new traffic study is necessary to determine present conditions. The LOS at Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way exceed the "gridlock factor" of 1.0 and clarification is requested. · · Response - The traffic study referred to was prepared in conjunction with the environmental document for the 1-580/1-680 project in 1994. The information used in the traffic study for the Specific Plans were the year 2010 build-out projections, plus current existing and approved traffic volumes. As the freeway ramps are not fully operational at this time, these projections are the best available data. Additional data for existing and approved traffic volumes was obtained from' recent traffic studies as'listed on pages 20 and 21 of the draft Negative Declaration, and also a preliminarytraffic study prepared for the BART transit center project. The LOS of 3.4 and 1.8 at Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way reflect the average delay in seconds for stopping movements, as stated in footnote 1 at the bottom of page 24 of the traffic study. This intersection is unsignalized, and operates in a slightly different manner than a signalized intersection. Therefore, the stated LOS of 3.3 and 1.8 for that intersection in Table 3 on page 24, results in an op6rational level of 'sA.'' Parkin~ Constraints 4. Comment - There is inadequate parking on-site for businesses on Golden Gate Drive, which . results in spillover on-street parking along Golden Gate Drive. Golden Gate Drive is lined with parked vehicles during working/businesS hours, and these parking spaces will be eliminated with the planned roadway improvements. / Response - Parking on Golden Gate Drive will be eliminated; however, new parking spaces replacing those eliminated will be provided for on st. Patrick Way. Refer to Response 2, above. Page 17 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan contains other methods which can be initiated by the City to provide additional surface and structured parking in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. Comment - This comment concerns the lack of sufficient pro;king, and the issue of permitted parking provided only along one side of St. Patrick Way. Employees of Crown Chewolet can no longer park in the Washington Mutual Bank parking lot. ' Response - Refer to Responses 2 and 4, above. Sufficient parking should be provided when these improvements are completed. All new uses will ~be required to provide adequate on-street parking unless it can be proven that the use of the transit facilities will reduce the need for parking in accordance with City regulations. The improvements discussed in the Specific Plan and the Negative Declaration related to the provision of parking are adequate and an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted. Widening of St. Patrick Way 6. Comment - The ultimate width of St. Patrick Way needs clarification. Letter to Wm. Bums,esq. Re:West Dublin BAKT Spec. Plan/Crown Chevrolet October 27, 2000 Page 3 (~( Response -On page 16, under subsection b, it is stated that, "The ultimate right-of-way for St. Patrick Way is planned to be 64 to 68 feet..." The maximum width would be 68 feet on the future roadway between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. According to the Public Works Department, it is anticipated that the future roadway alignment will be 68 feet wide. WideninK of Golden Gate Drive 7. Comment - Clarification is needed on where the additional land will be obtained to widen Golden Gate Drive. Response - The City has developed 0nly preliminary improvement plans for Golden Gate Drive to date. Final improvement plans will be 'developed in the near future, but it is anticipated that approximately 6 feet of right-of-way will be needed from each side of the street to complete the widening project. Exact measurements and configurations are unknown at this time. I hope this responds to your concerns. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 833- 6610. Since ly, In' g:DwntwnSpecPlans;/DwntwnCore:/CrownChevltr CC: Mayor City Councilmembers City Manager Economic Development Director Community Development Director TARGET CORPORATION ® (612) 761-1555 (612) 761-3728 Facsimile October 4, 2000 RECEIVED OCT 11 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Ms. Janet Harbin Senior Planner ' City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Re: T-328 Dublin, CA Draft Downtown Core Specific Plan Dear Ms. Harbin: We are in receipt of the Draft Downtown Core Specific Plan for Dublin, California. We have reviewed the plan and would like to submit the following comments/inquiries: It appears that Target is approximately 20-25% of the building area referred to as the Downtown Core in the plan. Target asks that you address the following goals, which are referenced in the plan. Specifically, how will they affect the impact on future remodeling plans by Target: a.. Goal 11, Objective 11.3 requires construction of attractive pedestrian Walkways within the planning area between various land uses as properties. are redeVeloped or uses expanded. b. Goal 13, Objective 13.2, 13.4, 13.6 and 13.7. Thes6 objectives encourage 'existing "big box" retail stores. to be architecturally modified through the incorporation of pedestrian friendly features. Landscaping is to be enhanced and inviting to pedestrians, private parking lots are to be attractively landscaped and signs and lighting are to provide for a unified urban design appearance. c. Goal 16, Objective 16.1, 16.2 and 16.4. These objectives related to the .funding of public improvements. , Please advise of the potential impacts to Target for the architectural upgrades, landscaping and assessments referenced in this section of the plan. Please advise how access, traffic and parking ratios will be affected at Target by the proposed roadway improvements shown on Exhibit 7C. Also, 4.2(e) states that driveways into private lots should generally be limited to one driveway per parcel of record and shall conform to City of Dublin Standards. Please advise if it is anticipated that one or more of Target's access enlries wilt be lost and how traffic will be affected by this design. 3. Throughout the plan, there are references to big box buildings being modern and well-designed, incorporating awnings, trellises, etc. It appears that' architectural upgrades will be required for big box tenants. How will this monetarily affect Target and any future remodel plans we may have. " .... : " · ' ;"'.~:';"";-i 4. Exhibit 9 andFigure 8 show a Future ACceSs way Which will run through the middle0f the shopping center where Target is located. Is this to be completed by public dedication? Target and the other occupantsOf the. center would lose many parkiilg spaces which would negatively impact the entire shopping center. It appears that it will also cause dubious safety issues for patrons of the center. We recommend that the proposed access areas through the center be addressed and reconsidered. III ,Property Development 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 II I II IIIII II 5. In section 8.0, Administration and Implementation~ please address if Target's use will be conforming. Before the plan is adopted Target would like the concerns herein addressed. To summarize, Target' s biggest issues appear to be loss in parking and safety hazards for patrons as a result of the proposed access. In addition, we are concerned of future remodels and how exactly the architectural goals will impact Target aesthetically and monetarily. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Sr. Property Administrator David Marquis, Director Jim Tucker, Sr. Real Estate Manager Randy Potterf, PFRS Dublin : St.'Mich~ei Inves~nents ' ': "6670.Areadot ~f~.a F~d-. "' "' ' ' Eddy 'Peabody'. . DireCtor. of Commun!ty. DeVelopment "' ' '.' : City Of Dublin ....... :'" ' ' ' ' " ":' ':""~:""' "":' ::' ' ' :'DUblin;cAc)456B' ' "' 1O0'Civic PlaZa .. ""' ' :' · - : · .:: ';.....-'~-' ......."'- Dublin',· CA.94568 - - - ': ....' -: .....-- ' ;. fax 92'j.833.08~6 ':"" .. , .. . : :.i-. ._.-, . ... ,.." .. ._ · , . -' · :.SUBJECT:' West Dublin BARTSpeCific.'P!an '..-:' - ..."--:,. :..-.... · · .. . : .... . ..... -.. - ........ · . : ,.: .; -. :....,. · . - ., '.::.-'.:5 : -,: -' ...... . , , -..., .-.. . -- .:..,,: ·. , . . _ . , :-. Dear Mr..'. Peabody,-. - .- . . ..- · ..., -.. '-- ....... !' :-, ... ,.. · -~ .- . ~-. - . -, -. -..., ~ ,. · ,. ......... ..... , ~ .- ..... -..~,!', .....'.-:... _... ., .:.... · ':~" .it was'a::pleaSurei .meeting-~,ith' y0u~ Janet-Harbin, and'RiChard Ambrose last week. we' ': ." reviewed. our con~ern-that'.the West Dublin BART'Specific Plan ~(an:d'the i~'nvironmentai '...'-:.-/- -.- "' ".' ". ';',."/dOcument)'- need'to. :.provide· .. for." the .=impacts from-BART on-: Amad0r' PlaZ'a- Road: .', .. ··" · .:': .;'--' '.: ':.-;' ~6~beptuai'; :' deSc'~i!51~ion:,Sf ':the.,."' mh'ge "and.': type'of..': Uses,:'~vhic'~.:!woGid': m~.kesenS~" for -.·""-' .", e~eritGai 'r~fev~l~'!~;gnt'0:~ :tl~0s~ 'pFope~ies:-f~b~ 't~~' pcima~.landowne~s pers~e~t~e~ ;"-~.: .. - . ..... : .,. . .' =.,. ., , ~ - ..,.; .~" ..:~,.;.,~. '.: .. - :,: .. '/..;, '. ./~....:..,-:..-.;~..';.-.... :.:. -.- :.,...:.-:.... ..,, . .. :.-,-. ::; . "~ :~preCiate.'yO~r ~ndemt~ndin~'~hat the ~d0r::'. "':" "' .' pr6pe~i~s s0~"of;-'. :'..:"..':':;~,/:-":' "'. ""':' ~' :' ' ' ' ' Plaza R0~' ' · -./.-'.. ""-.Dub!in~ BouleVard will-be I~gi~lly'conne~ed~'in Use'and s~!e .of:~deVelopment to other ... .' .:'-"--". ': near .BART: prope~ies'~'.:-A. delay'~ i~-.'in~o~or~ting .~ador 'Pl~a.,'Rb'ad into ..the'- West ". ,.:; .";" :' :. Dublin .B~ .~ecifiC Pla~' ~0uld" t~Wa~' redeVeiop~:ent' 0pP'0~Unities W~idh. 'may; arise'....; ? .: "' .~."' '-..:," in ,~e:' ne~. ~ive to, seVen.years; Mos~ imp0~antly, .theBART -related ~mpa~s, pa~iCulady" ': ..'."'::'. ~': :',' .':'.'-;"St: :PatriCks:~y :add. .th:e intensification '~.: 0ffiCe:'Use~ at: ~b~','e~d bf -{he'-'Plaza Road' cui'~-:;' .'~:' '.. ~"~:"'.".. :" ~- ~e' sac;'::, make. :.it.' imperati~e;::,:that .;. ~he -'.traffic' 'moder' and.': enV~0~me~t~l.','d0cume~ts. ::.~.,.: "~." .",. ::' .:;-'...-.--inc0morate .a' realistic' scenario for: Amador Plaza :R0ad':'~ed~Ve'lop~ent. Th'e'requested ":-"~ '.:'.-,::'.::. ':' ~':."?.."~'.;~. a~pm~h'is that .'~h'en'th~'.~i~"ad~pts t6e dra~ 'We~ 'D'ubi'in ~ART..S~ifi~"Pla~s tha~' ~';':'. -. ':.:, ":..: ;.: "'.the. Ci~..:,'Will-' initiate ':;an':':a'm'end~ent--' ~{0 "the: WeSt.''; Dublin ;-..BAR~.- SpecifiC":.Pl~ :to ~'~,? ~;' ~'. '. :,' -"..' '.. '.:: ;..' incbrpora~ the:.A~adorPiaz~: ROad· p~p.e'~ieS .int6:.that plan~ '-~';:: :-;:..~":: :. ~:~..-. ~'...': :~," '~.: "::.' -'.: ~' :-"::,.-": ;'::~:.:~:, ': ~, .: ,:. '.:;-.,".. ;.-::.-.....':..-::~.:;.'.~. ~:..:.-..:..~:.. :.:...: .,;./.,..:.--. ,:;~:.=..-;,..:..:.~......: ::. :-.....'-:. ,:~ ~.-,..-.:::.:;,-....'-.:: ,,,: ::,,:~:.~.. ~:.,::..?:/:.:...::; ::':'~.:. ::: ~: .~:'.~;.:?: :..-::... :..- ..::::-_ - -., :~ ....:.:.:,.:.:~. . ,:'/' ~.'; '. ::"'.:'., Aithough:'.we'an{icip~te." ~de~el'o~ment will: happeff in' phaS~s;~ .we':~6'~i~ -ii~e.t6' develop ;::: · '-'~ .:-: ':': '.a:....maSter;'pian' W'biCh":c~.~dinat~'s Wi~ the. Cites ': ~iSi0n 'for; the~ Amad0r"Pi~' Roa~*..' .-. ~:::"~;. :::.:: ".'-.-~ .... : .,:'/""':': p~0p~ies:"Tbe.,"kind' 0f ~Se~.-=wh'i~;.'.~o~ld:.~0st e~h~nce';'.the;'BAR~.:'sta~ion 'area; :would:':.:. ~',. ';":."/~'?', ..'.~.' '~' .... Plaza, Road cul'.de' sac which' fias .~lr. eady.,been-:incorporated in t~e west Dublin BART .... .... Specific'. Plan· An; FAR (~f.-1';00 Would also 'be' appropriate for the remainder ofAmador - - .- · . · · · . Plaza Road 'south 'of Dublin" Boulevai'd, .which is all'easy walling distance from the' BART · s~ation. ~.Tbe Commercial' d~sign gqidel!nes' as illustrated 'in Figures 2. through 6 of the. "" · ' West Dublin' BART speisific.·plan are both well'done a'nd:very..much in keeping.with our,- .. ': vision for the .style 'of."buildings.appropdate .for redevelopment of...that area:' Please feel· free 'to-call if. you h~ve ,any questions. - .,. ' ..... . .. -.'. . . '~. .. .'. .. . T~:uly Yotj~'s .... ' .... Very: ' " ....... .-.... .... -.~. . .-. Robeft' '" "' ' ' ·" ' · - : Enea :. - -....,,. , ~- . .... , :., -- . ......... .:.. "-- CO:'.' Janet·Harbin .'.: ..".'- ': '- .-.:' ' '- · . . . ... . · . ,..: : -' ': Peter. MacDonald- - · -: .' · . .... .. · ,. ,...-.,.'-..: . .%: .," . .- .. :-'. ., . .- ........ :- . . , ...'~ .: · .. · · - .... ~ ,.. .. .... ... - ...... "+ .+.:',.,- .:;, · ..-..- .... ,..., . +. :-~ ,......:~: . ":.,:., . -.. :. ~ -.. . -. - . . -. ~. ," .. '.:. . .. ,: - ., -.. .... . · ..... .. . ., · ~ - . . · - .. , .:: '., . .- . . .... :., ... - .. . . .... : . -., ,,, : · .. ..: , . . .. -..,:. -- . · .... '.~ . .-'..:,.":......-.: ..:. , .... .. . '.'*,- .: ..... ....- '.- ...., .:: . -' ": - ::... . ',- , : :% ......... ... ........,. -: : .. '.. .. :-. -" ,,: ~ .-...,. .. -:- .... ., +.:.:,.,., '.~ ....-...:... . ::. E..... · ..- -, '- ,,...:..~ ... . % .. ,....".· ..: . - .. .+..-. ., .~ . '. .: '. ,. ~ .. '-,.. .- , .: -.: · ...... . .- .. '.. .....:. :' : : . .. . : - , . ... -'.......·. -.:. ...... -: .....,. , ...-.'. .. "'.""....:':... . . .. -' ..... -.. ,.....- ~ .'.' . ....~;. .- .. '-.-- · . . · .. - . . .. .. .2 . -. . ·:.... . .. ,-... : .... . , --.. . . _.....- ; . !:'.' .. · .- , . ',.'.-,, .- , . - rVICNICHOLS RANDICK O'DE:A & TOOLIATOS LLP October 24, 2000 Via Facsimile to 925-833-6628 and US Mail Eddie Peabody, Jr. Community Development Director City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin CA, 94568 OCT ~, ~1 Z00O DUBLIN PLANNING Re: Downtown Core Specific Plan/C0785. 010 Dear Eddie: As you know, this firm represents PFRS Dublin Corp. At the last Planning Commission meeting, you and I discussed my client's concern that it had not yet had an opportunity to fully consider and review the information in the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Their architect Continues to review the documents to evaluate their potential effect on the Shopping Center. However, there is'one item of particular concern about the Plan that my client's representative, Randy Potterf, Andy Byde and 3[ discussed via conference ca!l .earlier today.. Andy suggested we address our concerns in writing to you and indicated the staff would look into the issue further in light of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Of a particular concern to my client is goal #5 for the Downtown Core Specific Plan, which is an attempt to incorporate high densityresidential development in the location where the old Copeland's building currently exists. As you and I have discussed, existing uses for the properties in the Downtown Core Specific Plan will be preserved. Currently, my client has a tenant in the old Copeland's building and they intend to continue with a retail use on that site in the future. In fact, they ~e in the process of negotiating with a major retailer for that site and expect to be in contract within the next thirty days. Their plan is for a similar configuration of the site, modified. to maximize the benefits to a-retailer, as the current configuration is not a dynamic use of the space. The plan to move a'major retailer to that location would include tearing down the building and constructing a new building in compliance with the design guidelines set forth in the Downtown Core Specific Plan. "In '.light of PFES's planj we are particularly. Concerned' that the .City' sees this F0perty as a dense ' residential houging Complex for seniors. Housingin that particular 10cation would be totally adverse' to the dynamics and the economics of the Shopping Center which we expect will be a centerpiece of the redevelopment currently going on in the City of Dublin. p:\c0785,010\l12~g,do¢ 5000 H0pya~d ROad: Suite 400 Pleasanton, California 94588-3348 Telephone 925-460-3700 Fax 925-460-0969 www, rncnicholslaw.corn Eddie Peabody October 23, 2000 Page 2 In the interest of time, we are raising this issue for your consideration as the Downtown Core Specific Plan moves forward through the Planning Commission process. We would like the opportunity to work closely with Janet and Andy to address our concerns as well as those of the City. We ask that you take our concerns into consideration and we strongly suggest the Planning Commission reserve its approval of the housing Component of the Plan and reject the inclusion of senior housing 'in a maj or City shopping center. We look forward to working together to develop a project for which the City can be proud. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, McNIC ICK O'DEA & TOOLIATOS, LLP By. . ELK/skc a CC:' Janet Harbin Andy Byde Randy Potterf g05 Fletcher Lane Hayward Ca 94544 OCtober 25, 2000 RECEIVED Janet Harbin Head Plalmer C/O City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plazas Dublin Ca 94568 OCT 2 6 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Dear Janet: I aln representing the owners of 6842, 6830 Village Parkway and 74 10 Amador Valley Blvd. in Dublin. To date, we have not received notice form the City of Dublin regarding the :::formation of a Village Parkway SpeCific Plan task force, any dates and times of their public meetings, · :!O~' aniy opportunity to speak to the issues they are reviewing. · q~;~:~i~io;ni 1 !:ave called and gone down to the city planning office to request a copy of the proposed % i}l;egt~ P;.;~ I< x; yt:, ~cific Phm and have not been able to get a ;opy of the plan to review. Until then ; .~ ~, abic '.o cm: 2xamine this plan. meet with my tenants, and review the cost of implementing the ph',tL I am (~i:.':~iCil tO ally of the proposed changes being made. ..% i',~t :he ~'.~;,~,'d parking proposal, I am in strong disagreement with the concept. By forcing the ':;~peny owners to open their parking lob to use by any faciliW located in the area, d~e ciW is moving ~:~ ~! ~hole set of issues which must be resolved: There is the takings issue associated with the ~6~E~use of private pro~, for street wide parking, as well as general liabili~ issues. ·Finally, tl~s 'E~t~a'n provides an open invitation for the numerous auto repair shops m monopolize the parking with the cars awaiting repair thus defealing the goal you are t~ing to acl~eve for ~e area. Co:Mayor Guy Houston City Attorney Elizabeth 'Silver Ralph Martin T. J. Albrecht, Jr. - 10 May Court San Ramon, CA 94583 26 October 2000 OCT' 3 0 00o Planning Commission City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Commissioners: Today's issue of the Tri-Valley Herald carded an artiele about your planning to modify the parking arrangement on Village Parkway. To be honest, I've never read a more idiotic idea in my life! I am not a resident of Dublin, but such a plan.would effect me greatly. Between Amador" Valley and Dublin Boulevards, Village Parkway is frequently carrying four full lanes of traffic. To eliminate two of those lanes is mind boggling. Why you would contemplate building up pedestrian traffic is beyond me. Them are too many businesses along the street that do not pull in customers that would be walking from one store to another. For example, in-my case I take,my dog to the Parkwa9 Veterinary Hospital~, next door is a plumbing supply store that I have frequently had to visit as my house gets older, a little farther up the street is the U. S. Post Office, Then there is Midas Mufflers,' then there is the car wash on the corner. Across the street, there is Box World, a hobby shop, a cobbler, and a locksmith. All of these business I have visited in the past and expect to again. But, they are all one stop businesses. When I go to one. of them, that is it for the day. There is no way I would need to visit or would consider just ambling into two or three of them just see what they are offering that day! You Will note that all of the businesses I have noted are all service oriented, and I have not mentioned the many auto repair places behind Box World, the hobby shop, the cobbler and the locksmith, or any of the fast food outlets. They do not generate pedestrian traffic! For the most part, they generate quick, one-stop, in-and-out traffic. I have lived in this area for over thirty years~ and while traffe has, in general, become much heavier over the years, I have never had a problem parking when visiting any of the businesses on Village Parkway. But if you reduce the street to one lane of traffic in each direction, I will be forced to take most, if not all; of my business elsewhere! Sincerely, November 10, 2000 Mr'. Andy Byde AsSociate Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Andy: I wanted m take a moment and thank you again for the opportunity to review with you the Dublin' Place Shopping Center and the potential impact the Downtown Core Specific Plan would have on the development. -As we discussed, the ownership of parcels B, C, and D, PFRS Dublin Corp., has great concerns about the potential harmonial and fiscal impact a senior living facility would make on the center given the location indicated in the Specific Plan to replace the current retail building (former Copelands btdlding). We are in the process of preparing exterior facade remodel designs and brokers are negotiating with potential tenants to occupy the building. We are in the process ofprepaig a quick site plan study indicating the potential of the senior living' facility in conjunction with the ProPosed senior centerto replace the existing h~rary for review by the planning staff. We will provide this site plan and the design elevations for'the Shops building, the Theatre building and the former Copelands building next week to you for your review prior to the City Council hearing... We are also looking at an expansion of the existing Theatre building and a facade remodel of the Shops building next to Target as wen as the same Theatre building. The ownership has concerns about the impact of the "Future Access Way" indicated in the Core Specific Plan on future parking ratios related to an expansion propo. sal. In our meeting, you indicated that this was a city desire and the exact design has not been ~nalized. We look forward to the opportunity to coordinate efforts with the city on the design of the proposed access road so that our current expansion plans can be achieved. MAPLE DEL'L + McCLELLAND ARCHITE'CTS,. LLP 90 US HighLgay 130, Bordentown, ~lew Jersey 08,505 III 609 291-0130 !1 609 291-0131 FAX' Andy Byd6 Associate Planner City of Dublin Dublin Plaee Shopping Center Page Two November 9, 2000 Again, we support the majority of this report and' look forward to implementing it into our redevelopment, however, we have serious reservations about the designation of the former · Copeland' s building as a future residential use. The nature and character of this shopping center' may not allow for a successful transition to the residential use and the.negative economic impact ofthis re-designation will be felt immediately 'and long term by the property owner. This could potentially put the current re-development plans for the overall property on hold. On behalf of PFRS Dublin Corp. and CapozzOli Advisory for Pensions, we look forward to you .reviewing our ideas 'with the planning staff as indicated above. We will be in attendance at the City Council Hearing on November 2 I, 2000 to express our ideas and concems regarding the Core Specific Plan proposal. Sincerely, co: Christopher L. Foss, City' of Dublin Randall Potteff, Capazzoii Advisory for Pensions Erin L. Kvistad, McNiehols, Randick, O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP - L ,~, WILLIAM F. BURNS, ESQ. 855 Main St. Suite 210 Pleasanton, California 94566-6650 (925) 461--4972 IT, AND DELIVERED November 16, 2000 Dublin City Council CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, · Dublin, California 94568 Re: Comments On Draft West Dublin/BART Specific Plan For Inclusion Into Record. Dear Dublin City Council & Ms. Harbin: - Thank you for Ms. Harbin's letters of October 27, 2000 and November 7, 2000, which replied to Crown Chevrolet's comments concerning the Bart Specific Plan. I am also counsel for Betty Woolverton, the property owner of the Crown parcels and' am writing to express her wishes that in the event the Bart Specific Plan is adopted that her current parcels be zoned for high rise construction of twelve stories or more. We understand that the new Bart Station will contain a six to eight level parking garage, and when the time comes for changing the current use of the property from an auto dealership to office or a higher-density commercial use it would seem appropriate to have some building or buildings in the vicinity of the Bart Station which are not dwarfed by a parking structure~ - Ms. Woolve,.m~n would appreciat6 some comment by the Council on this possibility at the upcoming meeting of November 21, 2000. l~egards, LAW FICE OF WILLIAM F. BURNS W~I~~ F F. BURNS, ESQ. WFB/tbh Ice. Chris Foss, Ed Peabody AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 26, 2000 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: PUBLIC'HEARING: PA 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan; PA 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan; and, PA 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan, Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, and rep.eaI ofp0rtions of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Report Prepared by Janet Harbin, 'Senior Planner, and Jerry Haag, ConSulting Planner) 3) 4) .5) 6) 7) 1) 2) 3) 4) S) 6) · Draft Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration Draft ResolUtion recommending City Council approval of the West Dublin BART Specific.Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan (with Specific Plans attached 'as Exhibits A, B, and C) Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Maps attached as Exhibits C and. D) Initial StUdy/Negat~iVe DeClaration West Dublin BART SpeCific Plan Downtown Core Specific Plan Village Parkway Specific Plan. Open the public hearing Receive staff presentation and public testimony Close the public hearing Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration Adopt Resolution.;(Attachment 2) recommending City Council apprOVal of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan (with Specific Plans attached as Exhibits A, B, and C) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Plan (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B,' and General Plan Land Use Maps attached as Exhibits C and D) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This application includes consideration of three Specific Plans for adoption prepared to provide a framework 'for revitalizing and improving the downtown area of Dublin. A General .Plan Amendment 'to add a Mixed-Use designation categoryi General Plan Amendmdnts to redesignate some land uses and modify the maXh~...um FAR allowed in the, West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans areas, ITEM NO. COPIES' TOi PAFile. Village Parkway Task Force Robert Enea ATTACHMENT. existing "big box" retail uses and to increase the appearance and functionality of the area by promoting a . mix of smaller scale specialty retail, office, mixed use, residential and similar uses. At the same time, the attractiveness of the area to visitors wouldbe increased through the construction of more public plazas and open spaces to create a tree downtown environment. Ideally, the economic vitality of the Specific Plan area would be expanded through an increase in the number of shoppers and visitors to the area. Several linkages, including auto, pedestrian and bicycle, to the new West Dublin BART station would be provided to increase the synergy between these two adjacent areas. With the introduction of a new BART transit center approximately ¼ mile away, more people will be in the downtown vicinity and utilizing serVices available in this area. The urban design guidelines chapter of the Downtown Core Specific Plan establishes guidelines and standards for developing these vital linkages, gateways and streetscape improvements. A major component of this Specific Plan is .an improved access way through the Dublin Green shopping center, which could stimulate small retail development along the .alignment. The maximum amount. of development projected for the. area based on the economic analysis is !,100,000 square feet. The Specific Plan also calls for the development of approximately 148 dwelling units,. Forty- eight of these are anticipated to be senior housing units, to be located near the City's future senior' center, in the northwest comer of the Specific Plan area. The other 100 dwelling units would be high density units in a mixed-use (retail on the ground level and residential on the upper level) designated area located at the southeast comer of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Village Parkway Specific Plan The Village P~kway area consists of approximately 31 acres of commercial services, retail, restaurant, office and automotive service type land uses. Under the Specific Plan for. the area, these existing uses would not Change, but would be stabilized and enhanced. A higher intensity of development, and a more pedestrian-oriented environment are encouraged by the Plan through increased floor-area-ratios (FAR), establishment .gf design. guidelines' for development, and streetscape improvements.. The recommended FAR of .35 for the Village Parkway area would be consistent with the City' s present. General Plan, .and no general plan amendment would be needed with the adoption of the Specific Plan. The maximum amount of development in the Village Parkway area is anticipated .to be 408, 108 square feet. Unlike the other Specific Plans, a task force was appointed by the City Council to develop. the plan and vision for this particular area. The Village Parkway Task Force met over a six month period and discussed the issues and problems facing businesses and property owners in the area in: order to direct the future land uses along Village Parkway and to evaluate traffic and circulation issues relative to promoting increased economic growth in the area,. The Village Parkway Specific Plan Task Force consisted of thirteen business owners, property owners and residents of the City that have shown an interest in the future physical and economic development of the Village Parkway Specific Plan area. To accomplish this and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and the City, it was decided by the Task Force that slowing traffic and providing better parking oppommities close to businesses. in the form of diagonal parking would create a more pedestrian and shopper frienc~y environment~ thereby. stimulating the economic growth of businesses and increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options for the ultimate design of Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the existing roadway configuration. The Task Force has recommended an alternative, which would reduce the number of traffic lanes on the roadway with a bike path and diagonal parking, The Task Force and staff recommended alternatives are fuaher discussed in, the analysis section of this report. are shown on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9 in the Specific Plan document, to be constructed as part of new development on the sites. These sites are located near the intersection of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate, at the terminus of Golden Gate near the proposed BART station and at the intersection of St. Patrick Way and the terminus Of Regional Street. Maximum FAR~s are established in the SpecificPlan and would range by land use type, between 0. 18 for automobile oriented uses to 1.0 for. mixed-use developments. The higher intensification of development is common to transit-oriented sections of cities and transit villages. Presently, the FAR's for Retail/Office, as stated in the General plan, range from .25 to .50. For Business Park/Industrial land use in the area, the FAR is presently .30 to .40. Development standards are included to regulate new developments in the Specific Plan area and include minimum lot size, building heights, and the location of landscaping on each parcel. Generally, development· standards are less' stringent than found in the DUblin Zoning Ordinance to ·prOvide incentives for landowners to develop pedestrian friendly uses. To create a more traditional downtown environment, the Specific Plan establishes a greater maximum building height of six stories or 75 feet, whereas the Zoning Ordinance currently allows a height of up to 45 feet in industrial districts and 35 feet in commercial districts. The Specific Plan includes urban design. guidelines to promote pedestrian friendly developments and to assure consistent character and quality of architecture throughout the plan area. The guidelines deal with overall building design, massing, orientation, siting, use of exterior-materials, provision of!andscaping, and signs and lighting. These guidelines also: include 'provisions and standards f0rentry gateway features into the West Dublin BART area, creation of plazas and amenity spaces, landscaping of streets ,and street amenity features such as street furniture. , A key part of the Specific Plan is to ensure accessibility. A Transportation and Circulation section has been included dealing with automobile access to and through the area, provision of bus, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and auto parking. With the anticipated Specific Plan traffic added to existing plus appr0ved BART traffic volumes,; two! of the intersections within the vicinity oft he West Dublin BART Specific ·Plan area would operate at. unacceptable levels Of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hour. These include the Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard intersections. Specific transportation improvements included in the Plan are based on a transportation analysis of maximum Specific Plan build out and include the following: Extending St. Patrick Way from the current terminus to Regional. Street. This will provide a parallel roadway· south of Dublin'BOulevard and will allow improved access to parcels in the westerly portion of the Specific Plan area. ~, · The noahb0und Golden Gate Drive approach at Dublin Boulevard' will be widened and restriped to include an additional left-turn lane. · Golden Gate Drive between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick's Way is to be widened from two to four travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. The northbound and southbound Amador Plaza Road approach lanes at Dublin Boulevard will be widened and restriped to include separate through lanes. Amador Plaza Road is already planned for widening to four lanes under the Capital Improvement Program budget: would be increased:through the construction oftnore public plazas and open spaces to create a true downtown structure. Ideally, the economic vitality' of the Specific Plan area would be expanded through an increase in the amount of shoppers and visitors. ~ Several linkages, including auto, pedestrian and bicycle, to the new West Dublin BART station would be provided to increase the synergy between these two adjacent areas. With the introduction of a new BAKT transit center approximately ¼ mile away, more people Will be in the vicinity and utilizing services available in this area. The urban design guidelines chapter of the Downtown Core Specific Plan establishes guidelines and standards for developing these vital linkages, gateways and streetscape improvements. A major component of this Specific Plan is an improved access-way through .the Dublin Green shopping center, which could stimulate small retail development along the access-way alignment. In general, the same types of uses would be allowed in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area as West Dublin BAKT, although large-scale retailers, or "big box" retail, would be encouraged. Those retail businesses presently in the area. would be encouraged to remain, and other retailers and services locating in the Plan area would be able to build at a higher level of intensity. As With the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, the allowable FAR-in this downtown area would increase to a maximum of .80. Presently, the average FAR in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area is approximately .30, and the FAR's for Retail/Office type uses, as stated· in the General Plan, range from .25 to .50. The D~wntown Core Specific Plan is structured in a similar fashion as the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in-termS of permitted' land uses, development standards and an implementation program. As in' the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan establisheS a 'greate~ maximum building height of six stories or 75 fe.e~, whereas the Zoning Ordinance currently allows a maximum height of up to35 feet in commercial districts. With the anticipated Specific Plan traffic added to existing plus approved BART traffic volumes, two of · the intersections within the vicinity of the. Downtown Core Specific Plan area would operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) during the AM and.-PM peak hour. These include, the Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard intersections. BeCause the two specific plan areas are adjacent and interrelated, the improvements required for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Traffic, as discussed in the section above on the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.,' would alleviate the traffic impacts in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area. To offset overall development impacts and the resulting traffic in the downtown area, including. BART station' related tratTm; Dublin Boulevard is currently proposed for widening to' six travel lanes between Sierra Court and Doughtery Road. A second eastbound right-turn lane would be installed On Dublin- Boulevard at Dougherty Road. The new private access way proposed through the center of the block on the west Side-of Amador Plaza · Road would require improvement of the existing drive aisles in the Dublin Green shopping ·center. This cotrid potentially be funded through a public/private partnership. This concept haS been discussed With the property owners of the shopping center, and they may consider it to stimUlate' retail activity in the center. The Land Use Plan for.the Downtown Core Specific Plan shows three potential plaza locations. One plaza location fronts on Dublin Boulevard at the entrance to the Dublin Green shopping'center. This would provide a focal point. and gateway to the Downtown Core area, and could be a civic plan with oppommities for the introduction of public art.. The other two locations are at the intersection of the. 7 and Dublin BouleVard/Village Parkway would operate at LOS D during the AMpoak hour and i~OS F during the PM peak hour. As suggested by the Task Force, the full improvement plan for Village Parkway would be developed initially to assure that improvements are only constructed once and in the right locations to facilitate the phased implementation. Under the phasing of the plan implementation, streetscape improvements would be implemented first, such as increased landscaped frontages, sidewalk improvements, and the addition of street furniture and lighting in a portion of the plan area, The next phase, at an interval of l 2 to 18 months, would evaluate the cost effectiveness of the recent streetscape improvements on business. At that time, a re-assessment of the traffic on Village Parkway would be performed to obtain real traffic volume numbers since the opening. of the new fleeway on- and off-ramps. It could then be determined if one of the alternative roadway designs with diagonal parking should be tested, along with more concise cost information and funding mechanisms. Testing of the alternative would also be phased with implementation of a limited amount of diagonal parking in the format of the alternative, which would then be re-evaluated at a particular interval. By improving a limited area, and then testing the performance, the investment in.the improvements could also be limited and controlled while determining if the option was. feasible. The Tasl~ Force has recommended that it be reconvened during this process to provide input to City staff. Implementation of this altemative would require a pUblic/private partnership, or joint partnership between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements, which are estimated at approximately $1,050,000 (preliminary estimate). This alternative requires .cooperation and commitment 1~5/both the City anc[ the property owners on Viilage Parkway to b~ successful. Therefore, a major . commitment by a property owner or property owners' is necessary before any change is to occur~ The PUblic. IW0rks Department staff has reservations about the adverse safety issues that might arise from implement~g this alternative. The reduction in the roadway. width and the addition of a bike lane with diagonal parking could increase the incidence of accidents and conflicts between motorists, bicycles and pedestrians. Additionally, traffic may be diverted to adjacent residential streets unable to handle additional traffic. Staff Recommendation for Roadway Improvements Should a public/private partnership not be feasible for the above improvements in the Village Parkway Specific Plan area, staff recommends that the existing roadway be maintained and the existing parallel parking on both sides of the street remain. Improvements in the streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section related to streetscape standards, and Chapter 6,0 related to urban design guidelines, to encourage increased pedestrian use in the area. A Parking Authority District could be considered to fund development of joint parking areas, and may be further studied by the City CounCil. The district could provide an administrative unit for managing existing on-street and public parking lots, as well as fund Structured parki'ng facilities, when such facilities are necessary and financially feasible. The parking district can establish and administer a range. of revenue sources including paid-parking~ impact fees, benefit assessments, and other private or publi¢ contributions. Other options recommended by staff to provide needed parking in the area in lieu of diagonal parking are to provide improved access to the rear of properties adjacent to -the fleeway corridor, and to remove barriers sach as fences between parking lots by property owners. joint,access between properties would encourage customers to combine trips to various businesses and improve pedestrian access. Additionally, the General Plan Land Use Map would require modification to redesignate certain lands in the West. Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas to different. land use designations. In the West Dublin BAKT Specific Plan Area, a large section of land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility, located to the west of Golden Gate Drive and extending from the terminus of that street to a small area beyond its intersection with the proposed St. Patrick Way, would require redesignation to Retail/Commercial and High Density Residential (25+ dwelling units per acre) to permit development of the residential dwelling units and-hotel sponsored by BAKT. A redesignation of the property adjacent to the west of the residential development and extending to Regional Street would also require redesignation to Mixed-Use in accor'dance with the SpeCific Plan. These lands are shown on Exhibit C to AttaChment 1. In the Downtown Core Specific Plan area~ an area adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard and the future senior center near the northwest corner of the Plan area should be redesignated for High Density Residential to accommodate senior housing. A Mixed-Use designation would be necessary for the property located at the southeast comer of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. These lands are shown on Exhibit D to Attachment 1. General Plan Consistency Approval of the West Dublin BART, Downtown Core, and Village Parkway Specific Plans furthers the goals of the Dublin General Plan by intensifying land uses in the downtown area, a key portion of the community. The two Specific Plans are also consistent with the following Dublin General Plan goals and policies: :', : Land Use Element: Goal 2.1 (Housing Availability), -Guiding Policy A (encouraging a variety of l~ousing types), Implementing Policy B (designation of housing sites), Goal 2.2 (Commercial and Industrial Land Use), Guiding Policy A (intensify downtown Dublin), Implementing Policy B (d6signate Downtown intensification area), PoliCy C (downtown BART station), D (encourage mid-rise development) and E (make downtown understandable). Circulation and Scenic Highways Element: Goal 5.1 (Roadways), Guiding Policy A 0Design of non-residential streets), Design Criteria Guiding Policy A (right-of-way reservation), B (LOS on routes of regional significance), C (routes of regional significance), D (maintain LOS on non-Routes of Regional Significance), E (Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan), G (design of circulation system), I (provide multi-modal circulation system), J (continuity of local streets), Policy 5.1..2 (freeway access), Guiding Policy A (freeWay access), B (fleeway interchanges), Policy 5.4 (Bikeways), Guiding Policy A (provide bikeways), B (complete bikeway system), Goal 5.7 (financing road improvements), Guiding Policy A (road fee program). The Specific Plans allow the City of Dublin to adopt more detailed guidance for the 'downtown core area and to tailor regulatory standards to the unique needs and characteristics of the planning areas. It also allows the 'opportunity to establish standards and implement programs to meet the needs of both local property owners and the remainder of Dublin. The Land Use Element of the Dublin General Plan designates the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area for Retail/Office and Public/Semi-Public Facility. ~2he Downtown Core Specific Plan area is designated for Retail/Office. These two Specific Plan areas contain a Mixed-Use land use category. A similar category is not included in the existing General Plan land use designations. To ensure consistency between the two documents, the General Plan must be amended to add such a land use designation. Creation of a Mixed-Use land use designation in the General Plan will be important to promote a mix of GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNERS: Varies APPLICANT: City of Dublin LOCATION: West Dublin BART Specific Plan: South of Dublin Boulevard, east of San Ramon Road, north of 1-580 Freeway and generally west of Golden Gate Avenue Downtown Core Specific Plan: .South of Amador Valley Boulevard, west of I~680 Freeway, noah of Dublin Boulevard and east of existing MontgOmery Ward shopping center. Village Parkway Specific Plan; Along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. EXISTING ZONING: West Dublin BART Specific Plan: C~ I ,: Retail Commercial; C-2, General Commercial; 'and, M-l, Light Industrial, Zoning Districts Downtown Core :Specific Plan: C~ 1, Retail Commercial; C-2, General Commercial; and, P-D, Planned Development, Zoning Districts · GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Village Parkway: C-l, Retail Commercial; C-2, General Commercial; C-N, Neighborhood Commercial; and, P- D, Plarmed Development, Zoning Districts West Dublin BART Specific Plan: Retail/Office and Public/Semi- Public Facility Downtown Dublin Specific Plan: Retail/Office Village Parkway Specific Plan~ Retail/Office and Retail/Office and Automotive PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and tenants within the three Specific Plan areas, and other inferested parties, to advertise the project, the upcoming public hearing, and draft negative declaration. A public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the current proposal. 13 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 10, 2000 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: PUBLIC HEARING,: PA 99-056, West.Dublin BART Specific Plan; PA 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan; and, PA 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan, Specific Plans, General' Plan Amendments, and repeal of portions of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Report Prepared by Janet Earbin, Senior Planner, and Jerry Haag, Consulting PlanneT) I) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) s) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Draft Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration Draft Resolution recommending City· Com~cil approval of the West Dublin BART SpeCific Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Resolution recommending' City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Maps attached as Exhibits C and D) Initial. Study/Negative Declaration West Dublin BART Specific Plan Downtown cole specific Plan Village. Parkway Specific Plan Planning Commission staff report from September 26, 2000 Open the public hearing · Receive staff presentation and public testimon9 Close the public hearing Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1 ) recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Maps attached as Exhibits C and D) 'PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This application includes consideration of three Specific Plans for, adoption prepared to provide a framework for .revitalizing and improving the downtown area of DUblin.' A General Plan Amendment to add a Mixed-Use designation category, General Plan Amendments to redesignate some land uses and modify the maximum FAR allowed in the West Dublin BAKT and Downtown Core Specific Plans areas, ITEM NO. (g - I COPIES TO: PA File Village Parkway Task Force Robert Enea and repeal of portions of the existing Downtown Dublin Specific Plan related tO Development Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are also being proposed to assist in the implementation of the three proposed Specific Plans. ' The three draft Specific Plans have been drafted for the purpose of guiding the development and redevelopment of Downtown Dublin. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area includes approximately 70 acres of land and is located north of the 1-580 freeways east of San Ramon Road, south of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of Golden Gate Drive, The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consisting . of approximately 51 acres of land, is located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the 1-80 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of the Dublin Green shopping c~nter.- The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres of land. ' Previous Action by Planning Commission On September'26, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Specific Plans project. At that time, the Commission continued the public hearing and consideration of the three Specific Plans to October 10, 2000 to allow additional time to review the specific plan documents and to receive further comments on the plans.. Attachment 8 to this report is the September 26, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission which contains a complete description and analysiS. of the Specific Plans. Comments Received A. letter was distributed to the Planning Commissioners at the last meeting from Ken and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda regarding .concerns related to .the impacts on their property of potential land use changes in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area. Additionally, the Commissioners have received a copy of a letter to the City Cotmoil from William BurnS, representing'Crown Chevrolet, regarding the impacts of proposed traffic mitigation. measures and improvements on Golden Gate Drive contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the auto d~alership's property. Responses to these letters are currently being prepared. RECOMMENDATION: · Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing, deliberate and adopt the following resolutions: 1. Adopt Resolution (Attachment i) recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council. approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Downtown Core .Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. 'Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Maps attached as Exhibits C and D). AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: CONSENT ITEM: PA 99-056, West'Dublin BART Specific Plan, Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and repeal of portions of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Report Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner) 1 ) Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration 2) ' Resolution, as revised, recommending City Council approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and repeal of portions of the-' 1987 Downtown Dul~lin Specific Plan 3) Resolution, as revised; recommending City Council approval of . General Plan Amendments for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C) Previously received by the Commission: 4) Initial Study/Negative Declaration 5) West Dublin BART Specific Plan · 6) Planning Commission staff report from Septerhber 26, 2000 'RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) 3) Review revised Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Review revised ResOlution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council approval of General Plan 'Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C) for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Approve resolutions and transmit to the City Council. 'PROJECT 'BACKGROUND :' · On September 26, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Specific PlanSproject. At that time, the Commission continued the public hearing and Consideralign of the Specific Plans to October 10, 2000 to allow additional time to review the specific plan documents and to receive further. comments on the plans. On October 10% the Planning Commission discussed the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and suggested revisions to the resolution recommending the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the City Council. The Planning Commission closed the public· hearing on the West Dublin COPIES TO: PA File Village Parkway Task Force Robert Enea ITEM NO. (~ / BART Specific Plan at that time, but continued the public hearings on the Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans to OCtober 24, 2000 for further consideration of the Plans. The resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration for all three of the Specific Plans was approved on October 10, 2000 for referral to the City Council, and was not modified. The resolution for the draft Negative Declaration 'is. contained as Attachment 1' for reference purposes. A discussion of the Downtown Core. and Village Parkway Specific P!ans is included in the Staff Keport for PA 99-055 and PA 99-054 in this agenda. Revisions to ResoLutions and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan At the. meeting on'October 10, 2000, the Planning Commissione~;s' Suggested revisions to 'be included in the West Dublin BAKT Specific Plan, and also in'the. General Plan Amendments for the project. Specifically, the CommissiOn suggested modification of Table 5 of ~e Plan 'to reflect the latest development proposal submAtted by Jones, Lang, LaSalle for the property owned by BAKT, adjacent to the Transit Center. To be consistent with the proposal, a r~vision in the maximum allowable building · height from six stories or 75 feet to 10 stories was also needed in Section 5.4.d of the Plan. These revisions are contained in the resolution recommending City Council approval of the West Dublin BAKT Specific Plan, and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 2), for the Commission' s review. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment text has been revised to modified the definition of the new "Mixed-Use'~ land use designation to allow flexibility in the type of land uses combined in such a designated area. Wording has also been added to allow residential use as an ancillary use in Retail/Office designated areas to encourage the creation of live/work ~paces. The increased FAR for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area has been revised to allow a FAR exceeding 1.0 for. the. Transit Village area adjacent to BART, .to further implement the. goal of creating a transit-oriented center in the downtown. These revisions are contained in the resolution recommending City Council approval of' Gener~ Plan Amendments for the .West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Attachment 3), for the Commission's reviewl The revisions to the text of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan document ·related .to minor modifications of the goals and objectives, background information, and the revisions addressed in the . resolutions discussed above, pursuant to the Planning Commission' s direction .will be incorporation into the document prior to transmittat to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning COmmisSion take the following ~ctions: 1. Review revised Resolution (Attachnient 2) recommending approval of the West' Dublin BART Specific Plan and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin'Specific Plan. Review revised Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (With General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan'. Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C) for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. 3. ApproVe Resolutions and transmit to the City Council. AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 24,2000 ~SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: PUBLIC. HEARING: PA 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan; and, PA 9%054, Village Parkway Specific Plan, Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, and repeal of portions of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Keport Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner) 1 ) Draft Kesolution recommending City Council approval of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan, and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. ' 2) Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and' General Plan Land USe Map attached as Exhibit C) 3) Letter received October 1 l, 2000 from the Target Corporation Previously r.eceived by the Commission: 4) Downtown Core Specific Plan 5). Village Parkway Specific Plan 6) . Planning Commission staff report from September 26~ 20.00. 1 ) Open the public hearing 2) Receive public. testimony 3) Close the public hearing 4) Adopt Kesolution (Attachment 1 ) recommending City Council adoption of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the .Village Parkway Specific Plan, and repeal of portions of the 1987 . Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 5) Adopt 'ResolutiOn (Attachment 2) recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C) PROJECT:. DESCRIPTION: This application includes consideration of two Specific Plans for adoption prepared to provide a framework for revitalizing and improving the downtown a~ea of Dublin. A General Plan Amendment to add a Mixed-Use designation category, General Plan Amendments to redesignate some land uses and. modify the maximum FAR allowed in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area, and repeal of portions of the existing Downtown Dublin Specific Plan related to Dexielopment Zones 7, 8, 10, and 11 are also being proposed to assist in the implementa!ion of the two proposed Specific Plans. , A third downtown Specific Plan 'for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area was considered by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2000, and recommended to the City Council for adoption at that hearing, along with the draft Negative Declaration. Some revisions to the resolutions and Specific Plan document were suggested by the Planning Commission at that time. The revised Planning CommisSion ' resolutions are contained in Attachments 2 and 3 of the repo~ for the consent item for PA 99-056 on this ag.enda. ITEM NO. COPIES TO: PA File Village Parkway Task Force Robert Enea The Specific Plans have been drafted for the purpose of guiding the development and redevelopment of Downtown Dublin. The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consisting of approximately 51 acres of land~ is located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the 1-80 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of the Dublin Green shopping center. The Village.Parkway Specific Plan area is generally located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Areadot Valley Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres of land. A complete analysis of the Specific Plans and their implications for the City is included in the September 26, 2000 Staff Report previously received by the Planning Commission. , Previous Action by Planning Commission On September 26, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Specific Plans project. At that time, the Commission continued the public hearing 'and consideration 'of the Specific Plans to October 10, 2000 to allow additional time to review the specific.plan documents and to receive further comments on. the plans. On October 10th, the Planning Commission discussed the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and suggested revisions to the resolution recommending the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to.the City Council. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on the West Dublin BART Specific Plan at that time, but continued the public hearings on the Downtown Core and Village parkway Specific Plans to October 24, 2000 for further consideration of the Plans. The resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration for all three of the Specific Plans was approved on October 10, 2000 for referral to the City Council. Comments Received A letter of comment has been received from the Target Corporation regarding the Downtown Core Specific Plan. The letter expressed concerns on the affect of the Specific Plan on the Dublin Green shopping center and Target' s property. Staff is in the process of preparing· a response which will be presented at the City Council hearing on the item. Conclusion' At this time,· the Planning Commission.is considering recommendation to the City Council of the Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans, the related General Plan Amendment:s, and repeal of the existing Downtown Specific Plan relative to DeVelopment Zones 7, 8, 10 and 11. This hearing will· be the third Planning Commission public hearing held on the Specific Plans. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: 1~ Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1 ) recommending City Council approval of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. 2. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C). , RESOLUTION NO. 00-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE- SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054, PA 99-055, AND PA 99-056 WHEREAS, the City has prepared and recommended for approval the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific Plan, which have been prepared pursuant to Government Code S~ec. 65450; and, WHEREAS, the Sp.ecific Plans include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportatiofi improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the impacts of the Specific Plans, the repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan, and the General Plan Amendments for- consistency with the General Plan. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Negative Declaration for the project with the finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, because mitigation is incorporated in the context of the Specific Plans; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan documents and a complete record of the project is available and on file in the Planning Department; and, WHEREAS, a 24 day public review period was held for the draft Negative Declaration, from September 2, 2000 to September 26, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000 at which time they reviewed and considered the draft Negative Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are incorporated in this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning CommiSsion does hereby find that: A. The Specific Plans and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment, because mitigation is incorporated into the Plans as part of Plan implementation. B. The draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guidelines. ATTACHMENT .(_0 C. The draft Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgmem and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed Specific-Plans, General Plan Amendments and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council adoption of the draft Negative Declaration for PA 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan, PA 99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and PA 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, including the Initial Study incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2000. AYES: Cm. Hughes, Oravetz, Jennings, JohnsOn, and Musser - NOES: ABSENT: Community D ct~d G:pa99Q54/SPNDRES Planninc~ommission Cliairperson RESOLUTION NO. 00-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 99-056 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the Dublin General Plan; mad, WHEREAS, the City has prepared the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which have been' prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General Plan; and, , WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plans. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this Specific Plan is no longer relevant to those areas or Development- Zones (1, 2, 3, and 4) now included within the boundary of the WeSt Dublin BART and should be repealed; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071,'and are on file in the Dublin'Planning Department. Based · on the 'Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plans with the finding that the' implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration has been recommended for City Council adoption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the West Dublin BART Plan on September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000; and, WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning 'Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed West Dublin .BART Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TI2IAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council .approval of the West Dublin' BART Specific Plan subject to the modifications listed on Exhibit B, and repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those lands within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plans. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October 2000. AYES: Cm. Hughes,'Oravetz, Jennings, Johnsgn, and Musser NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATT.~./~ST:. - ,;..~,, /A ......./ ~ g,~, Co~ity Development Director G:\Downtown spec~c Plans\west BARTx, SP RESo sp rev 10-1 7BART,doc 2 Exhibit B Change # i: To. Attachment 2 Table 5. Maximum Economic Development Potential SP Land Use Category* Acres FAR DU/AC 10.87 0.25 7.76' 0.48' Commercial A (Corn A) . Commercial B (Com B) Lodging (L) Retail/Office (R/O) 12.28 0.83 Retail/Auto (R/A) 4.76 0,18 'Residential (R) 3.54 45 DU/ac Office (O) 6.98 0.87 Mixed Use (MU) 11.33 1.00 Parking (P) 2.46 '- Right.of-Way 2.11 '- Totals ~ -~ *Note: Potential plazas areas included in acreage EXisting Dev. (sq. ft.)** 243,344 17,823 103,231 · (246 rooms)' 38,325 242,385 645,108 0 DU * * Existing 21 O, 744 Industrial/Warehouse Square footage not included Max. Dev. (sq. ft.) 118.310 163,090 (486 rooms) 444,145 38,325 1.60 DU 263,225 "493,4304~ 331 DU ~+. 491 DU Change #2: Modify Section 5.4d: Building height: Six stories or 75 feet Architectural appurtenances may exceed the height limit. Change #3: Modify Section 1.5, Objective 6.5: Where economically feasible, encourage a mix of land uses on a single or adjoining parcel, . This may include but would not be limited to residential, office, restaurant, retail and other uses. Change #4: Modify Objective 9~1 of Section 1.5 to read 's~.~..~.'y 5~ S restaurant and food' establishments to provide for outdoor seating areas." RESOLUTION NO. 00-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO 'THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING MAXIMUM FAR's, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE WEST. DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR PA 99-056 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared and approved for adoption the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which has been prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the West Dublin BART Plan and the Dublin General Plan, a new land use designation entitled "Mixed-Use" is required. The. text Of the proposed land use designation is shown in Exhibit A, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the West Dublin BART Plan and the Dublin General Plan, additions to the text of. Background Chapter 1 of the General Plan are required under Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, providing for increased FAR' s in the commercial land use categories for properties within the West Dublin BART area. The text of the proposed General Plan Amendment is shown in Exhibit B, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and, WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the West Dublin BART Plan and the Dublin General Plan, modifications in the Land Use Map are required within'the West Dublin BART area to redesignate certain properties to .different land use designations..In the .West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area, an approximately 10 acre portion of land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility shall be redesignated to Retail/Office and High Density Residefilial (25+ dwelling units per acre). These lands .are shown on Exhibit C. Additionally, a'portion of land designated Retail/Office shall be redesignated to Mixed-Use in accordance with the Specific Plan. These lands are shown on Exhibit C; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments to add a "Mixed-Use" land use designation, to modify the maximum FARs, and to amend the General.Plan Land Use Map will not have a substantial adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement; and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft 'Negative Declaration have been prepared and adopted for this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning Department. Based on the Initial StUdy, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific 'Plans with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the West Dublin BART Plan on September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000; and, WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing Was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed General Plan Amendments related to the WeSt Dublin BART Specific Plan are consistent with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended. NOW, .THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Amendments related to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan establishing the "Mixed~Use" land use designation, increasing FAR's for the Specific Plan areas,'and redesignating the land use of certain properties. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October 2000. AYES: Cm. Hughes, Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~om~m~erson ATT.:~,T: - ~~ Community Development Director EXIIlBIT A To Attachment Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 2, Land Use and Circulation: Land Use Element, new Section 2..1.5 as follows: 2.1.5 West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan Areas Guiding Policy A. Intensify development and provide housing opportunities and transit-oriented uses near transit center and facilities. Implementing Policies ' B. of the Approval of Mixed-Use land use designation development in the Specific Plan areas will require that ~ :~...,~/.,'+.,{~~~medium to high density residential housing and at least one non- residential land use, such as office or retail, be provided. G:\Downtown Specfic Plans\SPRESgpaxA mod 10-19.d0c Exhibit A to Attachment 3 EXIIIBIT B To Attachment 3 Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 1, Background, General PlanMap, Land Use Classifications, Section 1.8.1 as follows: West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area Retail/Office (FAR:..25 to 1:00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee). Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, hotels, service stations, entertainment facilities, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification. Resident. ia] Use i,s gen.e.r. al!y no.t inclu. ded e. xce. pt for on lands designated for Mixed-Use, and ~ ,':;:.'.., :'~ . %..",v ':.:... ~....'.:. ~ .,.': .'e · tt:(.;';,l. "' .r:..~ )'o, 1'2 · Mixed Use (FAR: .50 to 1.00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee). '. !~ ~ combination of medium to high density residential homing and at least one non-residential land use, such as office or retail, are included in this classification. Office or retail uses recommended are shopping centers, .stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, and entertainment facilities. For development in the Transit Village area adjacent to the BART Station, a FAR exceeding J.OO for hotel and residential use is ' acceptable because of its proximity to regional transportation facilities. DoWntown Core Spedtic Plan Area RetaiFOffice (FAR: .25 to .80; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee). Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional .offices, motels, hotels, service stations, entertainment facilities, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification. Residential use is generally not included except for on lands designated for Mixed-Use. Mixed-Use (FAR: .50 to !.00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).. A combination of medium to high density residential housing and at least one non- 'residential land use, such as office or retail, are includedin this classification. Office or retail uses recommended are shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, and entertainment facilities. G:XDowntown Spec~c Plans\SPRESgpaXB.doc Exhibit B to AttaChment 3 D LEGEND ......... MIXED- USE ~ REtAiL / OmCE ~/',-*/'/',-'//~,.Y/,/Tr~, HIGH DENSITY RESIDEN~ ~i- ~ ~'~' PUBUC / SEMi - PUBLIC F~IL~ PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN "IFJ IFHSi'AI't:., 580 N ~T.S '- SEPTEMBER 2000 EXHIBITc CITY' OF 'D ,U B L IN RESOLUTION NO. 00-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic vitality. of the downtown. portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Downtown Core Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which have been prepared pursuant to Government Code See.' 65450 et. seq.; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General .Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this Specific Plan is no longer relevant to those areas or Development Zones (7 and 8) now included within the boundaries of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and should be repealed; and WHEREAS, an initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plan would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration has been recommended for City Council adoption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning' Commission did hold a public hearing on the Downtown Core Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000; and, . WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the., Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and 'considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby fred that the proposed Downtown Core Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designationS, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin' General Plan, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER 'RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council approval of the. Downtown Core Specific Plan, subject to the modifications in EXhibit B, and repeal of the' 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those lands within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan area. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 24'n day of October 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cm. Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser Cm. Hughes ~ ~ c er Planning~mmis~ son ATTEST: C~iunity Development D~Qeector ~ g\99055XDCSPRESsps 2 RESOLUTION NO. 00-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 'DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO · TIlE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING MAXIMUM FAR's, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner corxsistent with the broad vision expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared and approved for adoption the Downtown Core Specific Plan; both of which have been prepared pursuant tO Governmdnt Code Sec. 65450; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plans include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, a new land use designation entitled "Mixed-Use" is required. The text of the proposed land use designation is shown in Exhibit A, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, additions to the text of Background Chapter 1 of the General Plan are required under Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, providing for increased FAR's in the commercial land use categories for properties within the Specific Plan area. The text of the proposed General Plan .Amendment is shown in Exhibit B, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and, WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, modifications in the Land Use Map are required within the Downtown Core Specific Plan area to redesignate certain properties to different land use designations. A portion of land designated Retail/Office generally located at the southeasterly comer 0fAmador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road shall be redesignated to Mixed-Use in accordance with the Specific Plan. Additionally, an approximately 1.75 acre property in the northweste~y portion of the Plan area shall be redesignated for High Density Residential land use. These lands are shown on Exhibit C; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments to add a "Mixed-Use" land use designation, to modify the maximum FARs, and to amend the General Plan Land Use Map will not have a substantial adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement; and, · WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft. Negative Declaration have. been prepared and adopted for this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Plying Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plans with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project; and, WItEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the Downtown Core Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000, and October 24, 2000; and, WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and, \ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE .IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed General Plan Amendments related to the Downtown Core Specific Plan are consistent with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forih in the Dublin General Plan, as amended..- NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Amendments related to' the Downtown Core Specific Plan, establishing the "Mixed-Use" land use designation, increasing FAR's for the SpeCific Plan area, and redesignating the land use of certain properties. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 241h day of October 2000. AYES: Cm. Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson and Musser NOES: ABSENT: . Cm. Hughes ABSTAIN: Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 00-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VILLAGE PARKWAY ' SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF-THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054, CITY OF DUBLIN· WHEREAS, the. City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appeararlce, functionality, economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Exl-n'bit A) which has been prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et.seq.; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan: However; due to changing market and other conditions, this Specific Plan is no longer relevant to this area or Development Zones (10 and 11) now included within the boundaries of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and should be repealed; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental · effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration has been recommended for City Council adoption; and, WHEREAS, the~ Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, Ogtober 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did hold a public meeting on the Village Parkway Specific Plan with property owners on November 9, 2000; and, WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as' required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin, Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed Village Parkway Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council approval of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, with Roadway Alternative 3 (Exhibit 7B of the Village Parkway Specific Plan) in attached Exhibit B as the preferred alignment for Village Parkway, and repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those lands withh~ the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 24th day of October 2000. AYES: Cm. Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser NOES: ABSENT: Cm. Hughes ABSTAIN: ~l~mm, ssiLn~erson ATTEST. '~ C'~. [ ~7',,~ :":~':"~C~ r] / ........ .,s, / ...:. .... ij . Co~u~ Development Director . g\99054\VPSPRESsps 10-24.doc A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Hughes, Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser; Eddie Peabody ,Jr., Community Development Director; ,Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Associate Planner; Anne Kinney, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm..Hughes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA There were no additions or revisions to the agenda, MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes from the AuguSt 22, 2000 meeting. were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Hughes explained that at this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to.the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item which is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Community Development Director no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday. preceding · Plannin, fl commission ReZJu/ar Meetin, fl september 26. zooo ATTACHMENT a regular meeting to have an item of concern placed on 'the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Peabody submitted documents to the Planning Commission. He stated that the City received written correspondence regarding the public hearing on the DoWntown Specific Plans. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 00-003 Emerald Glen Village Center, Development Agreement Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between Shea Properties, LLC, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority 'and the City of Dublin. Cm. Hughes asked for the staff report. Ms. Kinney pr.esented the staff report. She stated that the Development Agreement is between the City of Dublin, Shea Properties, and Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for the Emerald Glen Village Center. The Development Agreement is a requirement of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and will 'cover development issues. The. agreement will cover the payment of traffic impact, fees, the timing of roadway improvements, the timing of parkland dedication and other fees applicable to the project. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution, recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement. She concluded her presentation and was. available to answer any questions. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone had any questions; hearing none he asked if the applicant was available? Jeff Melrose, Shea Properties, 2 155 Las Positas Court, Livermore stated that he is in agreement with StafFs findings and urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Cm. Hughes opened the public hearing and asked if anyone had any questions. Mark Harvey, Dublin Honda stated that he has concerns with the DowntOwn' Specific Plans. r/ann.t.n~ commission zo6 september 26; 2000. Re~l~r Meetzn8 Cm. Hughes explained that the public hearing for the Downtown Specific Plans is the next item on the agenda. The Planning Commission will be happy to take public testimony at that time. He closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 5-0 the Planning CommissiOn unanimously adopted , RESOLUTION NO. 00-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 00-003 EMERALD GLEN VILLAGE CENTER 8.2 City of Dublin Downtown Specific Plans - The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, 'the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (PA 99-056), the Downtown Core Specific Plan, (PA 99-055) and the Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA 99-054) and ' associated draft negative declaration, The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping~ Cm. Hughes asked for staff report. Mr. Peabody explained that the three Downtown Specific Plans have been a high priority of-the City Council.. The Council asked Staff to prepare the three draft documents enclosed in tonight's packet. He stated that'the three Specific Plans will be' discussed simultaneously 'and any action taken will relate to the three draft documents. He introduced Janet Harbin, Project Planner for the Downtown Specific Plans. Ms. Harbin stated that several members of the Village Parkway Task ForCe are ir! the audience for tonight's meeting. 'She asked those members to stand up and thanked them for participating on the committee the past 6 months. Ms. Harbin presented the staff report. She explained that Staff attended the April 4, 2000 City Council meeting and received direction on the three plans.' Staff presented the preliminary concepts to the Planning Commission on April 11, 2000. This application includes consideration of three Specific Plans for adoption prepared to provide a framework for revitalizing and improving the downtown area of Dublin. A General Plan Amendment to add a mixed-use designation category, to re-designate Plannin~ CommBsDn Rejular ~eet~nj september 26, 2000 some land uses and modify the maximum floor area ratio .(FAR) allowed in the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans areas. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area includes approximately 70 acres of land and is located north of the 1-580 freeway, east of San Ramon Road, south of Dublin Boulevard and generally west Of Golden. Gate Drive. The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consisting of approximately 51 acres of land, is located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the 1-580 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of the Dublin Green shopping center. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres of land. Each Plan contains land use and development standards, transportation improvements, 'urban design guidelines, implementation and administrative programs to guide new development. Development of the BART station is expected to result in a significant increase in the demand for new office, commercial, high density residential and similar uses based on improved regional accessibility and anticipated patronage of the new transit. station. Jones Lang LaSalle has proposed a hotel and high density residential adjacent to the BART station. Staff has added plazas with pedestrian-oriented streetscape'. Traffic and circulation improvements will be needed with the new development based on the. proposed BART Traffic. The Downtown Core Specific Plan includes part of the Dublin Green shopping center containing large-scale retailers such as Target, Montgomery Wards, and Toys R Us. The intent of this Specific Plan is to maintain the viability of the existing "big box" retail uses and to increase the appearance and functionality of the area by promoting a mix of smaller scale specialty retail, office, mixed use, residential and similar uses. The construction of more public plazas and open spaces will enhance the area's appearance and create a true downtown environment. Several linkages, including auto, pedestrian and bicycle llo the new West Dublin BART station would be provided to increase the synergy between these two adjacent areas. The Specific Plan also'calls for the development of approximately '148 dwelling units. Forty-eight of these are anticipated to be senior housing units, to be located near the City's future senior center, in the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area. The other 100 dwelling units would be high-density units in a mixed-use designated area located at the southeast corner of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. The current average FAR is .26. Based on the economic analysis done for the project the new FAR is proposed at approximately .80 and maximum development is projected at 1,100,000 square feet. The Village Parkway area consists of approximately 31 acres of commercial services~ retail, restaurant, office and automotive service type land uses. Under the Specific Plan for the area the existing uses would not change, but would be stabilized and enhanced. A higher intensity of development and a more pedestrian-oriented environment are encouraged by the Plan through increased floor-area-ratios, the ~lann~n,5 commission los september 26, 2000 establishment of design guidelines for development,. and streetscape improvements. A task force was appointed by the City Council to develop the plan and vision for this particular area. The .Village Parkway Task Force met over a six-month period and discussed the issues and problems facing businesses and property owners in the area. The Task Force consisted of thirteen business owners, property owners and residents of the City. They wanted to see revitalization to the area with better parking opportunities, a pedestrian friendly environment that would increase the activity level in the area. Four different options for Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the existing roadway configuration. Of the four alternatives, the Task Force has recommended a phased plan for alternative 3, which consisted of a single travel lane in each direction, reducing the height of the center median, a 4' bike lane, and wider sidewalks, without taking additional right-of- way. Due to safety concerns and the volume of traffic, Public Works' Staff has recommended'2 travel lanes in each direction if diagonal parking is to be added along Village Parkway. Staff believes the three proposed Specific Plans will be effective in upgrading the downtown portion of Dublin, and each plan provides guidelines and direction toward implementing the City's vision for this area. By intensifying and revitalizing the development in downtown Dublin, the City will .continue to be a major factor in regional commerce and growth, containing a good balance of jobs, services and housing. She concluded her presentation and was available to answer any questions, Cm. Oravetz suggested that Ms. Harbin-explain floor-area-ratio (FAR)'for the members in the audience. Ms. Harbin stated that the 'floor-area-ratio is the 'ratio of the building floor area to the actual square footage of the property. Cm. Hughes .asked if anyone had any other questions for Staff; hearing none he opened the public hearing for public' comment. '. George Churchill, Task Force Committee. Member, 6990 Village Parkway, commended Ms. Harbin and Staff, on the project. He stated the draft documents should have been available for the committee at the last Task Force meeting for review. The cost estimates for the improvements were not given to committee or were they aware. of the costs until the draft document was reviewed. After reviewing the document and the safetyissues of a single lane for Village Parkway, the committee may have recommended another alternative. Cm. Oravetz asked "Mr. Churchill if he is in favor of Village Parkway with one lane in each direction and diagonal parking. Mr. Churchill responded no due to safety issues. After reviewing the document, he has changed his mind. To his understanding, there is a site that will become vacant that can be used for parking. Mark Harvey, Dublin Honda stated that he owns two buildings in the area and was not aware of a Task Force. He has concerns with phasing out the auto uses. He wants to remain at his current location on Amador Plaza Road. Mark Breazeal stated that he would like a copy of the three draft Specific Plan documents. He has concerns with parking and the type of businesses for the downtown area. The Home Depot Expo will have more parking spaces than the West Dublin BART Station. The Village Parkway area needs better signage. He suggested bringing in financial centers and better marketing strategies for the current businesses. He would like to see a better image for Dublin. Cm. Hughes suggested that Mr. Breazeal pick up a copy of the three draft documents, which addresses a lot of!his questions and concerns. Mr. Breazeal said that some of his concerns are not addressed in those documents. The parking situation for Village Parkway has been a problem for many years. Cm. Hughes stated that the Commission does address inadequate parking Or excessive parking with development in Dublin. The parking lot for the Home Depot. EXpo project is an enormous parking lot and'probably more than is needed. However, the Planning Commission is limited in what it can do. Mr. Breazeal urged the Planning Commission to not make any approval decisions on the Downtown Specific Plans until after the November election. Cm. Hughes stated that the approval of the Downtown Specific Plans has nothing to do with the November election. Mr. Breazeal stated that it has taken the City ten years to revitalize the downtown' area. He asked when the new BART Station is scheduled to be built and if it will be on time? Cm. Hughes responded that he was not aware of.BART's timetable. He stated that revitalizing the downtown area is a slow process and the decisions made to it will affect the community for a very long time. Mr. Breazeal stated that he admired the Commission's position and wished them good luck on this project. Planntn8 commission F,e~Iar Meet~nJ ~ ~o september 26, 2000 Rick Camacho, Task Force Committee Member, 7136 Village Parkway stated that further review is needed on the design and funding of Village Parkway. He stated that Village-Parkway should have two lanes in each direction with additional· crosswalks and doesn't want any decisions set in stone. Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Camacho how he liked being on the task force committee. Mr. Camacho stated that a redevelopment task force is a step in the right direction. With the new retail development in Eastern Dublin, he is more aware of business owners looking for attractive shopping centers to locate their business; as well as the appeal to shoppers.' Cm. Hughes asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Peabody responded to Mark Harvey's comments regarding Dubliii Honda. He stated that there are no proposed changes for the Dublin Honda property. There is a proposed change for the old Ford Site on the corner of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard. It is not the intent of the City to have Dublin Honda move from their location. Mr. Peabody stated in response to the number of lanes' for Village Parkway, the Village Parkway Spedific Plan Document references the committee recommendations as well as Staffs, due to the configuration of Village Parkway it should remain with two lanes in each direction. Cm. Musser commended Staff on all 'their hard work. He requested additional time for the Planning Commission to carefully review the three draft documents due to the extensive nature and impacts they will have on the City Cm. Hughes stated that he was not able to thoroughly review each document and would like additional .time also. He suggested continuing the projects to the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Musser agreed with Cm. Hughes that additional time is needed to review the do.cuments. Cm. dennings asked if Staff could provide visual aids at the next meeting. The three draft documents is a lot of information to absorb and requested additional review time. She had concerns with approving all three specific plans with one motion. She would like to make a motion to review the three specific plans one at a time. Cm. Johnson agreed that each Specific Plan should be reviewed individually. Plann~nZl conlm~.ssion v,e~ular t,4eetin~ 111 setember 26, 2ooo Mr. Peabody stated there are some interrelationships with the three plans, which is the reason for reviewing them together. Staff would be more than happy to handle them separately. Cm. Hughes suggested reviewing the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plans on the. October 10m meeting and the Village Parkway Specific Plan on October 24tn. Cm. Jennings asked if there was a task force for the Downtown Core study. \ Mr. Peabody responded no; Approximately two years ago, there was a previous study done with the Downtown Task Force Committee and during that' study, there were many tenants and property owners from the Village Parkway area that expressed an interest of becoming a committee member. The previous task forc~ findings were helpful for the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plans. He asked the Commission to consider reviewing the three specific plans individually, but at the same meeting due to a single resolution amending the General Plan for all three specific plans. Cm. Hughes suggested continuing the project to the meeting of October !0} 2000.and the. Commission will make an effort to review all three documents. Mr. Peabody asked the Commission if they wish to re-open the public hearing at the next meeting. Cm. Hughes stated to his understanding, the SpeCific Plans have been reviewed over the past six months. There have been public meetings scheduled, public notices have been sent out appropriately, and there hasn't been any response until the past-few days. He suggested the public hearing remain closed. Cm. Jennings stated many people were not aware of the three draft documents. She suggested re-opening the public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting, to allow any interested citizens the opportunity to review and respond to the proposed changes. Cm. 'Hughes stated that he does 'not have a problem with re-opening the public hearing if that is what the Commissioners prefer. Cm. Musser stated that he did not like one of the parking garage designs in one of the draft documents. He suggested for Staff to contact Cal Thorpe, who worked on a similar land plan in Richmond. They designed an excellent parking garage that doesn't look like a parking garage. ~'lann~n,~ cmmisston ~ ~ 2 se,~te~er z6 , zooO Refftlar Meet~n~ l/ On motion by Cm. Mus'ser, .seconded by Cm. Oravetz,'and with a vote of 5~0, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to re-open the public hearing and continue the Downtown Specific Plans to the OctOber 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS· 9.1 Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. The City Council will review the Telecommunication's Ordinance on October 3, '2000. Staff is working on an affordable housing program as part of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and an open space implementation program for the Western Dublin Sphere of.Influence area. Cm. Oravetz asked how much the City currently has in Inclusionary Housing Funds. Mr. Peabody responded approximately 4.6 million. ADOURNMENT Cm Hughes adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Respectfullylu~e~/y~~/ Planning Commission Chairperson Community Development Director Re~lar Meef:~n~ 113 r sq, tember 26, 2000 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 10, 2000, in. the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Hughes, Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Anne Kinney, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Regina Adams, Assistant Planner/Code Enfdrcement Officer; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Hughes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA . There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. · MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes from the September 26, 200.0 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. ·Hughes explained that at this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item which is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or que. stions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of.the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Community Development Director no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding · rhnning commissm Re~tlar Meettn~ ......... octdier ~o, 2000, ~ ~ ,~, a regular meeting to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regdlar meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Peabody submitted a letter from Peter MacDonald on behalf of St. Michael's Investments .regarding the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS · 8.1 City of Dublin Downtown Specific Plans - Continued from the September' 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, the West Dublin 'BART Specific Plan (PA 99-056), the Downtown Core Specific Plan, (PA 99-055) and the Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA 99-054) and associated draft negative declaration. The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearace of private and public development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. Cm. Hughes asked..for the staff report. Mr. Peabody presented the staff report. He explained'that th'e project was continued from the September 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he would present a PowerPoint presentation and explain the pertinent items in the plans. He will go th'rough all three specific plans and highlight the important aspects of each plan. Mr. Peabody explained the areas of each three specific plans. The Village Parkway plan area is located along the east and west sides of Village Parkway between 'Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres of land. The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consists of approximately 51 acres of land located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the I~80 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of the Dublin Green shopping center. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area includes approximately 70 acres of land and is located north of the 1-580 fleeway, East of San Ramon Road, south of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of Golden .Gate Drive. As part of the Village Parkway Specific 'Plan a Task Force Committee was appointed by the City Council in February. The Task Force consisted of 13 people and Staff members that met for 6 months to discuss traffic' and circulation, urban design and ' land use. The issues for Village Parkway are to revitalize and upgrade the appearance; vhnntng Commission :t 25 ...... october: io, 2000 Ked~u[ar Meettn~ obtain public space; control traffic;' create a pedestrian friendly environment; and · additional parking. The Task Force made specific recommendations for streetscape improvements, increased landscaping, sidewalk.improvements, street furniture, additional lighting, to look at the cost effectiveness of streetscape improvements and to reassess the traffic flow on Village Parkway. IThe Task force also recommended that Village Parkway have two lanes of traffic (one going in each direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage, additional Crosswalks with caution signals and a public/private partnership to balance the cost of improvements. Maintain the existing roadway and parking if the public/p~ivate partnership is not feasible. Improve streetscape and sidewalks to encourage pedestrian use in the area. A Parking Authority district could be considered to fund development of joint parking areas. Staff recommendations are to maintain the existing roadway and parking should be maintained at the present time, if the City can't find a mechanism for public/private partnership for major street improvements.' Streetscape and sidewalk improvements should be made to encourage pedestrian access. In lieu of diagonal parking provide improved access to the rear of properties adjacent to the freeway. Remove fences · between parking.lots to encourage customers to combine trips to various businesses and .improve pedestrian access. A facade treatment for existing buildings and an entry way statement to enhance the 'area. Mr. Peabody continued with the Downtown Core and the West Dublin Bart Station. The City applied an economic analysis and a market assessment through the next 5 years. Land use scenarios were developed and tested with traffic. The new BART Station will require improvements to adjacent streets to .accommodate the additional traffic. Golden Gate Drive will need to be widened to 4-lanes, St. Patrick's Way extended to Regional Street, and improvements at the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard. There is a strong base of "big box" retail uses within the area - Target, Montgomery Wards, Home Depot plan to stay for the next five years. There are opportunities for smaller scale retail, office, and residential' uses to locate along Amador Plaza. Staff is proposing to increase the building heights and floor area ratios to encourage the development of mixed uses. To provide for residential development in the Downtown Core to increase the local population. Allow for a vertical mix of residential. uses' over retail, offices and other appropriate uses. Allow for residential development 'up to 30 units per acre. Provide for new senior housing.near the planned City of Dublin Senior Center adjacent to the Specific Plan area. There is the opportunity to enhance the visual quality of the Downtown Core area through attractive entryways with pedestrian pathways, high quality design of individual buildings and related uses, including ~igns,' lighting and accessory uses. There has been some land use changes, which are mentioned in the plan. A'retail store will locate on the old Shamrock Ford site. There may be changes to area north of Dublin Honda in the next five years. P[anhing conim'isston 116 october 1 o, 2000 Regular Nteettn~ He explained the general urban design principals in thespian. All physical improvements within the Plan Area should provide strong pedestrian connections between uses, thro.ugh parking areas and along street corridors. Provide physical and visual emphasis for connections to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The West BART Specific Plan is proposing mix of land uses consistent with a transit- oriented environment. The construction of the new BART Station is scheduled for 2003. The plan proposes a mix of land use that includes offices, restaurants, specialty retail, entertainment, residential and similar uses that are attractive and pedestrian- friendly. The Specific Plan Land Use Category existing development is 645, 108, which may increase to 1.7 million square feet of new development. The plan proposes a maximum building height. limit of 6-stories. Jones LaSalle requested that the City consider changing the height limit to 8-stories for the hotel. He showed an overhead of a project where the building extends to the' sidewalk with parking behind the building, There are entryway statement opportunities from the freeway off ramp and at Golden Gate Drive. He concluded his presentation and was available to answer any. questions. · Cm. Oravetz asked the height of the Pleasanton Hilton. Mr. Peabody responded 5 or 6 stories. Cm. Johnson suggested increasing the building height limit to hide the freeway overpass. Cm. Hughes asked why Mr. Enea's property was not included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Mr. Peabody stated that the majority of his property is brand new. There would not be a significant change in the existing development beyond the intended 5-year time frame for this Specific Plan. Mr. Enea is concerned that there may. be change before the 5-year time frame and would like to be part of the West Dublin BART Plan. Cm.. Jennings asked if the City would apply for redevelopment funds. Mr. Peabody stated there aren't any redevelopment funds available. Some of the improvements will. be part of new development. The City council has been persistent about setting aside funds to deal with bus shelters, public art and public improvements. Cm. Jennings asked if the proposed parking district and structural parking is similar to the conceptual plan for Walnut Creek. ~'lannt~ commission ~ 17 october 1 o, 1ooo" RedJu/ar Meeti~ · - ~ ~ Mr. Peabody stated that Walnut Creek has a different situation because it has old parking districts from 1950. Walnut Creek also has a business improvement district that Dublin does not have. It has garages in lieu of required parking. For the Village Parkway area there may be an opportunity for the City and property owners to use' the parking authority ability to improve parking. Cm. Jennings asked if the West Dublin BART Station is scheduled for the' 2003. Mr. Peabody said yes. Cm. Jennings referred to the Economic Development chart, which shows an increase in developable square footage but the parking remains at 2.46 acres. Mr. Peabody stated that BART is going to build a parking structure of 650 spaces. on the Dublin side and 400 spaces on the Pleasanton side. Cm. Jennings stated that Exhibit 9 showed a significant increase in square footage but the actual land use for parking remains-the same. 'Mr. Peabody stated that there are parking requirements for each building. For the 'mixedLuse area, the City is suggesting joint use of parking based on hours of operation and parking structures between different parcels. Cm. Johnson stated that the 1987 Downtown Plan had specific land uses that were not followed. For example, Amador Plaza Road was designated as "restaurant row," and a restaurant was replaced with a "big box" pet store. Although the plan is not set in stone, what assurance is there that it will be followed? Mr. Peabody said any plan'is as good as the Commission and Council makes them happen. From an economic standpoint this plan is reasonable and can handle .the traffic. Staff has talked with developers who have a real interest in building office structures in the West BART area. · Cm. Johnson stated he does not have a problem with the proposed plans. He was disappointed that the first plan was not followed. He suggested .testing diagonal parking on Village Parkway before implementing all the imprdvements. Mr. Peabody stated that Village Parkway is a major street that carries a substantial amount of traffic. With diagonal parking and cars backing out, it will impede the movement of traffic. Diagonal parking is usually found in a pedestrian oriented area. Staff does not fed that diagonal parking is right for Village Parkway Unless there is a significant land use change. Cm. Johnson stated that the biggest complaint regarding Village Parkway is the speed of traffic. People drive 50 miles an hour and by implementing one lane in each .. rlanntn~j commission 118 october lo, zooo Re~Jular MeettndJ direction, diagonal parking, reducing the speed limit to 20 miles an hour and in few more crosswalks the traffic would slow down. He suggested adding diagonal parking on Areadot Plaza and Regional Boulevard. also. Mr. Peabody asked Lee Thompson, Public Works Director to address the traffic issues for Village Parkwayi Mr. Thompson stated the problem in Dublin is there are only three arterial Streets in the downtown area. Village Parkway carries 23,,000 vehicles a day. The capacity of a two-lane street is approximately 15,000 vehicles a day. By reducing Village Parkway to 2 lanes of traffic would cause traffic to back up and push it into the residential neighborhoods to the east. He does not recommend reducing the number of lanes for Village Parkway. Cm. Johnson stated that the West Dublin BART Station would increase traffic and make the traffic flow worse than the Current situation. Mr. Thompson stated the alterhative is to put additional off street parking in the area. Eventually the land value will go up and larger retailers will come into the area. Cm. Johnson stated that the business tenants are concerned that they'll have to move because they can't afford the rent. Mr. Thompson stated with the cost of land doubling, the property owners might end up selling the land to a developer that is interested in redeveloping the entire area. The buildings on Village Parkway are depreciating but the land is a gold mine. Cm. Johnson stated that it would be a waste of money to implement the plan if Village Parkway requires 4 lanes of traffic. Mr. Peabody stated that in the Village Parkway. Plan are the recommendations from the Task Force. Staff believes that the idea has merit, but a land use change would need to occur before diagonal parking can be implemented Cm. Hughes opened the public hearing. Erin Kvistad, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400, Pleasanton, Attorney representing PFRS Dublin Corporation whom are the owners' of 4 parcels of land in the Target Shopping Center. She indicated that PFRS are in favor of the proposed plans but would like additional time to review them. Ellie Lange, 6500 Dublin Boulevard, stated that her and her husband own 3 parcels on Village Parkway. Her husband developed the parcels 25-30 years ago'and has managed them also. As a property owner, they were not informed of September 26th meeting. She stated for the record that she 'does not feel the City adequately informed Phnnlng commission' K. eZlular Meettn~ october lo, zooo ' all the property owners on the Village Parkway plan. The plan was not sent to all the property owners and would like 'additional time to review the plan. She requested that no action be taken tonight and to postpone the hearing. Charlotte Fernandez, Village Parkway property owner and Task .Force member stated she did not receive the plans as .a property owner. She received the materials as Task Force member. She agrees with Cm. Johnson that diagonal parking should be tested before the entire plan iS implemented. She was concerned that other property owners 'did not receive the meeting notices and Specific Plans to review. Tom Odam, stated that he is a tenant on Village Parkway and was part of the Task Force. It was to his understanding the Task Force was to find ways to revitalize the ' area. There are many cars that drive by his business daily, without stopping. He' admitted that he has lived in Dublin for 20 years and never noticed the building where he now has his business. He agreed ,that diagonal parking should be.tested before the rest of the plan is implemented. The traffic will increase with the. use of the freeway' ramp and one lane in each direction will not work. Fred Walke, MicroDental stated that they own their old space at end of Amador Plaza Road. They are in favor of redevelopment for this area. They recently signed a 5-year lease with tenants. They would like the building height increased to 10-stories to have the ability to build something that is a marquee for'Dublin. " C'm. Hughes asked if anyone else had any Comments or questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing Cm. Oravetz stated that the Enea property should be included in the plan. Cm. Hughes stated that the Enea property is brand new. He can't see tearing down multi million dollar buildings for redevelopment purposes. Cm. Oravetz stated that Mr. Enea is asking to be included in the plan. Cm. Johnson stated there is not any redevelopment' money for him to Use. Cm, Hughes stated that his buildings are not old. enough to be considered for redevelopment funds. Cm. Oravetz stated that Mr. Enea isn't asking for redevelopment funds, he is just. wants to be included in the Specific Plan. · Cm. Jennings asked if anyone talked to Mr. Enea and how he would benefit from being included Mr. Peabody stated that in the future there might be the opportunity for change to occur on his property. There 'may be some merit on reviewing the area in the next couple years to see if there has been any change as a result of the BART project. Cm. Jennings stated that there is some validity to the letter submitted on behalf of Mr. Enea. Cm. Hughes stated that he does not agree with Mr. Enea's property being included in the plan. The whole concept for the three plans is to redevelop the area with private money in the next 5-7 years. If Mr. Enea wanted to redevelop, he has the same. opportunity as anyone else. Cm. Orav.etz stated that when the BART Station is completed, traffic would impact Amador Plaza Road and Mr. Enea's property. Cm. Jennings stated if the City is going to have a ball game, it should allow everyone play. Cm. Johnson stated that he agrees with Cm. Hughes that the area is brand new and unnecessary to be included in the plan. Cm. Oravetz stated that many property owners did not receive notice on the Specific Plans. Cm. Hughes asked if the notices were sent out accordingly. Mr. Peabody stated well over 300 notices and Specific Plans were sent out accordingly Cm. Oravetz asked if the Commission was prepared to make a recommendation without the property owners having enough information. Cm. Hughes stated that he is prepared to make a recommendation. Cm. Johnson stated the plans are not set in stone. He does not have a problem voting' on it and passing it on to City Council. Cm. Jennings asked if the plans are to be voted on separately? Mr. Peabody stated that there are resolutions combining the three plans. Cm. Jennings stated that she is concerned with the property .owners not being notified. Cm. Johnson. stated that a current business owner's list was used to invite the tenants and property owners to be on the Village Parkway Task Force. Cm. Jennings stated that she would like to vote on the plans separately. Cm. Oravetz agreed with Cm. Jennings. Cm. Hughes stated that the three Specific Plans have been noticed 'appropriately by law. The project was continued from the September 26th Planning Commission meeting to tonight's meeting. He does not feel it should be continued again. Cm. Oravetz stated that it was continued from September 26th to allow'the Commission additional' time to review the plans. He would like to see it continued again due to property .owners not receiving the documents. Cm. Jennings made a motion to bifurcate the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Station Plan, seconded by Cm. Musser and with a x~ote of 3-2-0 with Cm. Hughes and Cm. Johnson voting against the motion, the motion carried. Cm. Jennings asked Charlotte Fernandez for clarification on the basis of her objection regarding the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Ms. Fernandez stated that the Task Force should have 'reviewed the final plan before it was presented to the Commission. As a Task Force member she understood what was going on but not as a property owner. There may be many other property owners with the same concerns. Cm. Hughes stated that the Negative Declaration does not require separating the three plans and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by the Cm. Musser with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-57 A RESOLUTION OF' THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054, PA 99-055, AND PA 99-056 Cm. Musser had comments to add regarding the Downtown Core and BART Specific Plans. On PAGE 3 - Goal No. 5 - He asked for more discussion referenced on both horizontal and vertical mixing of uses and encouraging a live/work component. Reff&r · .~zz . ........... oC'tot~ei ~o, zooo He referred to Objective 5.2 and asked for more density; currently the plan i . te . 30' units per acre and he suggested increasing the range from 30 to 50 units per.acre, because of the BART Station nearby. Mr. Peabody stated that there is a small site proposed for residential' use for senior citizen housing which does not require an increase in density, Cm. Musser suggested changing the following sentence under Goal 7.1 from "'Require restaurants and food establishments to provide outdoor seating areas." To: "Encourage restaurants a~nd food establishments to provide' outdoor seating.areas." He would like more discussion regarding the Downtown Core. Plan, Page 17, the sentence on the bottom of the page "These are Sites in transition, that could be developed in the future into a use more intense than the existing land-use based on market conditions and changes." He asked about the opportunity sites referred to in the plan at Golden Gate Drive. Mr. Peabody stated that the Safeway site is one of the opportunity sites. When the plan was developed the site was vacant. The Second site is the area shown in the plan as residential, which is currently a commercial site. Cm. Musser asked about the opportunity site at Golden Gate and Dublin Boulevard, which does not have a building on it.. Mr. Peabody stated that is for a potential plaza location. Cm. Musser' stated that he would like more discussion regarding a living space on top of workspace. He asked about Figure 5 on page 23, whether it will have on street parking or will the parking be behind the buildings. Mr. Peabody stated that the parking would be behind the buildings. Cm, Musser stated that the plan indicates 15-foot sidewalks but does not address outdoor eating areas within the public right of way area. He would like it addressed in the plan. Mr. Peabody stated that the idea is to have wider sidewalks for the option of having Street furniture or outdoor seating. Cm. Musser asked why sycamores or liquid ambers are not listed under the landscape matrix. . Mr. Peabody stated that the 'maintenance people looked at the list of trees and they suggested other trees to eliminate any long-term problems that occur with sycamores and liquid ambers. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone else had any questions or comments; hearing none he asked for a motion on. the Downtown Core Specific Plan. On motion by Cm. Jennings and 2nd by Cm. Oravetz that the Downtown Core Specific Plan public hearing be .re-opened and continued to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and with a vote of 3-2-0 with Cm. Hughes and Cm. Johnson opposed, the motion carried. Cm. Hughes asked if there is a motion to.continue the Village Parkway Specific Plan? On motion by Cm. Jennings and 2na by Cm. Oravetz that the Village Parkway Specific Plan public hearing be re-opened and continued to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and with a vote of4-1-0 with Cm. Johnson opposed, the motion carried. Cm. Hughes asked if there is a motion to continue the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; hearing. none he asked Cm. Musser for comments regarding the plan. Cm. Musser stated that he had the same comments as the Downtown Core Specific Plan. He stated that Exhibit 7 in the BART Plan does not show the bike paths going to Regional, Golden Gate or Amador to get to the BART Sta. tion and would like it added. · Cm. Hughes asked Mr. Peabody if he had enough information from Cm. Musser to address the BART Plan. Mr. Peabody stated yes. If the BART Plan is passed he will bring the resolutions to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate changes. Cm. Johnson stated that he would like to make. i recommendation to increase the building height to 10 stories. Mr. Peabody stated that the City received a letter from BART to increase the lodging FAR to 1.4 and the maximum building height be changed from 6-stories or 75 feet to 8-stories. Cm. Hughes asked for a motion on the building height maximum. On motion by Cm. Musser and 2nd by Cm. Jennings, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to change the building height maximum to 10 stories and the lodging FAR to 1.4 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. On' motion by Cm, Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 5-0 the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 99-0S6 RESOLUTION N0.00-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL,ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING MAXIMUM FAR's~ AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR PA 99-056 8.2 . PA 00-02 1 Dublin Ranch Area "A" Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Planned Development Rezone. A Conditional Use Permit to amend PA 96-038 Dublin Ranch Area ~A"' Planned Development Rezone, Resolution No. 139-97, Conditions N~o. 44and 46 previously approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997. The amendment will extend the point in time at which specific elements of the golf course, clubhouse, and private recreation facility construction projects must be initiated. Cm. Hughes asked for the staff report. Michael Porto presented the staff report. He stated that there is a change to Resolution No. 139-97 approved by the City Council on November 1.8, 1997. The applicant requested an amendment to conditions 44 and 46 'of the original Planned Development Resolution to change the number of dwelling units from 250 to 312 units which will extend the timing and sequencing of when .improvements need to be constructed. He stated that he is in agreement with the applicant and was available to answer any questions. Cm. Hughes asked if anyone had any questions;. hearing none, he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, with a vote of 5-0, the .Planning Commission unanimously adopted I'IanntnZJ commission Re~/ar MeetinZi 12,5 october lo, 2ooo RESOLUTION NO. '00 - 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PA 00-21, AMENDING CONDITIONS NO. 44 AND 46 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 139-97 WHICH SETFORTH THE FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE OF DUBLIN RANCH, AREA A (PA 96-038) .~. PA 00-011 Arco Service Station Site Development Review ISDR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed project, located at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley. Boulevard, consists of expanding and' relocating the existing mini mart, replacement of the existing fuel storage tanks, and other on and Off-site improvements. Cm. Hughes asked for staff report. Regina Adams presented the staff report. She explained that the project is for 'a Side Development 'Review and Conditional Use' Permit to rebuild and replace the existing Arco Gas Station. She explained that the building will be moved to northwest corner and will enhance the area with the changes 'and improvements proposed by the applicant. The underground storage tanks wilt be replaced and relocated and the · dumpster .will be covered by a trash enclosure. Since the distribution of the staff re. port, staff has proposed a modification to eliminate the southern driveway, 'which will be replaced. with landscaping. New. signage and lighting plan are proposed for the site with a monument sign replacing the existing sign.. She stated that the new architecture and improvements are superior to the current gas station and will enhance the area. Cm. Oravetz asked why the southern driveway is being removed. Ms. Adams stated that Public Works requested removing the driveway. Cm. Musser asked if the existing curb and retaining wall will it be landscaped. Ms. Adams stated that the area past the curb is not the applicant's property. She indicated on an overhead the area that will be landscaped. Cm: Johnson asked. if 19 feet would be wide enough for vehicles to turn exiting the property.. Ms. Adams responded yes. P,e,~uhr Meetin8 126 : october lo, 2ooo Pete Tobin Applicant stated that the entire site would be rebuilt from scratch and will improve the overall look of that corner.' Heis in full agreement with the conditions and was. available for any questions. Cm. Jennings asked when construction would start on the project. Mr~ Tobin responded early spring. Cm. Johnson asked what the roof is made out of. 'Mr. Tobin responded tile. Cm. Hughes asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Cm. Oravetz made a motion seconded by Cm. Jennings the~ Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00 - 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 00-011 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND"' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ARCO SERVICE STATION NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. PeabOdy went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. Cm. Johnson asked if a decision has been made regarding the,West Dublin Sphere of influence area. Mr. Peabody responded no. ADOURNMENT Cm Hughes adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Community Development Director Planning Commissmn Chairperson rhnnt~ commission Reff, tlar Meetin,5 I27 october lo, 2000 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday', October 24, 2000, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Vice- Chairperson Oravetz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Oravetz, Jennings, Johnson, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Associate Planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and-Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Hughes PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG · Cm. Oravetz led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes from the October 10, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Oravetz explained that at this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item' which is not on the Planning, · Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Community Planning CommissiOn 12s october 2% 2000 Re~ju/ar Meeting · Development Director no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting'to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 PA 99-056, West Dublin BART Spe.cific Plan. Approval of Resolutions for Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and repeal of portions of the Downtown Specific Plan. Cm. Oravetz asked for the staff report. Mr. Peabody explained that at the October 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Commission approved the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. At that time the Commission suggested revisions to be included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan document related to minor modifications of the goals and objectives, background information, to increase the FAR and building height maximum. Staff has made the appropriate ' changes to the resolutions. He stated that he was available to answer any questions.. Cm. Oravetz stated that the public hearing for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was dosed at the October 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At that time the Commission approved the resolutions with revisions to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan document. He asked if there were any questions or comments; hearing none he asked for motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded .by Cm. Johnson, with a vote 'of 4-0-1, with Cm. Hughes absent, the amended resolution recommending approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and repeal. of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan was in accordance with the Planning Commission's direction. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Hughes absent, the amended resolution recommending City Council approval of Amendments to the General Plan for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area was in accordance with the Planning Commission's direction. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 00-008 Marriott International - Marriott Springhill Suites Hotel Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project consists of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 4-story hotel building of 2 14 guestroom suites on'a 4.86 acre site. The property is located on the Southeast Corner of Myrtle Drive & Dublin Boulevard Plannin~ Commission 129' October 2% 2oo0 Rejdar Med~nZl Cm. Oravetz asked for the staff report. Michael Porto presented the staff report. He stated that Marriott is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4-story hotel. The project site is iotated adjacent. to Hacienda Crossings on the southeast corner of Myrtle Drive and Dublin Boulevard on a 4.86-acre site. The City Council will be considering the Site Development Review portion of the' project at the November 8, 2000 meeting. Staff worked with the Applicant on their site plan relative to the concerns Staff had encountered working on the Extended Stay Hotel. There is excessive parking based bn the parking study, they have met all the findings necessary for a Conditional Use Permit and Staff recommends approval of the project. He stated that he was available for questions. Cm. Oravetz asked if anyone had any questions; hearing none he asked if the Applicant was available. Andy Layton, Marriott International~ stated they chose the current location to accommodate the new business growth in the area. With the new companies moving to the area, there will be a strong need for hotel services. The rooms are designed to serve the business traveler with a work area and a small kitchen area. 'There are also small meeting rooms within the hotel that are available to the guests. He thanked Staff and asked if anyone'had any questions. Cm. Oravetz asked the weeknight rates for the rooms. · Mr. Layton responded that it would be comparable to the hotels' in the area. Cm. Oravetz asked if a study was done on the occupancy rates for the existing hotels in Dublin. Mr. Layton responded yes; the occupancy rate is between 75 to 80% Cm. Oravetz asked if anyone had any other questions or comments; hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. JohnSon with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Hughes absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 00-008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., SPRINGHILL SUITES Planni~ Commission Regular Meetin~ 130 octd~er 24, 2000 Cm. Oravetz explained that the City council Will review the Site Development Review portion of the Marriott Springhill Suites project on November 8, 2000'. 8..2 City of Dublin Downtown Specific Plans - Continued from the OctOber 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed project consists of. two of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, {PA 99-055) and the Village Parkway Specific Plan {PA 99-054) and associated draft negative declaration. The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. Cm. Oravetz asked for the staff report. Mr. Peabody stated that the October 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Commission approved the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans were continued. He suggested starting with the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Janet Harbin presented the staff report. She stated the City received a few letters regarding the Downtown Core Specific Plan. A letter was received from Dublin Honda requesting an increase in the FAR's from .20 to .79. The City would like to encourage Honda to remain in Dublin. Increasing the FAR on the site will not be a problem as long as the site remains an automotive type use. The letter also indicated Honda's interest in rezoning the property to allow retail automotive and office use. The Shamrock Ford site was zoned retail automotive, which was changed to retail office use. There isn't a land use designation that combines retail 'automotive and office use. Staff is recommending the Honda site remain retail automotive to allow continued use by the Honda Dealership. The Target Corporation submitted a letter, which is included in the packetsZ Also a letter from McNichols Randick OT)ea and Tooliatos was submitted today. The Target Corporation has concerns with the goals in the plan, the issues that will affect the traffic parking ratios, and the design guidelines. Target would not lose any driveways with the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Parking on the site exceeds requirements according to the Zoning Ordinance. The Target Corporation has concerns with the senior housing next to their property. The existing Dublin Library will become the Senior Center. The proposed senior housing will be adjacent to that Senior. Center and areas where they can access services. Target is concerned that the senior housing may impact their plans to expand their building. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Target Corporation was aware that the Dublin Library would eventually become the new Senior Center. Ms. Harbin stated yes, it is indicated in the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Staff will draft formal responses to the comment letters before going to the City Council. P/an~ang commtssm 13I october 2% 2000 ReJular Meeting ( ~ .I Cm. Jennings asked how Staff plans to address the letter from the Target Corporation regarding monitory impacts. Ms. Harbin stated that it would be difficult establishing a monitory cost to the proposed upgrades. Target hasn't submitted any expansion plans for review. The City has good design guidelines for upgrading property and developing new property. It would be hard to put a monitory figure on those items at this time for a specific project. Cm. Jennings asked if Target would lose any of their parking. Ms. Harbin stated Target would lose some parking spaces, with the new access 'way, but not a substantial amount. The parking for that area exceeds the requirements under the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. ,Johnson asked if Target could expand to the north of their building. Ms. Harbin responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if a right of way access between the Target building and the future Senior Center would be established~ Ms:. Harbin stated that a smaI1 access way for emergencies could be established. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the letter from McNichols Randick O'Dea and Tooliatos. 'Ms. Harbin stated the major concern was allowing high density residential development on a portion of their property. McNichols Randick O'Dea and Tooliatos indicated that high density residential would not be compatible with the existing uses on the site and would reduce the .ability for a retail commercial user to locate on the site. Cm. Oravetz asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he opened the public hearing. Ken Harvey, Dublin Honda, thanked Ms. Harbin for recommending an increase to the FAR for their site. He stated they are planning to expand on their existing site and want to remain in Dublin. Mark Harvey, Dublin Honda, was concerned that in the future, the area may not be suitable to sell cars and would like the ,option of developing an office building. He is also concerned with the conceptual fagades in the plan. Honda is very adamant with their image and the design of their buildings. He suggested that the Commission check out the new Honda Dealership. in Tracy because they plan to build one exactly like it in Dublin. Flann~n~l commission 131 october 2% 2ooo Re~Suhr Meettn~J Cm. Oravetz stated the Commission would consider the FAR increase after the public hearing is closed. Erin Kevistad stated she is representing PFRS Dublin Corporation, the owners of the Target Shopping Center. At the October 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, she indicated the Specific Plan documents were received after the hearing date. PFRS are reviewing the documents and working with their architect. They like .the ideas in the plan but have a few significant issues of concern. Exhibit C in the plan shows 50 parking spaces removed to accommodate the future access way. Her client is concerned there will not be enough parking after the Expo Design Center is open. The proposed 'senior housing is also a concern. The document indicates the old Copeland site as an opportunity site for senior housing. There are major retailers interested in redeveloping the site. Senior housing in a heavy traffic area could create problems. It is in the best interest of the. shopping center and the City to bring in a vibrant, dynamic retailer. She requested on behalf of her client, to remove the senior housing from the plan. Cm. Oravetz stated senior housing is needed in Dublin and the Copeland site is close to the' new Senior Center and retail sites. Ms. Kevistad stated that they are willing to work with the City regarding the shopping center. Cm. Oravetz .asked if anyone else had any questions or comments on the Downtown Core 'SpeCific Plan; hearing none he closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. Jennings asked for additional information on Mr. Harvey's request to increase the FAR's for his property. Ms. Harbin stated the Honda site is zoned retail-automotive. They are requesting retail office to allow an office complex in the future. The City does not have a combination of retail automotive and retail office. The old Shamrock Ford site will be rezoned from retail automotive to retail office. Staff does not recommend any land use changes to the Honda site at this time. They have the option to expand the automotive sales use with an office related use to their site. A traffic analysis and economic study was done for potential land use changes. The traffic study indicated an increase in traffic could occur if a land use change were made. Mr. Peabody stated the proposed Specific Plans are short-term plans, The three plans will need to be reevaluated in approximately 5-7 years. Dublin Honda is a viable automotive use that wants to expand and should be accommodated, A land use change can be reevaluated in the future if the automotive use is no longer needed. Cm. Musser asked Staff if the level of service .on the roadway network falls below the General Plan standards if a land use,change occurred. P[annin~ Commtsston !33 october 24, 2ooo Keffilar MeettnZ1 Mr. Byde stated Staff did not run that particular configuration. Cm. Oravetz stated the FAR's for Honda will be increased to .79. Commission's opinion on the proposed senior housing. He asked the Cm. Johnson stated the old Copeland's site is not the right location for senior housing. He suggested senior housing on top of the new senior center2 Cm. Jennings stated that it appears as affordable housing and low cost housing are being interchangeable with senior housing, which isn't correct. Ms. Harbin stated definitely not. Senior housing is not for low or moderate income but is age specific. Cm. Oravetz stated there isn't enough senior housing in Dublin and is in favor of it in the designated area. He suggested approving the senior housing and forwarding the plans to the City Council. Cm. Johnson asked the land use designation for the Copeland site. Ms. Harbin stated it is designated residential in the DOwntown Core Specific Plan. It is currently designated retail office. Cm. Johnson asked if it could be changed to retail residential. Ms. Harbin stated the City does not currently have a retail residential land use designation. Cm. Johnson stated the City has changed land use designations many times. Ms. 'Harbin stated a land use change could be considered in the future. Cm. Jennings asked if senior housing on top of the Senior Center would require a land use change. Mr. Peabody stated the City has started preliminary work on converting the library to the Senior Center. The Commission may want to address whether the Copeland's site is an appropriate site for senior housing. Cm. dennings said when visiting Texas she noticed a few senior housing sites adjacent ,to retail sites which caused the traffic to increase due to people visiting the seniors. She stated the senior housing near a retail site works out well in Texas. She is in favor of senior housing on the designated site. Cm. Musser stated he is also in favor of senior housing for the site. Planning Commission 134- october 2% 2000 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings asked if there were any plans to move the E1 Torito Restaurant? Ms. Harbin responded no. Cm. Oravetz asked for a motion on 'the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Cm. Jennings asked if the two Specific Plans are going to be approved together or separate. Mr. Peabody suggested one resolution approVing the two plans; the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Village Parkway Specific Plan. He stated that there is a consensus on increasing the FAR's for DuStin Honda and a consensus for senior housing to remain at the designated site. The specific plan will be changed to reflect the FAR increase. Cm. Oravetz asked for Staff's presentation on the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Ms. Harbin stated that Staff recommends for the Planning Commission to adopt the resolution recommending City Council approval of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan and repeai of portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Staff'recommends adoption of the resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core Specific Plan; however, there isn't a General Plan Amendment proposed related to the Village Parkway area. There is one item of concern for the Village Parkway area to be considered by the Commission, which is the road way. Staff has analyzed four different alternatives and recommended keeping Village Parkway two lanes in each direction. Cm. Oravetz asked if there were any questions for Staff; hearing none he opened the public hearing. Charlotte Fernandez, stated she has been a property owner on Village Parkway for 25 years. She was part of the Downtown Study Task Force in 1999 and the Village Parkway Task Force, which started in March 2000. She stated she artended all the Task Force meetings. At the first meeting the City indicated developing a private/public partnership with the property owners to revitalize the area. She said a meeting with the property owners was not scheduled to establish a partnership and a budget for the plan. Also the property owners need to be informed on the City's plan for Village Parkway. She asked many times if a property owner's meeting would take place during the Task Force meetings and Staff responded yes. ~ Mr. Peabody stated after the Council authorized the Village Parkway Committee, the City sent out approximately 300 letters to various property owners inviting them to participate on a task force. There were approximately 16 people who responded to the letter interested in participating, on the committee. Staff proceeded to move ahead with the people who expressed interest in participating. Planning Commission 135 october 2% 2000 Regular Meetin~ Ms. Fernandez stated as a property owner, she did not receive any notification regarding the Village Parkway plan. She received notification 'at her office on Village Parkway, but not her mailing address. She stated that there are 44 property owners and many of them did not receive notification either. Cm. Oravetz asked if a budget has been prepared for the proposed Specific Plans? Mr. Peabody stated after the plans are adopted, Staff will do a cost analysis and submit it to the City Council. ,' Cm. Oravetz asked when will the property owners get to review that? Mr. Peabody stated after the plans are .adopted and the decisions are made for Village Parkway, Staff will prepare a cost analysis and discuss it with the Property Owners. Ms. Fernandez stated the City is projecting 5-7 years for the plan. The median that was built in 1996 disrupted the businesses on Village Parkway. She is concerned that she may lose tenants if the median is worked on. A meeting needs to be set up with the property owners. Elle Lange stated that she is not against the plan. Her husband attended one of the Task Force meetings and didn't feel it was necessary to continue attending them. Meeting with the property owners regarding their property is different. than meeting with the tenants. She is very concerned about removing the fences between properties. They have owned and' managed their property for 30 years. Some of the sites have parking problems but they have managed their property and tenants. They don't think shared parking works because they can't. choose their neighbors tenants. She asked the Commission to reconsider removing the fences. She also agrees that a meeting with the property owners is needed to discuss a budget. Cm. Johnson stated the majority of fences are in the back of the properties. Ms. Lange stated some are along the side of the properties. Cm. Johnson asked her thoughts on Village Parkway with one lane north, one lane south and angled parking. Ms. Lange stated she does not have any objection to that. Most of the traffic comes from the post office; after it relocates there may not be any traffic problems. Cm. Johnson stated the City should test Village Parkway with angled parking. t'lanntn~ contnt~sston Regular MedD~ 136 oaober 24-, 2ooo Iver Hilde, Property Owner stated the two previous speakers took the words out of his mouth. He recommended using Alameda County tax records to get the property owner's addresses. Phyllis Sutton, Property Owner stated that she did not receive any notices regarding Village Parkway. She agreed with the other property owners that a property owner's meeting should be done. Jeff Ryan, Property Owner, stated that he did not receive any notices either. He said that when the City mailed out the notices and didn't receive much response that should' have been the clue there may be a problem. He expressed concerns on removing 'the fences between .properties and does not want to provide parking for other sites. Cm. Oravetz asked if anyone had any other questions; hearing none he dosed the public hearing to deliberate. He asked how feasible it would be to schedule a property owners meeting. Mr. Peabody stated it is very feasible-to schedule a property owner's meeting if that is what the Commission wishes. He suggested scheduling the meeting prior to the City Council hearing. Cm. Jennings stated that ~here are 44 property owners and all of them won't be able to attend. Staff should use the County tax records to get the property owner's addresses. She asked if it would be feasible to 'have a meeting with the property owners to discuss' the problems that came up and the cost estimates? Ms. Harbin stated the City did use the County tax records to notice the property owners. Staff went through the list and if someone was on it twice, duplicates were not sent out. Mr. Peabody stated the City could not provide cost estimates until Staff knows what the Council wants to adopt. Cm. Oravetz instructed Staff to conduct a meeting with the property owners. He suggested approving the Specific Plans and moving them on to the City Council with the Commission's recommendations. He asked Cm. Johnson if the Chamber of Commerce was involved; aren't they the voice of the business owners? Cm. Johnson responded that the Economic Development Director should be attending these meetings with his fingers in the pie. To his understanding, it is his responsibility to work with the business owners and the Chamber could lend' a helping hand. The Chamber has not been approached on the subject. The City should use Mr. Foss' expertise to notify the business owners. Cm. Oravetz ~ecommended making suggestions to the City CoUncil regarding the Specific Plans. t'lannin~ comnt~ssion ReZlular Meet~n~ 137 Cm. Johnson stated the Task Force recommended a different scenario than Staff for Village Parkway. He suggested changing the speed limit and-putting in diagonal parking as a test run. The majority of traffic is in the mornings and afternoons. Staff is overly concerned with the public and they're driving habits. He asked the cost to stripe the street for diagonal parking. Mr. Thompson stated approximately $5,000. The biggest concern is that traffic would divert through the residential neighborhoods. The speed limit does not make 'a . difference. It is the congestion, which might discourage people from driving down that street. Cm. Johnson stated if it doesn't work out on Village Parkway, move the ideas to another street. Cm. Oravetz asked if there were any other questions; hearing none, he asked for a motion.. Mr.. Peabody stated Staff would return with the resolutions approving the Downtown COre with the amendment to the FAR's for Dublin Honda and approving the Village Parkway Plan 'with instructions to have a meeting with the property owners prior to the City Council hearing. On motion by Cm. Jennings~ seconded by Cm. Johnson, witha vote of 4-1-0, with Cm. Hughes absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054 AND PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 00-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING MAXIMUM FAR~s, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN P[anntn,~ Commission 138 october 2q-, 2000 Regular Meett~ RESOLUTION NO. 00-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 99-054, CITY OF DUBLIN NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. OTHER BUSINESS None ADOURNMENT Cm Oravetz adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Community Development Director Planntn,~ Commission R. egular Meettn.~ 139 october 24, 2ooo Village Parkway Property Owner's Meeting Minutes ~ November 9, 2000 - 3:00 p.m. A special meeting with the Property Owners of Village Parkway and the City .of Dublin Staff was held on Thursday, November 9, 2000, in the Dublin Civic Center City .Council Chambers. Staff members present: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Associate Planner; Christopher Foss, Economic Development Director; Ray Kuzbari, Associate Civil Engineer and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Ms. Harbin called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. She explained that the Village Parkway Specific Plan to direct development along Village Parkway and revitalize the area. The Planning Commission requested that Staff hold a property owner's meeting regarding the plan. She stated that the City formed a Task. Force that met for 6 months to discuss the plan and .to determine the future of Village Parkway. The Task Force Comprised of 13 people, tenants and property owners. The Task Force determined there would not be any land use changes for the area. They discussed the economics, land use, traffic and circulation and urban design issues during the 6- month period. The Task Force made the following determinations: · Revitalize and upgrade appearance · Protect nearby residential areas · Create public spaces/parks ' · Control traffic volumes and speed · 'Create a pedestrian friendly environment . Additional parking There were concerns with the traffic speed and parking. The Task Force recommended phasing the improvements. The following-are improvements for, Phase I: · Streetscape improvements (street trees · Increased landscaped frontage · Sidewalk improvements · Addition of street furniture and lighting. The sidewalk improvements would include widening the sidewalks to 10 'feet. The ' Task Force recommended the following improvements for Phase II: · Evaluate the cost effectiveness of streetscape improvements vtllage Parkway Property owner's Meettn, g jovember 9, 2ooo ATTAOHMENT' ' Re-assess traffic flow on Village .Parkway after new freeway on and off ramps are operational Re-evaluate alternate roadway design Ms. Harbin stated that during the Task Force process, the committee looked at four roadway designs. One option had two lanes of traffic (one in each direction) combined with diagonal parking. There were three other designs that had two lanes of traffic in each direction with diagonal parking. The roadway with one lane of traffic in each direction requires the least amount of right of way. It would include a bike path, diagonal parking, wider sidewalks and two new crosswalks at mid block locations. Each traffic lane would be 12-feet and the median would be reduced. A public/private partnership would need to be established to balance out the cost of the improvements. If the City Council approved this recommendation, they will need to determine the financing assessment. Staff has recommended that a public/private partnership should not occur without a major new development to' help finance the costs. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended 'diagonal parking on Village Parkway as a trial period to see if it is worth .pursuing. The post office recently signed a lease to continue operating in their current location. Andy Byde clarified that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to stripe Village Parkway for diagonal parking on a trial period. The Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan will go to the City Council on November 21, 2000 for the first public hearing. She showed a PowerPoint presentation of the streetscape view with the two lanes and diagonal parking. 8taft has recommended maintaining the existing roadway and parking if public/private partnership is not feasible. Improve the streetscape and sidewalks to encourage pedestrians to use in the area. A parking authority district could be considered to fund development of joint parking areas. In lieu of diagonal parking, provide improved access to the rear of properties adjacent to the .freeway. Remove the barriers such .as fences between parking lots by property owners to encourage customers to combine trips to various businesses and improve pedestrian access. If land use changes occur, the City would re-evajuate diagonal parking at that time. Mr. Byde stated that the existing fences would require removal of existing fences rather encourage removal and prohibit new fences. Ms Harbin stated that Staff agreed with the Task Force on certain improvements for the area. The following are the recommendations they agreed on: Improve intersection controls Provide public transit system Enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities vtlla, Zje Parkway t'royerty owner's Meeting 2 November 9, 20oo Improve driveway spacing Mr. Byde discussed the design guidelines and the streetscape improvements. The committee suggested a design theme for the area that would allow the land use mix to be grouped together and provide continuity with the architecture. He showed a PowerPoint presentation of building designs and streetscape improvements. 'The following are the general design principles: · Enhance pedestrian orientation · 'Articulate-individual building forms and features · Provide architectural design solutions that accommodates a mixture of uses grouped together · Encourage loose interpretations and appropriate combinations of selected architectural elements. · Strong pedestrian connection to sidewalk and parking facilities. Ms. Harbin opened· the meeting up for discussion. An audience member asked the current speed limit for Village Parkway. Ms.. Harbin responded 30 miles an hour. The same member asked if the speed limit could be lowered to 25 miles an hour and additional crosswalks. Ms. Harbin stated that was part of the streetscape improvements with two lanes of traffic. Due to the traffic speed and safety reasons, there aren't additional crosswalks. Mr. Byde stated that speed is a function of design rather than what is posted on a sign. Village Parkway is designed to move. vehicles. The raised median and few intersections attribute to the speed of traffic. An audience member stated that diagonal parking will cause people to drive slower. An audience member asked if the plan would require City Council approval and the validity of Comments and recommendations given from the Planning Commission. Ms. Harbin stated the City Council will consider the recommendations from the · Planning Commission but the ultimate decision will come from the City Council. The same member agked if a traffic study will be conducted after the plan is approved by City Council. Ms. Harbin stated once the plan is approved, it would .not require a traffic study. It would require an implementation plan and a physical improvement plan. If the vtlla~je Parbay Property owner's Meetln~J 3 November 9, 2000 Council wants to test the diagonal parking, there would be a study done to see if it works out. The same member stated that the process seems like an endless loop. Mr. Byde stated it would actually require a traffic study, rather a traffic survey on the existing conditions. · Tony Oravetz asked Staff the time frame on conducting a traffic survey. Ray Kuzbari, Public Works Associate Civil Engineer responded 2-3 hours. Ms. Harbin stated that there is the basic traffic study that determines general information about the street and the volume of traffic. A traffic survey is more defined. Mr. Foss stated the information from .the traffic survey would 'be forwarded to the Council. Anytime the City proposes a change to the speed limit requires Council approval. An audience member asked if a cost estimate has been done for the improvements and who will pay for it. Ms. Harbin stated the City is hiring a consultant to work on a cost estimate for' improvements. The City Council would need to determine the allocation of funds for the improvements. The same member asked if the public/private partnership would be established for Phase I or Phase II improvements. An audience member asked 'for clarification on determining a cost analysis for changing the roadway design.~ Ms. Harbin stated that if there isn't any changes to the roadway, Staff will not figure out any funding mechanisms. The Council will determine the changes or improvements and the funding mechanism. Mr. Foss stated .that the Council may only choose parts of the plan for Village Parkway. They will decide how they want to move forward on the Specific Plans. Mr. Byde stated that the Council may not want a public/private partnership. Mr. Foss asked Staff to explain the fagade improvement option and possible funding. village Parba] Property owner's Meeting 4 Nove~nber 9, 2000 Ms. Harbin stated that Staff recommended having an architect available to help with building design improvements. There aren't any current programs to help fund fagade improvements but it is an option the Council could consider. An audience member stated that slowing the traffic' down could cause accidents and possibly cause a hostile environment.- Ms. Harbin stated it would' cause a traffic diversion to other areas. The City is concerned that the traffic diversion will affect the residential areas. Mr. Kuzbari stated a traffic study predicted the traffic will divert through the residential neighborhoods at York Drive, Maple Drive and Clark Avenue. An audience member asked if the City has considered' purchasing 15-feet of property, which is the space between the sidewalk and the buildings, rather than reducing the number of traffic lanes. Mr. Byde stated the committee reviewed four alternative street designs. From the four designs, the Task Force recommended one lane in each direction with diagonal parking, which would require 8-feet of property on each side. Mr. Foss stated that each property owner may have a different sense of value on their 8-feet of property. Once the Council gives Staff specific direction it isn't.financially feasible to do a cost analysis. Ms. Harbin stated Staff has preliminary 9osts for each roadway alternative; which range from lmillion to 3 million dollars.. An audience member asked how the plan addresses the diversion of traffic through the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Harbin stated the plan doesn't estimate the volume of diverted traffic. Mr. Byde said if the Council approves one lane of traffic in each direction, the City would need to figure out other traffic calming measui~es'. Mr. Foss stated with the new 680 on ramp there is a lot of cut through traffic to Dublin Boulevard. An audience member asked if their questions and concerns would go on some type of record or minutes and relayed to the City Council before they approve the Specific Plan? Ms. Harbin responded that the minutes are being currently being recorded. vtllage Parteway Pr0~ert7 Owners Meetin~ 5 November 9, 2000 An audience member asked if Staff considered removing the center median on Village Parkway. Ms. Harbin responded yes. She explained that the median has reduced the number of automobile accidents. Within the context of the Study, rather than removing the median, Staff looked at reducing the height or width. cm. Johnson asked the average speed limit for Village Parkway. Mr. Kuzbari responded the average Speed is 37 miles an hour. Cm. Johnson asked the peak traffic times Mr. Kuzbari stated peak traffic time is 7:00 - 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 - 6:00 p.m, Cm. Johnson asked the' traffic volume at midday. Mr. Kuzbari stated approximately 500 cars an hour. Cm. Johnson stated that one lane of traffic with diagonal parking will automatically slow traffic down. He suggested testing the configuration out for 6 months. Mr. Kuzbari stated Staff anticipates that with one lane of traffic it will cause a traffic diversion through the residential neighborhoods. Cm. Johnson stated to test it out for 6 months to see what happens. If does not work, change it back. Mr. Kuzbari.stated the City has received complaints from the residents regarding cut through traffic. , Ms. Lange asked why the City hasn't considered speed bumps to slow traffic down. Mr. Kuzbari stated that Village Parkway is one of 2 arterial streets in Dublin. He does not agree with reducing the speed limit. Ms. Lange asked the purpose of the plan if everyone has a different goal. Ms. Harbin stated there are .Planning related issues and traffic and safety issues. The main issue is deciding what the goal is for Village Parkway. Staff is presenting the different options with all the related issues for the Council to make the decision on Village Parkway. An audience member asked. whose goal wins. village Parbay Property owner's Meettrig 6 November 9, 2000 Ms. Harbin stated the Council would decide final outcome. Mr. KuzSari stated the residents in the area should have input regarding the plan. An audience member asked how the plan got started. Ms. Harbin stated that it originally started with the Downtown Task Force in 1997. From that Task Force there was an interest to establish a plan for Village Parkway and two other areas downtown. The same member stated that Village Parkway is a major thoroughfare with a lot of traffic. The businesses there are destination specific. Village Parkway is not a shopping type area. To put in expensive improvements at this time is marginal at improving business aspects. An audience member asked if the 1997 Task Force was aware of the freeway on ramp? Mr. Foss explained that Village Parkway is one of three Specific Plans for the downtown area. The Council directed Staff to prepare plans to revitalize the downtown area which involves the Downtown Core, the West Dublin BART Area and Village Parkway. Ms. Harbin stated Staff looked at the three plans being interrelated and how they could work together. An audience member stated seems there are a lot of different options for Village Parkway in the future. The concept was a little like the downtown Walnut Creek image. He fears it will end up like downtown Hayward. Village Parkway is not a type of place people go to shop. He envisioned Village Parkway as a small business area. He feels the City is rushing to adopt the plans and should consider further study. He asked why more people weren't notified about the Task Force. Ms. Harbin stated Staff sent out notices to all the Property Owners and tenants to participate on the Task Force. There were 13 people interested in participating' on the Task Force. Mr. Byde explained that Staff envisioned a land use change for Village Parkway. The Task Force did not want a land use change but did express the need to revitalize the area. An audience member stated there are two ways to change a land use; legislate it, or build it and they will come. It will take time to make the area interesting and bring in additional retail users. village varlm, q Pro, pert/o~er's ivieet[ng. 7 November 9, 2000 Mr. Lange stated most of the people on Village Parkway are going to the post office, a specific location or to the freeway. He said that the parking issue is a problem and some tenants don't provide parking for their customers. An audience member stated that is a function of use. He has more parking than he needs and is 100% leased. Another audience member stated the he does not to worry about parking his car and having it towed because of private parking. Mr. Byde stated that many of the businesses are running independent. By taking down the fences between properties the parking issues would improve. An audience member commented about businesses that are 100% leased. The price per square 'feet is higher for the retail sites. Cm. Oravetz stated that Village Parkway is' going to have tough competition with the new Town Center going in Eastern Dublin. The Town Center plan is .excellent and is everything he wants for the Village Parkway area. He stated that the image of Village Parkway needs to change and Cm. Johnson has great idea of stripping the street wiLh diagonal parking and 'test it for 6-months. Charlotte Fernandez asked if there is a developer who wants to buy the Village Parkway property. Ms. Harbin responded not to her knowledge. She stated that the Task Force expressed an interest to stay established and continue meeting. An audience member suggested additional stop signs in the residential area to discourage. cut through traffic. An audience member agreed with Cm. Johnson to test the diagonal parking and One lane .of traffic. Ms. Harbin suggested to everyone to voice his or her opinion at the November 2 !, 2000 City Council meeting. She thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. vtlladje Parbq t'royert7 owner's Meeting S November 9, 2000 Rece:t..ved: ~3.!/13/200E~ 11/13/20. OO 2:59PM; ->C'ity of Dub.l.:Ln PW/Fa.r'e~ 12:05 5109352247 OMNI MEANS omni · means f~NGINEER,.%,PI, ANNERS Page I PAGE 81 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Ray Kuzbafi, City o ublin FROM: · George NickelSo DATE: November 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Potential Traffic Diversion From Village. Parkway· Through the Residential Neighborhood'to the East Ray: In our traffic analyses for the village Parkway, Downtown Core and West BART Station Specific Plans, we indicated that a reduction from four to two travel lanes on Village .Parkway would cause traffic diversions westerly 'to Areadot Plaza and easterly through the residential neighborhood. We have reviewed our traffic projections and have derived a more refined estimate of the potential diversion through the residential neighborhood. to the east. Through traffic volumes on Village Parkway would be likely to divert when the peak hour flows at intersections result in poor operating conditions. It is also noted that the conflicts between through traffic and vehicles backing in/out of diagonal parking spaces could generally delay through traffic to the extent that some motorists would choose to by-pass Village Parkway throughout the day. ROSEVILLll 2237 D0Ugi0s BOulevard, ,~;!~ite, 10el RO~ovlllO, CA 95GG 1 (9t6) 782-8688 FAX (916) 762.8689 As indicated in the Specific Plans' analyses, the current daily traffic volume· on Village Parkway is about 2J,000 vehic!es, and the capacity of a two-lane Village Parkway would be about 18,000 daily vehicles. With background traffic growth and trips associated with the 'Specific Plans', the daily volume on Village Parkway would be expected to exceed .~,000 vehicles,lie,000 vehicles over the·theoretical 'capacity of a two-lane roadway. However, because the volumes on Village }'arkway are more evenly distributed throughout the day (resulting in somewhat reduced impacts during peak hours). the proj,ected'daily volume would exceed the capacity by about 4,500-5,000 vehicles. Ba~d on the traffic flow patterns .at the Village/Amador Valley and Village/Dublin inmrsections, about one-half of this volume (2,250-2,500 dally vehicles) could poten. tially ·divert through the neighborhood to the east. \ During the' A'M and PM peak commute hours, the projected. poor operating conditions at Village/Amador Valley could cause motorists to divert to alternate routes. Again, based on our review of traffic flow patterns, 225 AM peak hour vehicles and 270 PM peak hour vehicles could ILFDDING VISALIA ',h:ALNUT CREEK 434 Redcliff Drive. Suite D 720 W. Center Avenue, Suite C 190-1 Olympic Boulevard, Sle. 120 R,,~ddrng, CA 9600? Viaalia, GA 83~'91 WOIflUl CrOOk, CA 94596(~ '-"~30) 223-6500 (559) 734-5895 Rece"tved: ~'11/13/2888 11/1312000 2:SgPM;,~>O~ty of Dublin PWIFiqe; 12:85 5189352247 OMNI MEANS Page 2 PAGE 82 November 13, 2000 Memo to Ray Kuzbari Page 2 potentially divert through the neighborhood to the east. It would be very tenuous to precisely predict the extent of traffic diversion through the neighborhood east of Village Parkway. Some motorists might tolerate delays on Village Parkway rather than take a somewhat circuitous "shortcut" through the adjacent neighborhood. In addition, a portion of the through traffic on Village Parkway pwbably represents motorists who are unfamiliar with the neighborhood to the east and would 'not be aware of any opportunity to divert through that area. However; if even one-half of the vok~mes cited above divert through the neighborhood; the neighborhood could experience an additional 100-150 peak hour vehicles and 1., 100-1,200 additional daily vehicles. These increases would certainly be perceived by area residents'as an impac{ on their typical traffic flow characteristics. Please review this information and call me with any questions or comments. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 14, 2000 G. Thuman~ Captain T. Philipps, Traffic Sergeant' Angled parking proposal for Village Parkway I have looked at the proposed layout for angled parking on Village Parkway, between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. Although the number of public parking spaces is significantly increased, there are several possible negative co~sequen'ces which may outweigh the positive benefits. The length of the affected area of'Amador Valley Boulevard is approximately three tenths of a mile. It is a thoroughfare that is heavily used during .commute hours. If the rbadway is reduced to one lane in each direction, there is a potential for gridlock and a shortage of stacking space. This could significantly restrict the ability of emergency vehicles'to reach businesses on Village Parkway or'freely travel through the area. Should this restriction appear, emergency vehicles might be forced to use Amador Plaza Road as a detour.' The overall distance of traveling from the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and .Village Parkway, to the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, via Amador Plaza Road, is eight tenths of a mile. The difference is five tenths of a mile and could significantly increase response times, depending on the time and the 'volume 0f traffic. Emergency vehicles traveling on Dublin Boulevard would be forced to wait the additional time it would take to cross the intersection with Village Parkway, when forced to use Amador Plaza Road. The restriction on Village Parkway could also result in emergency'vehicles being relegated to using residential streets for response routes. There are numerous traffic inlets and' outlets leading to the rear of businesses along both sides of Village Parkway. Angled parking would further reduce the visibility of oncoming traffic for people using these outlets, and could result in a sight distance predicament. The posted speed limit in' this area of Village Parkway.is thirty miles per hour. At this speed, a vehicle is traveling approximately 45 feet per second. A vehicle exiting an outlet would not be afforded a reasonable amount of time 'to safely enter a-traffic lane. A traffic collision between two vehicles could easily block the only available lane of travel. The reduced roadway width may also create a problem for large delivery trucks or fire trucks trying to negotiate a turn from an outlet, while avoiding parked vehicles. The area surrounding the United State Post Office, located at 6937 Village Parkway, could also be adversely affected. The Post Office's parking lot frequently backs up onto 'the northbound number two lane of Village Parkway..If Village Parkway is reduced to ATTACHMENT one lane, and this condition' occurs, northbound traffic could be completely blocked. The holiday season would most likely exacerbate this situation. The .probability of traffic collisions is greatly increased when backing movements are made. Angled parking would require each parked Vehicle to back up into an area where oncoming traffic is present. A concrete center divider is also present which would further reduce a driver's ability to avoid a backing vehicle. Another potential problem from the increased number of parking spaces is jaywalking. Angled parking would limit a driver's .view of a pedestrian who decides to walk out from behind a parked vehicle..Bicyclists would also be at a disadvantage with vehicles backing into the main traveled portion of the roadway. Slow and congested traffic may also result from drivers who are either searching for a vacant parking space, or waiting for a person to enter his or her vehicle. and vacate a parking space. Each time a vehicle backs out of a parking space, oncoming traffic would be forced to slow down significantly or come to a complete stop. RESC~ EPAI: Alameda County Fire Department Fire PreventiOn Bureau City of Dublin Division. MEMORANDUM DATE:' November 14; 2000 TO: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director FROM: James Ferdinand, Fire Marsh~ SUBJECT: Village Parlc, vay Traffic Changes I have reviewed the proposed realignment of traffic lanes and new parking 6ortfiguration on Village Parkway betWeen Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin BOulevard. 'The concept will create additional on street parkingI and restrict traffic to one lane north and south. The reduction in the number of lanes and the resulting congestion created when a vehicle parks or exits a parking stall, may cause an increase in response times .for fire vehicles. ~scui EPAI: Alameda County Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau City of Dublin Division. MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 2000 TO: Eddie Peabody, Commtmity Development Director FROM: James Ferdinand, 'Fire SUBJECT: Village Parkway Traffic Changes I have reviewed ttie proposed realignment of traffic lanes and new parking Configuration on Village Parkway betWeen Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard. 'The concept will create additional on street parking and restrict traffic to one lane north and south. The reduction in the number of lanes and the resulting congestion created when a vehicle parks or exits a parking stall, may cause an increase in response times for fire vehicles. Village Parkway is regularly' used as an emergency response route as it provides a direct .' north/south avenue across the city and easy-access to Highway 680 northbound. Village Parkway currently has tWo lanes in each direction, whichallow emergency vehicles to pass a car waiting for a parallel parking stall or entering a driveway. With the removal of a traffic lane to accommodate the diagonal-parking configuration, there is no space for an emergency vehicle to pass. An emergency. vehicle would' have to wait until the parking 'action is complete and traffic is able to move to proceed.' Depending on the time of day, this action could be quite extensive and may delay response when seconds count. We look forward to Working with you and the Committee to investigate .any potential problems as aresuit of the reconfiguration and create solutions to those if possible. Please consider this information and include it in your staff report.