Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2013 - Agenda PacketPlanning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin November 12, 2013 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – October 22, 2013 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PLPA-2013-00049 & 50 – Buick/GMC Dealership – Conditional Use Permit to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work and a Site Development Review Permit to construct carwash building and related site improvements to an existing car dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court. 8.2 PLPA-2012-00031 - The Village at Dublin - General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Environmental Impact Report. 8.3 PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations). 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability -related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Depart ment. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) or LD STAFF REPORT sz� PLANNING COMMISSION ��LIFOR�1� DATE: November 12, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — PLPA-2013-00049 & 00050 Buick/GMC Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit Report prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to amend the existing use permit for the site to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work. A Site Development Review Permit is also being requested to allow the construction of a 1,379 square foot carwash/storage building and related site improvements at the existing Buick/GMC dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a carwash building and related site improvements to the Buick/GMC Dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court. Submitted By 'Reii&Wed By Environmental Coordinator Planning Manager COPIES TO: File Property Owner ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 6 G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00049 Buick GMC Car WashlPlanning Commission 11.12.131PC Staff Report 11.12.13.doc DESCRIPTION: Vicinity Map Project Location The project site is located at 4400 John Monego Court and consists of the existing Project Site,Parcel Buick/GMC dealership building, which includes a showroom, service reception, offices, parts storage and service area. This site has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The project site is zoned PD, Planned Development. Car dealerships are a conditionally permitted use in the PD. There is an existing Parcel B Conditional Use Permit for the dealership, which permits vehicle sales and indoor repairs. Parcel C Surrounding Uses The location of the project site is shown on the vicinity map to the left. The Kia Dealership is located south of the project site. Residential development is located north of the project site across Dublin Boulevard. The Tassajara Creek is located to the west and the Dublin Corporate Center is located to the east. Project History In 1998 the City Council approved a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the entire General Motors Auto Mall site, which is comprised of three (3) parcels (Parcels A, B, and C) on nearly 13.5 acres. The PD allows up to 120,902 square feet of development across the three parcels. In 1998 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Tentative Parcel Map for the General Motors Auto Mall that led to the construction of the 25,645 square foot Dublin Buick/GMC dealership building on the project site (Parcel A). In 2000 the City Council approved a Planned Development Zoning District amendment that realigned the three parcels and reassigned building densities on the parcels. There was no net change in the allowable building area for the auto mall, just some adjustments to where the building would take place. In 2004 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the development of a 23,108 square foot addition to the Buick/GMC dealership building. The expansion was to add a substantial service area to the existing sales and service facility and to allow the dealership to expand from Parcel A onto Parcel B. The Conditional Use Permit amended the PD to again transfer densities across Parcels A, B and C. The Site Development Review for the Buick/GMC expansion expired and the Applicant never moved forward with the proposed expansion. In 2012 the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit to allow fagade modifications and related site improvements to the existing Buick/GMC dealership building located at 4400 John Monego Court. 2 of 6 In April 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the Fiat Dealership (Parcel B). That approval included a Conditional Use Permit to Amend the PD for the General Motor Auto Mall to transfer 5,000 square feet of allowable development from Parcel C (Chevy/Cadillac) to Parcels A (Project site) and B (Kia). Consequently, there is adequate development potential on the project site to accommodate the proposed carwash/storage building. Project Description The Applicant is currently requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a carwash at the dealership and limited outdoor repair work. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting a Site Development Review Permit to allow the construction of a carwash/storage building and related site improvements to the existing Buick/GMC dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court. ANALYSIS: The following is an analysis of the proposed project. Conditional Use Permit The proposed Project is located in a Planned Development Zoning District. Automobile sales and services are permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit is used to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. The dealership is surrounded by an auto dealership to the south, residential to the north (across Dublin Blvd.), an office complex to the east and a stream corridor to the west. There is an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile sales and indoor repair work at the project site. The current request includes a Conditional Use Permit is to modify the existing use permit for the dealership to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work. The proposed carwash is an ancillary use to the existing dealership and it will be used solely by employees to wash the cars at the GM Automall. The carwash will utilize recycled water and it will be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. There is a code enforcement case on the project site for a carwash installed within the detailing area (shown as existing wash bays on the project plans) of the building without the necessary permits. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that prohibits the washing of vehicles in the detailing area following completion of the carwash (Attachment 1, Condition No. 18). The only activities that will be permitted in this area include car detailing and/or vacuuming. There is currently an unpermitted outdoor service lift located to the west of the service portion of the building. The amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit will allow for limited outdoor repair work. The outdoor lift is used approximately once per month and it services large trucks (greater than 35,000 pounds) that are too large to fit inside the service building. A condition of approval has been placed on the project stating that the outdoor lift is permitted to be used solely for large trucks that do not fit inside the service building (Attachment 1, Condition No. 22). Additionally, a Condition of Approval has been added that requires Best Management Practices (BMPs) be used to minimize the potential of stormwater pollution occurring as result of the outdoor lift (Attachment 1, Condition No. 19). The Applicant will also be adding a filter to the adjacent drain inlet that will prevent any accidental spills from reaching the City's storm drain system. 3of6 Site Development Review Permit The Zoning Ordinance requires Site Development Review for all new principal structures, including structures in a Planned Development Zoning District. Approval of Site Development Review is subject to findings related to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to general safety and welfare, site layout, impacts to views, impacts to topography, architectural considerations and landscape considerations. Site Layout The project site was improved with the original construction of the dealership buildings (Exhibit A to Attachment 1, Sheet Cl). Access to the site is provided from an existing driveway on John Monego Court. The Applicant is proposing to make minor site improvements to accommodate the carwash/storage building, including removal of an existing landscape island. Additionally, the Applicant will be demolishing sections of the existing asphalt to make necessary site modifications (drainage and electrical modifications). There are currently four storage containers on the southwesterly portion of the Buick/GMC project site that were discovered during a site inspection. Storage containers require a Temporary Use Permit and are allowed for up to one year. The Applicant subsequently applied for, and received approval of, a Temporary Use Permit to allow the storage containers for up to one year. The Applicant has indicated that the contents of the storage containers will be moved to the proposed storage building following its construction. Parking The proposed carwash is an ancillary use to the dealership building and it will be used solely by employees to wash cars at the GM Automall; therefore, the carwash does not require additional parking. The applicant is proposing to remove 11 inventory parking stalls to accommodate the new carwash/storage building. Approximately half of these parking stalls are not currently being used for inventory parking because the storage containers are being stored in this area. The inventory parking stalls that will be removed are not included in the number of required parking stalls for the project site. Landscape A Condition of Approval for the Site Development Review permit for the Buick/GMC fagade remodel (approved by the Planning Commission in 2012) required that the applicant refresh the landscaping at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/John Monego Court, along the John Monego frontage and the landscaping median on John Monego Court. The applicant has not yet completed these landscaping improvements. Prior to the Planning Department signing off on the Building Permit for the fagade remodel, the Applicant will be required to complete the landscaping improvements. The addition of the carwash/storage building will result in the removal of an existing landscape island and several trees. There is a Condition of Approval that requires the Applicant to re-plant two trees elsewhere on the site for every tree removed (Attachment 1, Condition No. 23). These trees will be planted when the landscaping improvements noted above are completed. Architecture The existing Buick/GMC dealership building is constructed primarily of split-face masonry block and aluminum composite material. The building ranges from 20 to 24 feet in height. 4of6 The proposed carwash is 764 square feet and the storage area is 615 square feet for a total of 1,379 square feet. The proposed building is 15' 8" tall. The building materials consist of split- face masonry block painted white to match the existing dealership building. The building includes a roll-up door on the south elevation. The roll-up door and service doors will be painted white to match the existing building. The proposed carwash/storage building will be slightly visible from Dublin Boulevard. Please refer to sheet Al for the elevations and sketch-up model of the carwash/storage building. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. An auto dealership is consistent with that land use. The proposed project is consistent with the Community Design and Sustainability Element in that the project includes a new building which uses materials consistent with the existing dealership building. The project site is zoned PD, Planned Development. Car dealerships are a conditionally permitted use in the PD. The proposed project includes an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations. The Applicant has reviewed and agreed to these Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review (Attachment 1). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find this project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a carwash building and related site improvements to the Buick/GMC dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court with the project plans attached as Exhibit A. 5 of 6 GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER/: Inder Dosanjh, APPLICANT Dublin Real Estate, LLC 4200 John Monego Court Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 4400 John Monego Court GENERALPLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING: PD (Planned Development) SURROUNDING USES: Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of Propert Site PD (Planned General Commercial Automobile Development) Dealership North PD (Planned Medium Density Residential Residential Development South PD (Planned General Commercial Automobile Development) Dealership East PD (Planned Stream Corridor Tassajara Creek Development) West PD (Planned Campus Office Koll Center Development) 6of6 RESOLUTION NO. 13-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CARWASH AND LIMITED OUTDOOR REPAIR WORK AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A CARWASH BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUICK/GMC DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT4400 JOHN MONEGO COURT (APN 986-0016-002-01) PLPA-2013-00049&00050 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Inder Dosanjh, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an ancillary carwash and limited outdoor repair work and a Site Development Review for a carwash building and related site improvements to the Buick/GMC dealership located at 4400 John Monego Court; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlements prepared by MacKay & Somps received by the Planning Division on September 17, 2013 and enclosed as Exhibit A; and; WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds this project exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15301 (Existing Facilities); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on November 12, 2013; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of the project; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the proposed location of the project is within the General Motors Auto Mall, which has a wide variety of automobile related uses; 2) there is an existing Conditional Use Permit for the project site which allows vehicle sales and indoor repair work; 3) the majority of service will be conducted ATTACHMENT 1 indoors; 4) the outdoor lift shall only be used by trucks that are 35,000 pounds are larger and too large to fit inside the service building; 4) the carwash is an ancillary use for the GM Automall; and 5) the proposed use, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding uses. B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the Project has been conditioned to comply with all State of California and Dublin Municipal Code requirements. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that-1) the proposed project will comply with all City of Dublin regulations and 2) Conditions of Approval have been included to ensure that the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that: 1) the Project will be located on a fully developed site that is served by existing utilities and services, and 2) the area was designed to accommodate automobile uses, and the proposed use fits in with the intended use of the area. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed in that: 1) access to the site will be from John Monego Court, which is an existing roadway; 2) the carwash will be located in an area which was designed to support a variety of auto related uses; 3) the existing Conditional Use Permit for the site is being amended to allow a carwash and limited outdoor repair work; and 4) the carwash will only be used solely by the GM Automall employees to wash the cars at the GM Automall. F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1) there is an existing Conditional Use Permit which permits vehicle sales and indoor repair work; 2) Conditions of Approval have been applied to the project to ensure on-going compatibility with surrounding uses; 3) the carwash will be used solely by the GM Automall employees to wash the cars at the GM Automall; 4) only vehicles that are 35,000 pounds or greater may use the outdoor lift, repair of all other vehicles shall occur inside; and 5) adequate Best Management Practices shall be used when repair work occurs outside to minimize the potential for stormwater pollution. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in that. 1) the proposed project will result in improvements to the site which will provide a service to the community that is consistent with the intent of the General Commercial General Plan Land Use designation. 2of14 r BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review Permit: A. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) auto sales and services is a conditionally permitted use; 2) there is an existing Conditional Use Permit for the dealership; 3) the proposed project will enhance the appearance of the existing dealership; 4) the proposed carwash/storage building uses materials consistent with the existing dealership building; 5) the proposed project is well designed and is compatible with the surrounding area; and 6) adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is provided. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the zoning for the site is PD (Planned Development) and the existing dealership is a conditionally permitted use type; 2) the existing use permit as amended allows a carwash and limited outdoor repair work; 3) the overall design of the project is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located; 4) the existing dealership building has adequate parking to support the facility as required by Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking Regulations; and 5) the project is consistent with the development standards of the PD zoning district. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the project site is located in an urbanized area that is currently developed with a variety of building types and uses; 2) adequate access is provided to the site from John Monego Court; and 3) the site is currently developed with an automobile dealership. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because the site. 1) the site has been designed for automobile uses; 2) access to the site is provided from John Monego Court, which is an existing roadway; 3) the proposed new carwash/storage building uses materials consistent with the existing dealership building; and 4) the proposed use will have adequate parking to support the facility as required by Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking Regulations. E. The Project, will not impact existing slopes and topographic features because: the project site is relatively flat and has existing improvements. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale, and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements, result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the project has been well designed to complement the surrounding neighborhood; 2) the materials for the carwash/storage building consists of materials that are consistent with the existing dealership building; and 3) the project will add value to the project site. G. Landscape considerations including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) 3of14 the project site has been previously improved and has existing landscaping; 2) the new carwash/storage building will result in the removal of an existing landscaping median that has several trees and the applicant will planting two trees elsewhere on the site for every tree that is removed. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles because: 1) access to the site is currently provided from a driveway on John Monego Court; and 2) the project has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and Fire Prevention Bureau and adequate access and circulation has been provided on-site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the carwash/storage building as shown on the Project Plans date-stamped "Received by Dublin Planning on September 17, 2013" and included as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, [Zone 7]. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: GENERAL -SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. Approval. This approval is for the Buick/GMC PL On-going Planning Dealership building located at 4400 John Monego Court, PLPA-2013-00049/00050 and includes a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an ancillary carwash for the GM Automall, outdoor repair of vehicles that are over 35,000 pounds and too large to fit inside the service building, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a new carwash and storage building in addition to site modifications. This Site Development Review generally shall conform to the project plans submitted by MacKay and Somps received September 17, 2013, on file in the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Conditional Use PL One year After DMC Permit and Site Development Review Permit shall be Effective Date 8.96.020. valid for one year from the effective date. Construction D shall commence within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. If 4 of 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 3. Time Extension. The original approving decision- PL Prior to DMC maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for Expiration 8.96.020. an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the Date E determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. 4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall PL On-going DMC operate this use in compliance with the Conditions of 8.96.020.F Approval of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. Operating of the use is subject to compliance with the existing Conditional Use Permit. 5. Revocation of Permit. The Conditional Use Permit PL On-going DMC and Site Development Review approval shall be 8.96.020.1 revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subj ect to citation. 6. Null and Void. The Conditional Use Permit approval PL On-going Planning to operate a car wash and perform limited outdoor work shall become null and void in the event that the approved use has ceased or was suspended for 12 more consecutive months after the use commences. 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Permit Standard Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City Issuance of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 5of14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 8. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits PW Building Permit Standard required by other agencies including, but not limited to Issuance Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. 9. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable Various Building Permit Various fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, Issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM On-going Administra indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its tion/City agents, officers, and employees from any claim, Attorney action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there PW On-going Public needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, Works the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL On-going Planning responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean & litter-free site. 13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site PL On-going DMC Development Review approval may be considered by 8.104.100 the Community Development Director if the 6of14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. Minor Amendments. Modifications or changes to the PL On-going Planning Conditional Use Permit approval may be considered and approved by the Community Development Director, if the proposed modifications or changes comply with Section 8.100.080 of the Zoning Ordinance. 15. Security Requirements. The Applicant/Developer PL Issuance of Planning shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non- Building Residential Security requirements. Permits/ On-going 16. Annual Review. On an annual basis, the Conditional PL On-going Planning Use Permit approval may be subject to review by the Community Development Director to determine compliance with the Conditions of Approval. PROJECT SPECIFIC 17. Outdoor Storage Containers. The outdoor storage PL Final Planning containers currently located on the project site shall be removed once the carwash building/storage building is completed. The contents of the storage container shall be relocated to the new storage building. 18. Detailing Area. The washing of vehicles in the PL Occupancy Planning detailing area of the existing Service Building shall be prohibited following completion of the car wash. This area is permitted to be used solely for car detailing and/or vacuuming. 19. Outdoor Service Bays & Stormwater Pollution PL On-going Planning Prevention. The Applicant/Property Owner shall follow best management practices to minimize the potential of stormwater pollution occurring from the outdoor lift. The following practices shall be adhered to at all times: • Drip pans shall be placed under vehicles to catch any accidental spills. • If a spill occurs, dry cleanup methods, such as sweeping, vacuuming, and/or a damp mop shall be used. Vehicle equipment maintenance and repair areas shall never be hosed down unless all of the washwater is collected and disposed to the sanitary sewer. • Following the completion of any outdoor work, the area shall be swept and the materials disposed of properly. • Outdoor vehicle repair is not permitted during a rain event. 20. Outdoor Material Storage. No materials associated PL On-going Planning with the carwash building are permitted to be stored outside. All materials, including spare soap and wash fluids, shall be stored inside the storage building adjacent to the carwash. 7of14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 21. Outdoor Services. The outdoor lift is permitted to be PL On-going Planning used solely for large trucks that do not fit inside the service building. All other service work shall be conducted indoors. 22. Noise/Nuisance. The Applicant/Developer shall PL On-going Planning control all business activity so as not to create a public or private nuisance to the existing and surrounding businesses and residents. No amplified sounds, loudspeakers or music shall be permitted outside the building. 23. Tree Replanting. The removal of the island located PL Final Planning adjacent to the proposed carwash will result in the loss of trees. Trees shall be re-planted elsewhere on the site (2 to 1 ratio). The type of tree and location shall be approved by the Planning Division. 24. Colors. The exterior paint colors of the buildings are PL Final Planning subject to City review and approval. The Applicant shall paint a portion of the building the proposed colors for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to painting the buildings, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. PROJECT SPECIFIC SIGNS 25. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. PL On-going Chapter Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons 8.884 of shall only be permitted after first securing an approved DMC Temporary Promotional Sign Permit. Any signage on site shall be subject to the sign requirements contained in the Dublin Municipal Code. 26. A-Frame Signs. The use of any A-Frame, portable, PL On-going Chapter sandwich-board, pennants, or human-held signs on 8.884 of the premises is strictly prohibited. Said signs and any DMC form of off-site advertising signs shall also be prohibited upon any public property, including City streets and sidewalks. 27. Outdoor Events. Any outside events shall be subject PL On-going Chapter to the Temporary Use Permit requirements contained 8.884 of in the City of Dublin Municipal Code, specifically DMC Section 8.108.020. 28. Master Sign Program. Prior to the installation of any PL Installation of Chapter on-site signage, the Applicant/Developer shall apply Project 8.884 of for and receive approval to amend the existing GM Related DMC Automall Master Sign Program. Si na e BUILDING -GENERAL 29. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes and Completion ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 30. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Building Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of Building construction plans to the Building Division for plan Permits check. Each set of plans shall have attached an 8of14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. 31. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be B Issuance of Building fully dimensioned accurately drawn (depicting all Building existing & proposed conditions), and prepared and Permits signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. 32. Addressing. Addresses will be required on all doors B Occupancy Building leading to the exterior of the new storage building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the street, 5 inches in height minimum. 33. Air Conditioning Units. Air Conditioning units and B Occupancy Building ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building. Units shall be installed on concrete pads or other non- movable materials to be approved by the Building Official and Director of Community Development. FIRE —GENERAL CONDITIONS 34. Fire Codes. Project shall comply with the applicable F On-going Fire Building and Fire Codes in effect at the time of submittal of plan check and permit. PUBLIC WORKS —STANDARD CONDITIONS 35. Public Improvements. All public improvements shall PW Issuance of Public conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans and Grading/ Works design requirements and as approved by the City Sitework Engineer. Permit 36. Water and Sewer Facilities. Applicant/Developer PW Issuance of Public shall construct all potable and recycled water and Grading/ Works sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in Sitework accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, Permit specifications and requirements. PUBLIC WORKS — PROJECT SPECIFIC 37. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. PW On-going Public Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable Works City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event of a conflict between the Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. 38. Encroachment Permit. An encroachment permit Issuance of Public from the Public Works Department may be required Building Works for any work done within the public right-of-way even Permits & on- if covered under an Improvement Agreement. going 9of14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 39. Storm Drain Improvements. A Triton Filter shall be PW Final Public installed within the inlet located adjacent to the Works existing outdoor lift (as shown on Sheet C-3). 40. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance PW Final Public Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Works agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. 41. Grad i ng/Sitework Permit. All site improvement PW Issuance of Public work and public right-of-way work must be performed Grading/ Works per a Grading/Sitework Permit issued by the Public Sitework Works Department. Said permit will be based on the Permit final set of improvement plans to be approved once all of the plan check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit Application Instructions and attached application (three 8-1/2" x 11" pages) for more information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount. 42. Vehicle Parking. All parking stalls shall be PW Final Public constructed in accordance with Building and Works Municipal Code requirements. In addition, all customer and employee stalls shall be clearly identified with signs and pavement markings. The proposed parking shall not impede required exit paths or encroach onto pedestrian pathways. 43. Parking Prohibitions/Restrictions. Vehicle parking PW On-going and Public shall be prohibited or restricted at locations deemed Installed Prior Works reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public to Final Works Director during final design and/or construction. 44. Site Accessibility Requirements. All disabled PW Final Public access ramps, parking spaces for the disabled, and Works other physical site improvements shall comply with current UBC Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin Standards for accessibility. 45. Relocation of Existing Improvements/ Utilities. PW Final Public Any necessary relocation of existing improvements or Works utilities shall be accomplished at no expense to the City. 10 of 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'b SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 46. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall be PW Final Public responsible for the repair of any damaged pavement, Works curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting from construction activities associated with the development of the project, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 47. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a PW Occupancy Public photometric plan to the satisfaction of the City Works Engineer and Director of Community Development. A minimum of one-foot candle of light shall be provided and maintained across the surface of the parking lot. Any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties, businesses or vehicular traffic so as not to cause any glare. 48. Trash Enclosure. The trash bin shall be stored inside PW Building Public the building or a trash enclosure shall be constructed Permits Works to be consistent with City's enclosure ordinance. If the Applicant chooses to store the trash enclosure inside the building, it shall only be moved outside on trash pick-up days and the relocation of the trash bin shall be coordinated with the City's trash hauler. 49. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer and/or building PL, PW On-going Public tenant(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism Works on a regular and continuous basis. Graffiti resistant paint for the structures and film for windows or glass shall be used whenever possible. CONSTRUCTION 50. Erosion Control During Construction. PW During Public Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and Construction Works Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and and Grading Improvement plans for review and approval by the Activities City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October 1St and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 51. Construction Hours. City acknowledges that this site PW During Public is within a commercial district, with no surrounding Construction Works residential areas. Standard construction and grading and Grading hours shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Activities Friday) and non-City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting a request form to the City Engineer/Public Works Director. For work on Saturdays, said request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior Wednesday. Overtime 11 of 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: inspection rates will apply for all after-hours, Saturday, and/or holiday work. 52. Construction Noise Management Plan. Developer PW During Public shall prepare a Construction Noise Management Plan, Construction Works to be approved by the City Engineer and Community and Grading Development Director that identifies measures to be Activities taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The Plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the protect plans and specifications. 53. Dust Control. The Developer shall be responsible for PW During Public watering or other dust-palliative measures to control Construction Works dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City and Grading Engineer. Activities 54. Temporary Construction Fencing. Temporary Various During Public Construction fencing shall be installed along the Construction Works perimeter of all work under construction to separate and Grading the construction operation from the public. All Activities construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 55. Fire Access. Access roads, turnarounds, pullouts, Various During Fire and fire operation areas are Fire Lanes and shall be Construction maintained clear and free of obstructions, including and Grading the parking of vehicles. Activities 56. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be Various During Various blocked, including after hours, other than by approved Construction gates/barriers that provide for emergency access. and Grading Activities DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) 57. Prior to issuance of any building permits, complete DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that Building conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Permits Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water Wastewater Facilities," all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 58. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Services District, whichever comes first, all utility Permits connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and scheduled established in the DSRSD Code. 12 of 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 59. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Services District, whichever comes first, all Permits improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before si nature by the District Engineer. 60. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD permitted unless the proper utility construction permit Building has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will Permits only be issued after all of the items in Condition 9 have been satisfied. 61. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD On-going DSRSD Directors, commissions, employees and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. 62. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for Building landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water Permits & on- mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD going Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 63. DSRSD encourages the Applicant to install a carwash DSRSD On-going DSRSD station that has a built-in recycling system to minimize water consumption. 13 of 14 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTA IN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Acting Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00049 Buick GMC CarWashlPC Reso SDR.CUP.doc 14 of 14 � F z Q � �oj'v JO 1b VINHoj1'Id0`NI anc1`Luna)OoHNOW NHOf H T p V a� II A j W♦J, ICI •i?0-;�/.ly�„1 Jdsof:t'J'r1911.y';3lJ'L'J kT.lel'di Hi.71y' 8 W U {, X3/iC/f 4L 'd 5 2 +yn:.f.+ans �"alwvia "r��nl•nli SdWOS12AV)19dW �� 19Dfb°" `m Noing NI�ono J0 HSVM 8VO ° w �Z0 �y LU 13> o ��olss3lo a° .LMS URAOD ° v SNOISIAH Lj s c z z C�j> L- �5 Q_j LU '-.4 a- 2! 0- U) ri z < z LU _j CO C:) LU a- U) H W U Q F— U Q W I Cl) Q C/) J J �2e o W LU<C) CD CD oJF—I � � = z N O R T H F—i W W J W W J F— :Ei F—q OC F— F---F �— F—I 1--1 F—I W = r CV C" cI- LCD �- C/� U U U CU U Q ndA_3nn Nnnn i •, � 1 -- 11 i-.-:._..I I I n.I_ I rn°°� °°° � .�Yl- r`: i i i nv I I I i I II ,k p l l AI p a I _ I , n I! / J g ? Q (aubu Ell■I ISHE n■uEEw E■uMii■u■u■ui LLI ■ /;� � ■�`'�,�� �-.',' I I '- I I I I ■I 1 i I I I I C I I � I I �r I I I I I � I� r II 4 � �j �� ;�. �J I°'arl II I I I I ■I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I! -'' II 1 � �.%,r J c���e �``^1 .I I I I I I�.I —I I I I I I I`� ! I I I � I I I I I I l y � I i ..• r l •' / ,(�--.� -I--_-I-_� a-■,__..I. _..I----!- -�-I-' f---!----F- ;--1 ---i--! -I--1--I gi (fo ,/�r [\■.t � I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F -.I I IdI 7 I. .I-.I _I-l- -I r-IJ -Ir-E III %� /,!r `,' ■� r�w �-1- I -I -I -I--I-�f--I t � -�. � I I --1-- I Ir 1--I I --���I_I�_,.� }...._.r_. _, �� r rl (■ I li I I I I I .�-I I i I II i I I I � -I � r -.E L7 r !I :. / f `--- ■ I I I I I I i I I I ! I I I I I � tl II t- I I i i I I ■: :.�I I � ._._ II /� sJ �. 1 �u■u■u■u�u■u■u■n■u■u■u■u■u■IR ` � --[,�, im r _ I I I y I I z I �E gI 9• kt I '__, 1 Ip��l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I r �. B I I 41 a �I I u -- - r------ ---- I ;z --------- F.f rto I£I.. / —rwwz e�cou I I I �•'i rY-' I nom. l!? \' rnr.,e Mc I II _ I _ � I I I' I rr or 01 v �J' - r v,urn vnwn - uu d1N'dOJ1'Id0`N1-19f1Q`1L 1f100 OOJNOW NHOf o N ��?•1l.-`ShZfLt ISiF,I 68SYii V'1'::;,I',:,:,V]l:l'LG 1411,111,M] !63 � i z U Ii3lfNlJ 4M13 41/1 L/2 dX3 Q J S'8 VM W w SdWO 011 X0190£4°" �i�If18 NI�8f1a �0 HSb'M �b'� o T w NV"Id FZIS NOISNHWIQ ° — SN°ISIA3k1 0 ty ' 2�I LLl , ti I< I I LL n II I I ' I �• i I Ov II hJ� II It -- I`. ! i II- I ( ' I 1 // III tP LL " I' LU W LU r ,` ..mil I I• � _� I ( IJ�l_I �I I q)� l LJ LL tfl 0 II I r. fi LLI �� ,/�/ =; , s 1` -------- 1 1 . �-,-- •- � A lL i fL Q K LLI LU IE u Ar i% I-m�- W-- — -----r-- -- -- OId n/ U�L z � ILLS U� `1 i/ 1L p U ly --r r � I � Z � •� � � I W I---- I- r V :�•� I(� LU I X i >. In ! X LLJ Q W � — Jill ll� W I LU iE - >LU LU >LL1 L x u- � z C I— � sa��"40l_40'bs `v iI moqi7�D`m-iuf1Q`j,-da0D oDaKow NHof S dZ M r _ J oeao-szz(srs) arias w•aoi.vesnid'an unarroad azas p tl/LCA'd%3 SNOA]nNnS SN3MNYtd 511i3NINal3 SdWO S 19 IVNDVUI �I�If18 NI�BfIQ �0 HS`dM �d� �T�7'T T T T�T77 n � H �orss3ioua N V ld Ul UJn 3 SNOISIA3H v o 0 I I � III, _ an ---Lil- 1 Z Z // \ Flic CO 1 1.1 11 l v 11 I \ J I I 1 \ I I I ! l I / I / � / / •III I�� �� ILI 1 LL v \ PL / /k\_ (9- ✓ \ � � � I � � I I I I I I I 1 I I I I-----I---- I----- ---- ------- --- - - ---- � All po C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ❑ 1 lel I ' u' ZZ\\\ A VModyjVa`Mzsna`zxnoZ)ODaKOW NHOf Z d a U a��ai0 11 AID bjf 9 T � II � oeoo-szz(sze) eesa6 vo'NolNrsypd'ao Nnmaj ams p 41/I£/£'d%3 u ® w ° c N 56'OA3MI115 SL3NNVId SN33M9N3 }�O I f 18 Ni 8 f 1 a O H SdM d0 w W W cn SMOS'8 RMOdW w 190f4'oN 9 �y��bNO/ss33� � l�l y jCl J�7:1��V 11�11Q.L�'1CLlLL SNOISIA3H m o a ! n0 / I I ! � Y rr / � I I — _-- ---- ----+ ----i--- --- Af I I I I Lil I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I M I I J• '� i i i i i i I I I I 1 U I I I I I H' / ----------' .. . WJl IU t /! 1�1 �� �� IY I W J Q- ! ! ! z 00 0 h � I I I � I � ■ W 0 0 L cn _ ' E - -- s/� c -qpo I I I I i v Q a o 0 � LL- 0 `min / i ! y /�� \ f I I I 3 --- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --- ----- ---- I-----I-----t---- I-----i ----i-----i-----r--- Jp I I I I i i i i i I I I ' o LO LU SNOISIAaH pp cz co 41 m CD 0 Alf— CO 0 uj LLJ Lij co co '. I I � • .. �`�� � .j� �, •it �� �� I i i • i A • ( AA NO , . 1 - ;1;IICIlII;1;1;1;1;1;1;i li!- 'd�l�S3.C?,`''s7--!■C-�4Enik� ��1:1 ! ! INER- � ■s■e � ,:1: 11L _— — — — — -- iE ENJOIN ljljljljlj�j�jlj i,�;e1 �•�'� ie :1'1'1'111111111111111 : : ��. ��lCi11 ■ 11 ! 11 ! ! 1 ! 1 ■:� ' ��.��-■ �� , 1:1:111111111 1111111111111. . �: : , minim • p I� I• -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1■�■1 NINON 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ;; ;1 1■ ��r�il■1■I ;i� �:1:111!!11l� 111 4„ ��'' ;�, :.':111111111 ;;ry�, ■1.111 . 1. ' ;: :il111l111l11111111�11 ' x: :111 :; ; 11111111l1l1l1111111lI @1:'1'1 1111111111 ! 1: :111111!l1111111111!!I 1e1:11� 1•,•1•,•1•,•1.1-1-� �°� �t� 1e1E11111l1l111l1lil11111 1: E1�l�1�1�1�1�l�l�ON 11111111111 1: :1l11111l11111l1l11111 ' �:�11111111111111111111 1i -11111111111 1:1:111�11111l111l1111111 ' .: :1111l11!!11!l111l1111 �� 1. .11111111111 li - - - - - - - - - - - �:1:11111i!l1111111111111 ■ �1�1�1� 0 �: E111!l1111111111111111 ;:1:11 ■ ■ ■ ■_■_■ _■ ■ MINIM' 1 1 ;:1..1.1.1.1.1.1-11 1 .1-1.1. - : :111 : :111 1. '- •= = . .: :111 1l ��' .I'l111l, � � �� �+::- ' 1 ���� ►•fin` ' 1111 -' t �3�e ■ ■ tea ii 1 - - �-:qa■1■1■1.1.1.1.1.1' � � iIE1:11111111�� �: I . �, .�' �\ _ ;' .1111111'1'1'1'1'1'1' . ; • ��, r,,• .�- ,i°I- 11111111 111 111111 ,/�/ r_'� 1: °. 111111111�111�11111 �,��..m� .; � � 1:1:111!1111111111111111 1 •1 Off,Q /ii r�i`✓ � STAFF REPORT i /2 — PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2012-00031. The Village at Dublin. General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding The Village at Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and associated implementation actions. The Proposed Project would involve constructing an approximately 152,000 square foot retail commercial center on a 14.32 acre parcel at 5054 Hacienda Drive. Other improvements would include surface parking lots, installation of utilities and services, site landscaping, pedestrian plazas and placement of identification signs. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, and a Vesting Tentative Map. Certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) is also being considered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Recommending City Council certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for The Village at Dublin Retail Center; b) Recommending i that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center; c) Recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to rezone 14.32 acres of 5054 Hacienda Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approving the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center; and d) Approving Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 8262 for The Village at Dublin Retail Center. Submitted By: Reviewed By: Kristi Bascom; Jeff Baker Principal Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPY TO: File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 8 G:IPAM20MPLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PCSR.docx DESCRIPTION Background The project site is vacant and is approximately 14.32 acres. It is located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. The project site is shown below. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Y e Project Site The project site currently has General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations of "Campus Office" and is in a Planned Development Zoning District (PA 85-018). City Council Resolution 105-85 approved the Planned Development Zoning District on the site, which outlined that the future site uses would be campus-type office uses. However, a detailed Development Plan (either Stage 1 or Stage 2) was never adopted. At the request of the Applicant (Regency Centers), on November 20, 2012, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to consider changing the land use designations for the parcel from "Campus Office" to "General Commercial/Campus Office" in order to accommodate future retail commercial uses on the site (Attachment 1). Project Proposal The proposed project for the site is a 152,500 square foot retail commercial center complete with associated site improvements. In addition to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, the Applicant is also requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone 2 of 8 with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the site into five separate parcels. ANALYSIS The analysis below describes the various components of the project. GENERAL PLAN and EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS General Plan Amendments The following amendments to the General Plan are required in order to ensure the project, as proposed, is consistent with the document. The main amendment to the General Plan is to change the land use designation for the subject parcel from Campus Office to General Commercial/Campus Office" to enable retail uses. Figure 1-1 (General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended accordingly. Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be updated to subtract 14.32 acres from the Campus Office land use category and add 14.32 acres to the General Commercial/Campus Office land use category. The Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the General Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments Similar to the General Plan Amendment, Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the land use designation for the subject parcel from "Campus Office" to "General Commercial/Campus Office". Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be updated to subtract 14.32 acres from the Campus Office land use category and add 14.32 acres to the General Commercial/Campus Office land use category. Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be updated to subtract the development potential square footage from the Campus Office land use category and add the development potential square footage to the General Commercial/Campus Office land use category. Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be updated to include the amended jobs number based on the land use change from Campus Office to General Commercial/Campus Office. Lastly, Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be updated to subtract 14.32 acres from the Campus Office land use category and add 14.32 acres to a new General Commercial/Campus Office land use category. The Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report. STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Typically, a Stage 1 Development Plan is adopted first to establish a concept site plan and lock in the development potential for a given site. At a later date, once the proposed project has been refined to a greater level of detail, a Stage 2 Development Plan is adopted that establishes the more complete development standards and design guidelines. Since the proposed project has been completely designed, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan in this case will be a combined document. 3of8 The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan is proposed in accordance with Section 8.32.040 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan would allow for up to 167,200 square feet of retail commercial development on the project site. This is 10% larger than the proposed project and is the amount of square footage studied in the Environmental Impact Report. This was done in order to allow the ultimately size of the project to increase slightly as the exact building sizes and locations were determined. The Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan details the permitted and conditional uses; site development standards, architectural and landscape standards and guidelines; data on site area, proposed densities and maximum amount of development on the project site. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 describes the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan in greater detail. The Resolution recommending approval of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: The following is a summary of the key components of the project associated with the Site Development Review. Staff's discussion is broken down into several categories. Site Plan Access, and Circulation_ The project site is bounded by Dublin Boulevard to the north, Martinelli Way to the south, Arnold Road to the west and Hacienda Drive to the east. Because of the long, narrow nature of the site, the project is oriented east-west. The two main buildings face Martinelli Way and the rears of the buildings are oriented toward Dublin Boulevard. The main parking field for the retail center is on the south side of the two buildings. These buildings contain a majority of the commercial square footage (134,000 SF), while three pad buildings (18,500 SF in total) are proposed along the site perimeter. A main drive aisle bisects the site in a north-south direction, connecting to Sybase Drive at the north and the future entry to The Green project site at the south. This drive aisle serves as the main vehicular and pedestrian link to the future project to the south and to the campus office buildings to the north. The other main project entries are off Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive. There are also entries to the delivery areas and smaller employee parking areas off Dublin Boulevard, but these are expected to have limited vehicular ingress and egress in comparison to the main entry points. New bicycle facilities will be provided along Martinelli Way in the form of a Class I, ten foot wide multi use path and along Arnold Road in the form of a Class II six foot wide, in street bike lane. Bicycle facilities already exist on Dublin Boulevard and on Hacienda Drive. Bike lockers as well as conventional bike racks will be provided on site. Sheet Al of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to Attachment 4) illustrates the overall site plan. Architecture: The architectural concept for the retail center is very clean and contemporary. The building vocabulary and materials selection blend well with the surrounding uses while creating a unique design statement for this shopping center. The building forms are broken down both horizontally and vertically with variation in color and materials, which include a mixture of plaster, stone, rustic metal trellis elements and awnings, bronze-framed windows, doors, and storefront systems, vertical composite woods slats, horizontal composite wood siding, and green screen grid forms that will allow for nearly full walls of landscape treatment. 4of8 Each of the three major tenants has a glass entry element at the roofline, a feature that is repeated at the rear of Major 1 at the Dublin Boulevard project entry. The project is oriented to face towards Martinelli Way so that it can blend and relate well to the future development project on the south side of Martinelli (the future Green on Park Place project). Along the Dublin Boulevard frontage, attention has been paid to carrying the same design and materials along the back of the buildings, to ensuring that the screen walls that hide the loading docks use the same colors and materials, and to ensuring that building articulation and a variety of materials are employed on all four elevations. Sheets A2 through A9 of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to Attachment 4) illustrate the building elevations for each of the buildings on the project site. Sheet A10 identifies the building materials and color palette to be utilized throughout the retail center. Parking: The proposed project includes the provision of 828 parking spaces, which is well in excess of the City standards as outlined in Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance. Although all of the tenant users have not been identified, it is known that the center will be a mixture of retail, restaurant, and personal services uses. Even if it is assumed that only the three major tenants will be retail and all of the other tenants are restaurant uses (a "worst case" scenario from a traffic perspective), the amount of parking needed to serve the proposed 152,500 SF project would be 730 spaces. Even if an additional 14,700 SF of retail uses were built out (as permitted in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan), a total of 779 spaces would be needed and there would still be a 49 space surplus on the project site to serve the proposed outdoor dining areas and other uses that may come along in the future and be more parking-intensive. Landscaping: The project site landscape concept emphasizes the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment. With the design of generous eight-foot sidewalks along the main north-south drive aisle adorned with street trees and pedestrian-scaled lighting, the project provides a strong pedestrian connection with its neighbors to the north and to the south. Street trees will be installed along the project perimeter adjacent to the sidewalks within the public right of way. The project perimeter along Dublin Boulevard will have a four-foot tall gridded screen fence with pilasters that will help screen the employee parking area from public view. A thin landscape strip will be planted with species that will grow up and through the fence to eventually provide a solid landscape screen without the bulk and starkness of a wall. In addition to the trees provided in the parking lot and along the front of the retail/restaurant buildings, two pedestrian pathways have been designed to provide a travel route between Martinelli Way and the front of the two main buildings. Trees in wells with decorative grates will be planted along these pedestrian pathways. The site has several outdoor seating areas that are adjacent to future restaurant tenant spaces: on either side of the main north-south drive aisle, to the east of the Stores 1, and to the east of Pad 1. These spaces will be activated with tables and chairs, planters, and other outdoor site furniture. Sheet L2 provides enlargements of the key areas on the project site, including the main entry drive at the north and the Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive corner. The Dublin/Hacienda corner is particularly important in that the other three corners at this intersection are anchored by larger 5of8 buildings. The Applicant is proposing a corner element that is designed with the same materials and colors as the retail/restaurant buildings. Sheet A9A provides a perspective of the corner element, which is highlighted by an internally-illuminated opaque lantern, adjacent decorative trellis, and a four-foot gridded screen wall to soften the view of the employee parking lot. Between the physical structures and the proposed landscape design, the corner element should be an attractive feature of the project that provides a solid anchor to the corner and a contextual connection to the rest of the retail center. Sheets L1 through L3 of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to Attachment 4) illustrate the landscape plans and details for the project site. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP — PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8262 The Applicant is requesting to subdivide the single 14.32 acre parcel into five parcels for the purposes of separate building ownership. There will be a reciprocal parking agreement and reciprocal access agreements across all of the parcels to ensure that despite the potential for multiple parcel ownership, the retail center will function as a single entity. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map conforms to the City of Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. Sheet C-1 of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to Attachment 4) illustrates the proposed subdivision of the parcel. The Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of PM 8262 is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to address potential environmental impacts of The Village at Dublin Retail Center. The Village at Dublin SEIR (SCH# 2013012027) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft SEIR was released for public review for a 45-day period, from July 30, 2013 to September 13, 2013. Comments were received from three public agencies and interested parties. The comment letters, along with the City's response to those comments, are contained in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 5 of this Staff Report. As required by CEQA, the Final SEIR (that includes the Response to Comments) was sent directly to those agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR. The SEIR (comprised of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR) is available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. The documents are also posted on the City's website. The Resolution recommending City Council certification of the Final SEIR is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report. 6of8 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH A notice of this public hearing was published in the Valley Times, mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project area boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of actions related to this project were notified via email. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also available on the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Resolution 195-12 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center 3) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to rezone 14.32 acres of 5054 Hacienda Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approving the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center, with the Draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A 4) Resolution approving Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 8262 for The Village at Dublin Retail Center, with the Project Plans included as Exhibit A 5) Recommending City Council certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for The Village at Dublin Retail Center, with the Final SEIR included as Exhibit A 7 of 8 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Pete Knoedler, Regency Centers, 2999 Oak Road, Suite 1000, Walnut Creek CA 94597 PROPERTY OWNERS: Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, Stuart Cook, Director, 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94612 LOCATION: 5054 Hacienda Drive (Assessor's Parcel Number: 986-0033-007-00) ZONING: Planned Development GENERAL PLAN: Existing: Campus Office Proposed: General Commercial/Campus Office SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Campus Office SAP Office complex and vacant (Site 15a) South PD General Commercial Vacant East PD General Commercial Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center West PD Campus Office Vacant 8of8 RESOLUTION NO. 195 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR A 14.32 ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND HACIENDA DRIVE FROM "CAMPUS OFFICE" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CAMPUS OFFICE" (APN 986-0033-007-00) WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, submitted a request to study changing the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for a 14.32 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive from "Campus Office" to "General Commercial/Campus Office"; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for a 14.32 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive from "Campus Office" to "General Commercial/Campus Office". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Ceunciimembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATT City Clerk Reso No. 195-12, Adopted 11-20-12, Item 7.1 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 13 — xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PLPA-2012-00031 (APN 986-0033-007-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Regency Centers, has submitted a Planning Application to construct a retail commercial center of up to 167,200 square feet on a vacant 14.32 acre site at 5054 Hacienda Drive. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires that certain amendments be made to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan so that the two documents are consistent with the proposed General Commercial use of the site; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the project site is amended from "Campus Office" to a combined "General Commercial/Campus Office" to enable the construction of a retail shopping center. In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are amended to ensure consistency with the new land use designation for this 14.32 acres; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2013 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated from July 30, 2013 to September 13, 2013 (45 days) for public comment; and WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft SEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2013 was prepared; and WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a ATTACHMENT 2 consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 12, 2013 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on November 12, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final SEIR, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit A approving amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit A, that the amendments are in the public interest, promotes general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as so amended, will remain internally consistent. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120121PLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PC Att 2-PC Reso SP and GPA.docx 2 RESOLUTION NO. xx-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PLPA-2012-00031 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Regency Centers, has submitted a Planning Application to construct a retail commercial center of up to 167,200 square feet on a vacant 14.32 acre site at 5054 Hacienda Drive. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires that certain amendments be made to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan so that the two documents are consistent with the proposed General Commercial use of the site; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the project site is amended from "Campus Office" to a combined "General Commercial/Campus Office" to enable the construction of a retail shopping center. In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are amended to ensure consistency with the new land use designation for this 14.32 acres; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2013 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated from July 30, 2013 to September 13, 2013 (45 days) for public comment; and WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft SEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2013 was prepared; and WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a 1 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 2 consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Easter Dublin Specific Plan amendments, on , 2013, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on , 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-xx certifying The Village at Dublin Final SEIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final SEIR and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The proposed project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the Elements and will allow for development of a retail commercial shopping center in an area that has long been envisioned for commercial/office development. The development of the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element, Public Lands and Utilities Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Community Design and Sustainability Element, and the Economic Development Element. The General Plan amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each Element within the General Plan is internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan: 2 Figure 1-1 (Land Use exhibit) shall be amended with a new designation for the project site as shown below. _ C MUNI w' -- _ -;--- - I Dublin Blvd � I I 0 0.25 0.5 Miles PubliclSanl-PubliclOpen Space CommerciaBlndustrial Downtown Dublin -O.nerN COmmeruel ra-�nro...[whin.vi�sq.PNAwer oiaoia Fnqonsl Par. ' PMa/i`ub6c RU�,ea!w�. RelaiUDktt powntnwn Dublin-T(brs%-0rNnl>L DI>b. .Open spaiw 1:«teivOMe Ma NAanph. m pbwMprn DubM1n-Petbi aatncl .`` Stream Cbnmor MagebomobC Conxnmael Pubbc LeMS General COmm _v_-_"Otbce Residential 3 Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Plannin_q Area Classification Acres Intensity" Units Factor Yield RESIDENTIAL Du'slacre Du's Persons/du Population High Density 65.6 25.1+ 1647+ 2.7 4447+ Medium-High Density 132.1 14.1 25.0 1863 3302 2.7 5030-8915 Medium-High Density and Retail/Office 0 14.1-25.0 0 2.7 0 Medium Density 378.1 6.1-14.0 2306-5293 2.7 C626-14291 Single Family 725 0.9 6.0 652-4350 2.7__1760-11745 Estate Residential 30.5 0.01-0.8 0-24 2.7 0-65 Rural Residential/Agriculture 325.7 0.01 3 2.7 9 TOTAL 1657 6471-14619+ 17472.39472 Floor Area Square Feet Square Feet COMMERCIAL Acres Ratio (millions) 1 Employee Jobs (Gross) General Commercial 299.1 .20-.60 2.61-7.82 510 5118-15333 General Commercial/Campus Office 95.22 .20-.80 .83-3.32 385 2155-7325 Mixed Use 11.3 .30-1.00 .15-.49 490 306-1000 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.9 .45 max .45 260 1731 Neighborhood Commercial 24.8 .25-.60 .27-.65 490 551-1327 Campus Office 195.58 .25-.80 2.13-6.82 260 8192 26214 Industrial Park 56.4 .35 max .86 590 1458 Industrial Park/Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0 TOTAL: 705.3 7.33-20.4 19511-54388 Square Feet Square Feet/ Jobs PUBLICISEMI-PUBLICIOPEN SPACE Acres FAR(Gross) (millions) e mployee Public/Semi-Public 94.1 .50 max 2.05 590 3475 Semi-Public 3.2 .50 max .07 590 119 Acres Number Parks/Public Recreation 196.3 Regional Parks 1.2 1 Open Space 720.7 Acres FAR(Gross) Square Feet Square Feet/ Jobs Schools (millions employee Elementary School 48.7 .50 max 1.06 590 1797 Middle School 27.8 .50 max .61 590 1034 High School 0 TOTAL: 1092 3.79 6425 Acres Dwelling population Square Feet Jobs Units (millions) GRAND TOTAL: 3454.3 6471-14619+ 17472-39472 11.12-24.19 25936-60813 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: 4 Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended with a new designation for the project site as shown below: CencraFFRwy fa--- I _ Dublin Blvd 1 i I 0 I � 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Public/Semi-Public/Open Space CommerciaUlndustrial Downtown Dublin R.g—Pant Lo-- V,k.g.Parkwey O.wl P.6vp ,R.,.tWn RefaiWRCa Dor.Mam DapPn- TENnM-Dnenlaa V�d Y . open Spsa FelaiWRCa atWAWSmoPee ®Dor Mtt DWin-Rater D*triq ? Sbaem Comrkr tieyreomoaa COmmemU PwWr.nae cana..i ta,nmeromf'.errpcs amce Residential 5 Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included). TABLE 4.1: EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No.66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07,37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF r neral Commercial/Campus Office 87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.061 MSF ustrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF i hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.35 FAR .871 MSF xed Use 4.6 acres 30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF Campus Office 178.34 acres .35-.75 FAR 3.418 MSF Subtotal 749.5 acres 10.224 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 68.2 acres 35 du/ac 2,387 du Medium High Density 145.8 acres 20 du/ac 2,916 du Medium Density** 473.2 acres 10 du/ac 4,732 du Single Family**** 936.35 acres 4 du/ac 3,745 do(3) Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/Agric. 546.35 acres .01 du/ac 5 du Mixed Use 4.6 acres*** 15 du/ac 115 du Subtotal 2,204.9 acres 13,904 du PUBLICISEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 95.2 acres .24 FAR 995 MSF Semi-Public 8.5 acres .25 FAR Subtotal 103.7 acres .995 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 66.5 acres(') 5 schools Junior Hi h School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Cit Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 97.0 acres 3 parks Nei hborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 parks Nei hborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks Open Space 705.2 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,070.1 acres 6 Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 4.2: EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No.47-04, 223-05,58-07, 37-08, 176-09,55-12,92-12,210-12) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Personsldu Jobs Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial/Campus 1.061 MSF 385 2,756 Office* 8,082 General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 Neighborhood Commercial .885 MSF 490 1,806 Mixed Use** .005 MSF 490 10 Campus Office 3.418M QF 260 13,416 Public/Semi Public .995 MSF 590 1,686 Semi-Public 590 TOTAL: 11133 MSF 29,022 Residential Population 2.0 4,774 High Density 2,387 Medium High Density 2,866 2.0 5,732 Medium Density 4,732 2.0 9,464 Single Family***(1) 3,808 3.2 12,186 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use** 115 2.0 230 Rural Residential/A ric. 5 3.2 16 TOTAL: 13,917 32,415 Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included). TABLE 4.3: CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07,37-08,55-12,92-12, 102-12) PLANNING AREA Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance tal, Units Residents Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 Dublin Eastern Dublin 13,917 29,022 22,545 -6,879 S ecific Plan Area TOTAL: 21,017 41,232 34,545 -6.687 7 Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 4.11 HACIENDA GATEWAY SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended Per Resolution 47-04) Designation Acres Density DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL General Commercial 85.8 .21 FAR 800 MSF General Commercial 27.54 .38 FAR .454 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 14.32 .27 FAR .167 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 0.0 .30 FAR Campus Office 50.68 .37 FAR .817 MSF Campus Office 19.0 .50 FAR .420 MSF Campus Office 30.2 0.85 FAR 1.119 MSF Subtotal 227.54 3.777 MSF Medium Hi h Densit Residential 16.2 20 du/ac 324 du Residential Subtotal 16.2 324 du Semi Public 0 MSF Total 243.74 3.777 MSF and 324 du PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2013 by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#120121PLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PC Att 2-Exhibit A-CC Reso SP and GPA.docx 8 RESOLUTION NO. 13-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE 14.32 ACRES AT 5054 HACIENDA DRIVE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PROJECT PLPA-2012-00031 (APN 986-0033-007-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Regency Centers, has submitted a Planning Application to construct a retail commercial center of up to 167,200 square feet on a vacant 14.32 acre site at 5054 Hacienda Drive. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the development project requires that the project site be rezoned to a new Planned Development Zoning District with approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and Planned Development Rezone on November 12, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and ATTACHMENT 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) rezoning 14.32 acres at 5054 Hacienda Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project, based on findings, including but not limited to, that the Planned Development zoning and project as a whole is consistent and in conformance with the General Plan as proposed, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that development of the proposed project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G.IPA#120121PLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PC Att 3-PC Reso PD Ord.doc ORDINANCE NO. xx — 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE 14.32 ACRES AT 5054 HACIENDA DRIVE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PROJECT PLPA-2012-00031 (APN 986-0033-007-00) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project ("the Project") PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the site will provide new retail, restaurant, and personal services to residents in an area that has similar uses nearby and is also adjacent to existing and future workplaces and residential neighborhoods. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1 . The PD-Planned Development zoning for The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed Site Plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide a wide range of amenities to the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. The project site conditions were documented in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that has been prepared, and the environmental impacts that have been identified will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible. There are no site challenges that were identified in the SEIR that will present an impediment to utilization of the site for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the retail commercial center approved through the PD zoning. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan, as amended, in that the proposed use as a future retail commercial shopping center is consistent with the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation for the site. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a Final Supplemental EIR via Resolution xx-13 on prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2: Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District: 14.32 acres at 5054 Hacienda Drive. APN 986-0033-007-00. ("the Property"). A map of the rezoning area is shown below: J W a { PD Rezone ;a e Project Site a a `J f } g,-pi 1VE 1,1109 ' �.r o i��" 2 �: '..r "i O _as g k HK u.a. IJ iWA a p5g 9 v k tll�'4.�Ilrbwb w+i� r''k A SS ROAD . 2 SECTION 3. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1/2 Development Plan for The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project This is a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for Village at Dublin Retail Center Project, PLPA-2012-00031. The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/2 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. 1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-Planned Development (PLPA-2012- 00031). 2. Statement of Permitted Uses. Permitted Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance): o General outdoor seating areas (plaza seating areas, benches, chairs, cafe tables) not dedicated to a specific user are permitted throughout the project area in any location. o Retail-General and Retail-Neighborhood use types o Offices - Professional/Administrative o Personal Services o Eating, drinking and entertainment establishments including the following: • Eating and Drinking Establishments, including the following: • Eating and Drinking Establishment — General • Eating and Drinking Establishment — Specialty • Eating and Drinking Establishment — Take Out • Outdoor Dining Areas (supplemental to an existing indoor restaurant) are permitted as identified on the Site Plan (Sheet Al of the Project Plans). Outdoor Dining Area is defined as a controlled outdoor dining space (not enclosed in a building, but enclosed with a fence or barrier), which is supplemental to an indoor restaurant and dedicated to the use of a single tenant or tenants. Additional Outdoor Dining Areas may be permitted through a Site Development Review Waiver Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and/or Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance): • Community Facility • Recreational Facility — Indoor • Daycare Center • Community Care Facility (Large) • Nightclub 3 Prohibited Uses-. o Drive through facilities 3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan is shown below and is also included as Sheet Al in the Project Plan Set, dated received October 29, 2013, on file at the Community Development Department. tt 1j7 IIIII III (�� 1[{ r MAJOR3 WA 2 n 40,000 SF - L 22,000 SF 3500051 I NSF ST RE52 em. STOR rySEt I�I 4+ N J J s � IIrL— � ,� (III yI L F ' 95A O SG 6 J ~ -- OO ~ PA I- R 1 RE --�� ��J1114L�IIJJ11�� 500051 � 4. Site area, proposed densities, and development regulations. Maximum Building 40 feet Heights: Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program Minimum Lot Size None Maximum lot coverage 27% Maximum Building Area 167,200 square feet Maximum Floor Area .27 Ratio Parking Stall Dimensions Per Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations of Standards the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Minimum Setbacks Per the Civil Site Plan (Sheet C-2 of the Project Plans) Parking Spaces Required: 828 spaces to be provided according to Site Plan, which based on the expected tenant mix of retail and restaurant uses, is expected to be well in excess of City requirements. 5. Phasing Plan. The project site will be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole, but will likely be broken up into different building permit submittals. 6. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Sheets L1 through L3, inclusive, of the Project Plans illustrate the conceptual design. 4 7. Architectural Standards. The conceptual architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards as illustrated in the Project Plans. The architectural design shall: • Employ a variety of materials, textures and colors to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings. • Use diversity of colors and textures in the building finishes to provide a varied and interesting base form for the buildings. • Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements, storefront designs, awnings, canopies, trellises, base treatments, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level. • Provide functional outdoor plazas where people will gather and socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide an appropriate urban scale for the center. 8. Consistency with General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended). 9. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations do not regulate non-residential projects, so therefore this is not applicable. 10.Aerial Photo. An aerial photo is on file with the Community Development Department. 11.Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property shall be governed by the C-2 (General Commercial Zoning District) provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.32.060.C. No development shall occur on this property until a Site Development Review permit has been approved for the property. 12.Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR and The Village at Dublin Project Supplemental EIR. SECTION 4. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2013, by the following votes: 5 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 6 RESOLUTION NO. 13-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8262 FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER (APN 986-0033-007-00) PLPA-2012-00031 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Regency Centers, has submitted a Planning Application to construct a retail commercial center of up to 167,200 square feet on a vacant 14.32 acre site at 5054 Hacienda Drive. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Project Plans, attached as Exhibit A, illustrate the site layout and building elevations for approximately 152,500 square feet of retail commercial uses, which are permitted by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Project Plans also illustrate the proposed subdivision of a single 14.32 acre parcel into five separate parcels, ranging in size from 7,462 square feet (Lot 5) to 7.87 acres (Lot 1); and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map application collectively defines this "Project' and is available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council project-related General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Village at Dublin Retail Center; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and ATTACHMENT 4 WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on November 12, 2013 for this project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following Site Development Review findings and determinations regarding The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project on approximately 14.32 acres at 5054 Hacienda Drive: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project provides an orderly, attractive and harmonious development compatible with the site's environmental constraints and with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The development gives thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic impact. It complies with development regulations and the requirements of the zoning district, as required by Section 8.104.020.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan; 3) the project will provide unique, varied, and distinct commercial opportunities, which will serve to activate the area and provide services to existing and future residents and workers in the vicinity; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and allowable uses as stated in the Stage 2 Development Plan as required by Section 8.104.020.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 5) the project includes streetscape enhancements to complement those already in place; and 6) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) the proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin 2 Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally-oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin and the retail center is intended to serve the community as well as the region; 4) the overall project, is consistent with the total development potential for the site as stated in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 5) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial/Campus Office (as amended) which allows for a retail and restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 6) the proposed project meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes office, residential, and commercial uses. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because: 1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial/Campus Office (as amended) which allows for a retail and restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes office, residential, and commercial uses. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project will provide the desired mix of retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, and associated uses that conform to the General Commercial/Campus Office land uses stipulated in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the project provides for its own infrastructure and required services and is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to support the uses, and 3) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended). E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the project site is relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the site already exists, and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in accordance with City policies and regulations. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial projects in the City; 2) the project is 3 utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the size and scale of the development will be similar to other retail commercial shopping centers in the project vicinity; and 4) unsightly uses (e.g. loading docks, parking lots) shall be screened with appropriate materials that are architecturally compatible with the building design. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include eight-foot sidewalks along the main north-south drive aisle adorned with street trees and pedestrian-scaled lighting; 2) landscaping will be provided throughout the parking fields both at the front and rear of the project buildings; and 3) the project perimeter and interior landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including driveways, pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi- modal travel in mind; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following Vesting Tentative Map findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of PM 8262 for The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project: A. Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of PM 8262 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. B. The design and improvements of Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of PM 8262 are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, general land uses, and programs as they relate to the subject property in that it is the subdivision of one parcel into five parcels for the purposes of ownership, which is typical for this type of retail commercial shopping center development. C. Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel 3 of PM 8262 is consistent with the General Provisions and Development Standards for the Planned Development Zoning District for The Village at Dublin (PLPA-2012-00031), and therefore is consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way, and Arnold Road, on approximately 14.32± acres of land. The topography of the property is generally flat. The site is physically suitable 4 for the type and intensity of the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office development proposed. E. The Vesting Tentative Map will not cause environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns because the proposed project is for the subdivision of the land and not for any physical improvements. F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review for The Village at Dublin Retail Center project, as shown on plans prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, stamped received October 29, 2013, subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: GENERAL CONDITIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW and TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1, Approval. This Site Development Review and PL Ongoing Planning Tentative Subdivision Map approval for The Village @ Dublin Retail Center project establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review/Tentative Subdivision Map approval generally shall conform to the project plans submitted by Johnson Lyman Architects and Cardno WRG (Civil Engineers) dated received October 29, 2013 and on file in the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams — including the color and material board — relating to this Site Development Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Site PL One year After DMC Development Review/Tentative Subdivision Map Effective Date 8.96.020. approval shall be valid for one (1) year from the D approval of the project by the Planning Commission. This approval shall be null and void in the event the 5 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: approved use fails to be established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 3. Time Extension. The original approving decision- PL One Year DMC maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for Following 8.96.020. an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the Expiration E determination that all Conditions of Approval remain Date adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Subsequent six month extensions may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development Director. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. 4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall PL On-going DMC operate this use in compliance with the Conditions of 8.96.020.F Approval of this Site Development Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. 5. Effective Date. This approval shall become effective PL Ongoing Planning after the SDR/Tentative Map approval appeal period has expired. The approval is contingent on the City Council taking the following actions related to the project: 1. Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the project; 2. Adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project; and 3. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project. If the above actions do not take place, the SDR/Tentative Map approval is null and void. 6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development PL On-going DMC Review/Tentative Subdivision Map approval shall be 8.96.020.1 revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subj ect to citation. 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Permit Standard Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City Issuance 6 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. g, Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits PW Building Permit Standard required by other agencies including, but not limited to Issuance Alameda County Environmental Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law. Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 9. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable Various Building Permit Various fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, Issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM On-going Administra indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its tion/ agents, officers, and employees from any claim, City action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its Attorney agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there PW On-going Public needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, Works the Community Development Director and the City Engine r have the authority to clarify the intent of CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this proj ect. 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL On-going Planning responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-free site. 13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site PL On-going DMC Development Review/Tentative Subdivision Map 8.104 approval may be considered by the Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. 14. Archaeology. Should any prehistoric, cultural, or PL During Planning historic artifacts be exposed during excavation and Construction construction operations, the Department of Community Development shall be notified and work shall cease immediately until an archaeologist, who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), is consulted to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if deemed necessary, prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Compliance with this condition required throughout construction. PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 15. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire PL Building Permit Planning risers, and/or mechanical equipment shall be Issuance screened from public view by landscaping and/or and architectural features. Any roof-mounted equipment Through shall be completely screened from adjacent street Completion/ view by materials architecturally compatible with the On-going building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 16. Truck Dock Screening. The truck dock shall be PL Building Permit Planning completely screened from adjacent street view by Issuance materials architecturally compatible with the building and and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Through Director. The Building Permit plans shall show Completion/ screening walls of sufficient height to screen a truck On-going parked in the dock. s CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 17. Colors. The exterior paint colors of the buildings shall PL Occupancy Planning be in compliance with the Color and Material Board approved with the Project Plans. The Applicant shall paint small portions of the building the approved colors for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to painting the entire buildings, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 18. Approval of Design Details Prior to Full PL Building Permit Planning Installation. Details of the following site features and Issuance improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to permit issuance: 1. Perimeter 4' metal lattice screening fence with pilasters. 2. Bicycle lockers. 3. Paving pattern, colors, material for pedestrian pathways through the parking lot. 4. Paving pattern, colors, material for crosswalks and internal drive-aisle intersection area. 5. Enclosures for outdoor dining/seating areas. 6. Construction and material details for trash enclosures. 7. Location and design of shopping cart corrals for grocery store. 19. Outdoor Furniture. Outdoor furniture (including PL Ongoing Planning tables and chairs for outdoor seating/eating areas) shall be suitable for all-weather conditions and made of high-quality, durable materials. Umbrellas shall have no more than two colors. Logos, or the name of the restaurant establishment, may be printed on the umbrella canvas, but logos for products sold are prohibit d. 20. Outdoor Dining/Seating Areas. Outdoor PL Ongoing Planning dining/seating areas not shown on the Project Plans may be permitted through a Site Development Review Waiver. Outdoor dining/seating areas shown on the Project Plans do not need any additional review/approval except approval of any enclosure details. Outdoor dining/seating areas (including furniture and barriers/enclosures) shall be maintained in good condition at all times by the owners/operators of the associated dining establishment or the retail center property management. 21. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program will PL Installation of Planning be reviewed and approved at the Staff-level for all any project- project-related signage including, but not limited to, related wall signs, monument signs, community identification signage signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage, speed limit signage, retail tenant signage, and other signage deemed necessary by the City. The wall and monument signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only and the full 9 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: details of the sign sizes, materials, and construction shall be shown in the separate sign package. 22. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall PL Establishment Planning obtain a Temporary Use Permit prior to the of the establishment of any construction trailer, storage temporary use shed, or container units on the project site. 23. Final Building and Site Improvement Plans shall be PL Issuance of Planning reviewed and approved by the Community Building Development Department staff prior to the issuance of Permits a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard non-residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls, if necessary. d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning condensers, are architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either underground, architecturally screened, or screened by landscape of an adequate size. Electrical and gas meters shall be screened to the greatest degree possible. f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Community Development Department for approval. h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall plane. i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project are supplied with copies of the final 10 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: building and site plans and that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. 24. Soft Building Materials. No Soft Foam or EIFS-type PL Building Permit Planning material may be installed on walls within 6 feet from Issuance/ the earth or paved areas. On-go n 25. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ PL On-going Planning Developer shall comply with The Village Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council Resolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures, action programs, and implementation measures contained therein. The EIR is on file with the Community Development Department. LANDSCAPING 26. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final PL Landscape DMC landscape plans, including utility and tree coordination plan approval 8.72.030 plans, layout plans, irrigation System plans, planting and installation plans, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the building permit. Plans shall be generally consistent with the layout of the Preliminary Landscape drawings included in the Project Plan Set prepared by Thomas Baak & Associates, received by the Planning Division on October 28, 2013, except as modified by the Conditions listed below or as required by the Community Development Director to address specific site constraints or conditions. At the Final Landscape Plan stage, the tree and plant material selections shall be reviewed in detail as the areas of the site needed for bioretention/water quality are finalized through the development of detailed Site Improvement Plans. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring that plant material shown in bioretention areas are well-suited for those soil conditions. Alternative species shall be considered to ensure compatibility with the contemporary look and feel of the building architecture and overall design aesthetic. The landscape design scheme around the corner monument at Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Drive The Final Landscape Plans shall ensure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. All trees that are on the perimeter of the project site and along the main north-south drive aisle shall be 24" box minimum, with at least 30% at 11 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 36" box or greater. Other trees located throughout the parking lot and the project site shall be 15 gallon and 24" box. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. All groundcover shall be 1 gallon in size. These standards shall be met unless a superior design concept is proposed by the Applicant and accepted by the City. d. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the Tentative map and conditions detailed in the Site Development Review plan set. g. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. h. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. i. The Layout Plan shall illustrate the design of all hardscape elements including walls, fences, gates, light locations, at grade or above grade utility boxes and vaults, walkways and decorative pavement. j. The Irrigation Plan shall utilize low flow, durable, irrigation equipment and the design shall comply with Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements. k. Construction details of raised planters, walkways, paths, benches, walls, fences and other architectural features as appropriate to the project. I. All pole light locations shall be coordinated with the placement of trees to eliminate conflicts between the trees and lights and so that the light is not blocked by the growth of the trees. 27. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. PL Ongoing Planning Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. 28. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the PL Landscape Planning following clearances: plan approval a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves. and installation b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas lines. c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, 12 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: telephone and/or electrical mains d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. 15' from either side of street lights. 29. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a PL, PW, PO Building Permit Planning photometric plan to the reasonable satisfaction of the Issuance City Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. The photometric plan shall show lighting levels which takes into consideration poles, low walls and other obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low illuminated areas. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an inspection of the lighting levels in the structure to determine if lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, the Applicant shall do so prior to Occupancy. 30. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all PL, PW Landscape Planning/ landscaping within the site and along the project plan approval Public fronta e to the street curb and gutter. and installation Works 31. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan PL, PW, F Landscape Planning shall show the location of all backflow prevention plan approval devises. The location and screening of the backflow and installation prevention devices shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. 32. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The landscape PL, PW Landscape Planning plans shall provide details showing root barriers and plan approval tree staking will be installed which meet current City and installation specifications. 33. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PL Landscape DMC 8.88 Applicant/ Developer shall submit written plan approval documentation to the Public Works Department (in the and installation form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. BUILDING —GENERAL CONDITIONS 34. Building Codes issues to address in Permit Issuance of Submittal: Building 1. Exterior door protection is required by Permit(s) and 5.407.2.2.1 of the Cal Green Building approval of the Standards. Final Map 2. Roof Solar Zones are required to be shown per 110.10 Ca Energy Code. 3. Provision of accessible parking will need to meet the 2013 CBC standards. A reciprocal parking agreement will be needed to ensure that accessible stalls are available across 13 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: parcels. 4. Provide location of long term and short term bike parking. Provide calculations for the breakdown of each type. Provided distance from short-term bike parking to normal customer entrances. See 5.106.4 CA Green Building Standards Code. 5. Acoustical Control methods shall be shown on the plans in accordance with Section 5.507 of the Cal Green Code 35. Construction trailer. If necessary due to the size B Issuance of Building and nature of the project, the Applicant/Developer Building shall accommodate space on the project site for City Permit(s) inspection personnel. The Building Official shall determine how this shall be provided, but the accommodation could be the provision of a dedicated office in the job site trailer or, under unusual circumstances, it could be the provision of a separate construction trailer with electrical hookups for the City's use. 36. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes and Completion ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 37. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin B Issuance of Building Municipal Code Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file Building with the Building Official a Covenant and Agreement Permits and Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an Oversized Ongoing Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no improvements. Alternatively, the 60- foot no-build easement shall be shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map. After execution by the owner and Building Official, such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building remains or unless otherwise released by authorit of the Building Official. 38. HVAC Systems. Air conditioning units and ventilation PL, B Occupancy of Building ducts shall be screened from adjacent street view with any tenant materials compatible to the main building. Units shall space be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials to be approved by the Building Official and Director of Community Development. 39. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Building Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of Building construction plans to the Building & Safety Division for Permits plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the ap rovals of all participation non-City agencies 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: prior to the issuance of building permits. 40. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be B Issuance of Building fully dimensioned (including building elevations) Building accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed Permits conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. 41. Addressing. Address will be required on all doors B Occupancy of Building leading to the exterior of the building. Address any building numbers/letters shall be in a contrasting color to the and ongoing surface on which they are applied and be able to be seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. 42. Phased Occupancy. If occupancy is requested to B, PL Occupancy of Building occur in phases, then all physical improvements within any affected each phase shall be required to be completed prior to building occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. 43. Engineer Observation. A Special Inspector shall be B Frame Building retained to provide observation services for all Inspection components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector rior to scheduling the final frame inspection. 44. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils B Issuance of Building report shall review and approve the foundation design. Building A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on Permits the app roval. 45. Green Building Guidelines. The Green Building B Through Building checklist shall be included in the master plans. The Completion checklist shall detail what Green Points are being obtained and where the information is found within the 15 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: master plans. (Prior to first permit). Prior to each permit final, the project shall submit a completed checklist with appropriate verification that all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code have been incorporated. 46. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing B Through Building material (including gravel) coated or painted with light Completion colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. 47. Electronic File. The Applicant/Developer shall submit B Prior to First Building all building drawings and specifications for this project and Final in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the Inspection Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occupancy. 48. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide B 30 days After Building City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies of the approved Permit and plan. Each Revision Issuance 49. Construction Fencing. Temporary Construction B Beginning of Building fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work work onsite under construction. FIRE —GENERAL CONDITIONS 50. Code compliance. The Applicant/Developer shall F During Fire comply with all applicable Fire and Building Codes in Construction effect at the time of building permit application. 51. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be installed F Occupancy Fire throughout the project and along the project streets as required by the Fire Department and 2010 California Fire Code. All fire hydrants and FDCs shall be noted on the site plan. 52. Driveway Modifications. Access onto the project F Approval of Fire site from all public streets may need minor Improvement modifications to meet Fire Department access Plans requirements. PUBLIC WORKS — PROJECT SPECIFIC 53. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In PW Approval of Public the event that there needs to be clarification to these Improvement Works Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Community Plans Development and Public Works have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works and placed in the project file. The Directors also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. 54. Compliance. The Applicant/Developer shall comply PW On-going Public with the City of Dublin Zoning and Grading Works Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 16 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 55. Wells or Exploratory Boring. Any water well, PW Through Public cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring on the Completion Works project property must be properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional information contact Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7. 56. Encroachment Permit. An encroachment permit from PW On-going Public the Public Works Department may be required for any Works work done within the public right-of-way even if covered under an Improvement Agreement. 57. Easement Abandonment. The Applicant/Developer PW Issuance of Public shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public Grading/ Works agencies of existing easements and right of ways that Sitework will no longer be used. Permit 58. Easements. The Applicant/Developer shall acquire PW Issuance of Public easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the Grading/ Works adjacent property owners for any improvements on Sitework their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry Permit shall be in writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. 59. Easements. Ingress and egress easements, PW Issuance of Public emergency vehicle access easements, private storm Grading/ Works drainage easements, private water line easements, Sitework private sanitary sewer easements and joint use Permit parking easements will be required as and to the extent needed, between lots. The easement geometry shall be subject to the approval of the City Engine r 60. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in PW Issuance of Public conformance with the recommendations of the Grading/ Works Geotechnical Report, the approved Tentative Map, Sitework and the City design standards & ordinances. In case Permit of conflict between the soil engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engine r shall determine which shall apply. 61. Public Improvements. All public improvements shall PW Issuance of Public conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans and Grading/ Works design requirements and as approved by the City Sitework En ineer. Permit 62. Water and Sewer Facilities. Applicant/Developer PW Issuance of Public shall construct all potable and recycled water and Grading/ Works sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in Sitework accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, Permit specifications and requirements. 63. Fire Hydrant locations. Fire hydrant locations shall PW Issuance of Public be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. Grading/ Works Sitework Permit 64. Street Signs. The Applicant/Developer shall furnish PW Occupancy Public and install street name signs, and traffic signs & Works marking for the project as required by the City 17 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: En ineer. 65. Underground Utilities. All public utilities shall be PW Occupancy Public located and provided within public utility easements Works and sized to meet utility company standards. 66. Utility Vaults. To the maximum extent practicable, all PL, PW Issuance of Public utility vaults, boxes and structures shall be Grading/ Works underground and placed in landscape areas and Sitework screened from public view. All utility vaults, boxes and Permit structures shall be shown on landscape plans and approved by the City Engineer and Community Develop ment Director prior to construction. 67. Reciprocal Parking Agreement. A reciprocal PW Approval of Public parking agreement shall be signed and recorded Improvement Works against all parcels in the center to ensure that the Plans parking fields function for the whole center and are available to customers of any business on the project site. 68. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided in PW Approval of Public accordance with California Green Building Standards Improvement Works Code Section 5.106.4 Plans 69. Truck deliveries. Truck deliveries shall be restricted PW Ongoing Public to the delivery areas at the back of the shopping Works center (Dublin Blvd.). Trucks shall not be left idling at the truck dock and shall not be left overnight. 70. Striping Plan. A Striping Plan showing all proposed PW Approval of Public improvements in the public right of way shall be Improvement Works submitted for review and approval by the City Plans Engineer. 71. Pedestrian crosswalks. Pedestrian crosswalks shall PW Approval of Public be designed to have separated ramps. The north- Improvement Works south pedestrian crosswalks across Martinelli Way Plans shall have a similar decorative treatment as the pedestrian pathways on the project site. 72. Trash Enclosures. Applicant shall coordinate the PW Approval of Public trash enclosure locations and the size of the Improvement Works enclosures with AVI and the City to ensure adequate Plans capacity to serve the future restaurant and retail tenants. Trash enclosures shall meet all requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), Chapter 7.98 and design details shall be shown on the Site Improvement Plans. 73. Drive aisles. Rolled curb extensions at four right-turn PW Approval of Public only exits shall be examined for possible construction Improvement Works as full landscaped islands. Plans 74. Dublin Blvd. drive aisle. The signalized driveway PW Approval of Public approach northbound onto Dublin Blvd. shall be Improvement Works reviewed to consider a dedicated left turn lane and a Plans shared right/through lane. 75. Camera/signal upgrade at ybase Drive/Dublin PW Approval of Public and Martinelli/The Green - The existing signals at Improvement Works Sybase Drive/Dublin Boulevard shall be modified to Plans provide access to the project and circulation in the project vicinity and the signal at Martinelli Way/The Green entrance shall be activated. Any signal Is CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: modifications shall be approved by the City Engineer. The signal modifications shall also include traffic monitoring cameras (one at each signal and one spare), signal interconnects and communication equipment along with spares, and battery backup units for signal controllers. 76. ROW Modifications to Arnold/Dublin. The curb PW Approval of Public return at Arnold/Dublin Blvd. shall be extended to the Improvement Works north to the edge of the bike lane to accommodate the Plans future bus pullout and the commercial driveway entrance. 77. ROW Modifications on Dublin Blvd. The curb PW Approval of Public return at the 2nd driveway east of Arnold Road (into Improvement Works the employee parking area) shall be extended to the Plans north to the edge of the bike lane to maximize safety for right turn movements into the main center drive aisle. 78. ROW Modifications along Martinelli. The curb PW Approval of Public return at the 1St driveway east of Arnold Road shall be Improvement Works extended to the south to the edge of the turn lane to Plans maximize the safety for right turn movements onto Arnold Road. 79. ROW dedications. Applicant shall dedicate PW Approval of Public necessary right of way along all perimeter streets Improvement Works (Dublin Blvd, Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way, and Plans Arnold Road) to accommodate a landscape parkway strip and the sidewalks as shown on Sheet C-2 (Site Plan) to be within the public right of way. 80. Project signs. All proposed project monument signs PW Approval of Public shall be placed on private property. The signs should Improvement Works ideally be located outside any easement areas, but Plans exceptions can be made by the City Engineer. Any signage located in an easement is subject to removal and replacement at the expense of the Applicant/property owner if needed by the easement holder. 81. Pedestrian walkways off Martinelli. The two PW Approval of Public proposed pedestrian walkways from Martinelli to the Improvement Works main buildings shall meet the current ADA/Title 24 Plans standards and shall have a contrasting decorative finish that is similar to the other crosswalk locations within the project site. 82. Water Quality/Storm Drain. PW Approval of Public 1. The decorative crosswalks, main interior Improvement Works intersection, and pedestrian walkways may be Plans constructed with permeable pavers. 2. The project shall meet current C.3 and upcoming C.10 requirements. 3. Trash capture devices shall be installed on all storm drain lines before they tie into the public storm drain network. 4. All private storm drain lines shall be placed on private property. 19 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 83. FDC connectors. All FDC connectors and double PW Approval of Public detector-check valves shall be placed outside of bio- Improvement Works retention areas and shall be easily accessible for Plans maintenance and operations. 84. Bicycle lanes. Applicant shall provide a Class II bike PW Approval of Public lane on Arnold Road and Class I bike way on Improvement Works Martinelli Way within the Public ROW along with Plans appropriate si na e and pavement markings. 85. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable Approval of Works City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Improvement Approval. In the event of a conflict between the Plans Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. 86. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold Approval of Works harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, Improvement and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding Plans against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extend such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law: provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or roceedin s. 87. Grading/Sitework Permit. The applicant shall apply PW Through Public for and obtain a Grading/Sitework Permit from the completion of Works Public Works Department for all site Improvements improvement/grading work. The Grading/Sitework and Permit will be based on the final set of civil plans and Occupancy of will not be issued until all of plan check comments the Building have been resolved. A copy of Grading/Sitework Permit application may be found on the City's website at: https://ca-dublin.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=340 The current cost of the permit is $102.00 and is due at the time of permit issuance. The Applicant will also be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount or additional fees for inspection of the work. 88. Site Plan. On-site improvements shall be designed in PW Prior to Public accordance with the approved Project Plans, Issuance of Works specifically Civil Sheets C-2 to C-6. If there are Grading/ conflicts between the Civil Site Plan (Sheet C-2) and Sitework the Architectural Site Plan (Sheet Al), the Community Permit Development Director shall determine which plan shall be followed. 20 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 89. Accessible Path of Travel. All walkways from the PW Prior to Public public sidewalk to the site shall be as shown on the Issuance of Works Site Plan, and shall be in conformance with current Grading/ California Building Code and ADA requirements. Sitework Permit gp. Vehicle Parking. All parking spaces shall be double PW Prior to Public striped using 4" white lines set approximately 2 feet Issuance of Works apart according to City Standards and §8.76.070 (A) Grading/ 17 of the Dublin Municipal Code. All compact-sized Sitework Permit parking spaces shall have the word "COMPACT" stenciled on the pavement within each space. 12"- wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abuts a landsca ed area or planter. 91. Site Accessibility Requirements/Driveways. All PW Prior to Public parking spaces for the disabled, and other physical Occupancy Works site improvements, including the proposed driveways shall comply with current CBC Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin Standards for accessibility. 92. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer and/or building PW Ongoing Public tenant(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism Works on a regular and continuous basis. The Applicant/Developer is encouraged to use graffiti- resistant paint for the structures and film for windows or glass whenever possible. 93. Signs and Pavement Markings. The PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the Occupancy Works following on-site traffic signs and pavement markings: 1. Accessible parking signs and legends per State Title 24/ADA requirements. 2. The word "Compact" shall be stenciled on the pavement surface within each compact parking space. 3. No Stopping/Fire Lane 94. Pavement Grades. Slopes at asphalt pavement shall PW Prior to Public be a minimum of 1.5% for drainage and a maximum of Issuance of Works 5% at parking areas. Exceptions to this standard can Grading/ be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-case Sitework basis to account for unusual design circumstances Permit 95. Frontage Improvements. PW Prior to Tree Wells: Where parkway strips are not provided, Issuance of the Applicant/Developer shall construct tree wells, Grading/ install trees and tree grates (powder coated and Sitework painted) along the project frontage at Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. Design shall conform with City's Streetscape Master Plan. Pedestrian Lighting: Applicant shall install all Type 15 lighting along the frontage per current City of Dublin Standards (energy efficient, LED models). 21 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: Applicant shall provide photometric plan for lighting to assure that the new pedestrian lights meets the City standards. 96. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance PW Prior to Public of an Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the Occupancy Works project site shall meet minimum health and safety standards including, but not limited to the following: a. Lighting for the building and parking lot shall be adequate for safety and security. Exterior lighting shall be provided for building entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police. b. All construction equipment, materials, or on- going work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing, barricades, caution ribbon, or other means reasonably approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. c. All fire hydrants for the building shall be operable and easily accessible to City and ACFD personnel. d. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) for the building shall be installed and fully functional. 97. Stormwater Runoff Treatment and Calculations. PW Prior to Public The provided Preliminary Stormwater Quality/HM Plan Issuance of Works is approved in concept only. Applicant/Developer Grading/ shall complete and submit the City of Dublin's Sitework Permit "Stormwater Requirements Checklist" with the first Improvement Plans submittal package and provide an accompanying exhibit demonstrating compliance with requirements set forth by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. Applicant shall incorporate all necessary stormwater runoff, conveyance and treatment measures and details into the Site Improvement Plans. Applicant shall also provide all necessary support calculations demonstrating full compliance. Stormwater treatment design shall comply with the C- 3 Stormwater Technical Guidance issued by Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Runoff from landscape areas shall not drain across sidewalk areas. 98. Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance PW Prior to Public Agreement. Applicant/Owner shall enter into a Occupancy Works "Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement" with the City of Dublin for maintenance of stormwater treatment measures constructed at the site. 22 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: gg, Erosion Control During Construction: PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and Issuance of Works Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and Grading/ Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Sitework Engineer/Public Works Director. Said plan shall be Permit and designed, implemented, and continually maintained during pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October construction. 1St and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed by the City En ineer/Public Works Director. 100. Construction Hours. Construction and grading PW During Public operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday Construction Works through Friday) and non-City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request permission to work on Saturdays and/or holidays between the hours of 8:30 am and 5:00 pm by submitting a request form to the City Engineer no later than 5:00 pm the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all Saturday and/or holiday work. 101. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction PW During Public fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work Construction Works under construction to separate the construction and Occupancy operation from the public. All construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 102. Construction Noise Management Plan. PW During Public Applicant/Developer shall prepare a Construction Construction Works Noise Management Plan, to be approved by the City and Grading Engineer and Community Development Director, Activities which identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The Plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and specifications. 103. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall be PW Prior to Public responsible for the repair of any damaged pavement, Occupancy Works curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting from construction activities associated with the development of the project. 104. Construction Permit. Applicant shall obtain PW Prior to necessary permits or permission from the applicable issuance of property owners to construct improvements within said Grading/ off-site properties. Sitework Permit 105. Fees. The Applicant shall pay all applicable fees in PW Prior to Public effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, Issuance of Works 23 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: but not limited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin Building San Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities Permit fees; City of Dublin Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development A reement. 106. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. Applicant shall PW Prior to Public complete a "Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fee Issuance of Works Application" and submit an accompanying exhibit for Building review by the Public Works Department. Fees Permit generated by this application will be due at issuance of the Building Permit. 107. Geotechnical Report and Recommendations: The PW Prior to Public Applicant/Developer shall provide a site specific Issuance of Works geotechnical report prepared by a reputable Building geotechnical engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer Permit shall certify that the project design conforms to the report recommendations prior to issuance of a Grading/Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All report recommendations shall be followed during the course of grading and construction. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT DSRSD 108. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that Building conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Permits Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 10g. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD to accommodate future flow demands in addition to Improvement each development project's demand. Layout and Plans sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. 110. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of Improvement sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed Plans under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that re uires a pumping station. 111. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be Improvement designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead Plans end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engine rin practice. There will be a large number of 24 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: customers in the project and DSRSD wants to be sure they have a secure water supply. Thus, the water supply must be "looped" with the supply for the project coming from two separate connections to the potable main. 112. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD to be located in public streets rather than in off-street Improvement locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, Plans then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. 113. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD site development permit, the locations and widths of Improvement all proposed easement dedications for water and Plans sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. 114. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD Improvement or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Plans 115. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD Improvement for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. Plans 116. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Services District, whichever comes first, all utility Permits connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 117. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD permitted unless the proper utility construction permit Improvement has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit Plans will only be issued after all of the items in the condition immediately above have been satisfied. 118. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Services District, whichever comes first, all Permits improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing 25 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: review by DSRSD before signature by the District En ineer. 119. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of Building DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same Permits from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. 120. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for Improvement landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water Plans mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 121. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD demolition of existing utilities (if any). Zone 7 Turnout Improvement and DSRSD Fluoride Storage Facility shall be shown Plans on final plans. 122. DSRSD has major water infrastructure in the area in DSRSD Ongoing DSRSD the form of pipelines going from DSRSD Turnout 4 to customers. Applicant shall ensure that the DSRSD infrastructure is not damaged or compromised during the construction of this project. 123. DSRSD maintains radio communications links DSRSD Occupancy of DSRSD between Turnout 4 and Pump Station 10A and first tenant Reservoir 10A for transmission of SCADA information. space Applicant plans will be reviewed to ensure the communications links will remain unbroken Applicant, DSRSD and City of Dublin will coordinate to be sure this DSRSD communications link will remain operative and reliable after construction. PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES 124. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer shall comply PL, PCS Building Permit DMC with the City's Public Art Ordinance/requirements and Issuance shall prepare a Public Art Compliance Report identifying the method(s) to be utilized to meet the statue. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120121PLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PC Att 4-SDR Reso.docx 26 lu N Ltl o 0 °i n 33 ° cc - pry} z R! ;2 r, $� d a i I I i�Q �i •� g v �- I 0U �o no ,c i,ri to 0 8 0°cin I d o 0 - s T A O d C 'CoV ou •O L P. "u G a QI o H a $ 3 •rl N w G 0 0 0 ^y c � E 0 �W W Ys 9 Y Q M� N m O d C C O Y Iti ° e •.M. yti�`' m V a� �h O � ��'.9a. a',M♦ N Q V fn Y I Lo D L �N ` ° c a 0VE4 v J _ co o, pNO h N 0 N d <D Y Y � m m •� d .,�. 0 a ia c N R Cu o L� @ E y U) u) a o d V) R c Q ow 11 CA V) PQ aV to o u d co 5 0 - Z x � A ►� t �� . : �i■iii■I■■I■i■ ■It O Vii, • 11 1C ' : 11■I�I■I■�I■ I ■'�Itl�il � , ■ Ills _ ■ . . ■ ■ -� � IIII � u■u � 1_ 111 i IIII - ®��".►.«� \I IIII � a. • ■ ■ IN IV.�� - ili,''R1 � i IIII i11G ■ ��-eer. .r 111 ■ o. ■ ���,� .,■iiliiii■ICI! � � . ��. A- Chi •�w 9ivl� i .. i v �►1t,_ ::::::::::::::::::.��.�� Ind/;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:: ■ - •- I■1111■I► iiiil'i"'i'iiiiiii€ _ • i. _� 71 I■II'................ fir■ an=y°I II:, MIN 0 1■ �• - _ -- v■r Imo■ ■ II■1 �U IIIJf ■ - ���� S � ■ _ ■■I it HI ■ -+�■I IN 1' ■® a� ' � '�I iii M JIB M �r .r O I I 000 �� ... -► _.. HACIENDA DRIVE - 000 ` - kuafr iH - i /' �� f i OA OPIs lit! o , lop y �} let° 8 a f —4 Q ui 000 ca 3 y •► > " ---- w 4 000 f - ► +Ir o Om O 8 r ' I MW "oil 11 (ED QD avow �loNNV -how 4 7. w ' W F. t - 5e m '; Y A �N 1 1 1 1 . a . a aat �ih�..■..,►...,..... �� ■rirn�PI■rnl� ' 1E\ r�1t� "\ -U1�1■;�i�R��F�,•,3,'��E �=Mn�rl�ll � �>■ i4� .�, �� ..■ F.Ir �I.=�.a� � _ p irl r •3���ri_III'r �I n- - �'� i IA[11o�' Q> •1 � g ry 0 ili III, old .3 AO' .F I am IL IOL r'� ■ �.�. y'I .. '� w i ; . •3� �i A ► �'^� ' ' II■III �Sr °.1 s 51,A a�a !��1 \1�a.r �IIaI ��- �=Zs_�io■.ouF�i Eli II■III ,/ A.�/ SIC il� - ■ � Il�t �£J � �► ■III • 1 %,�„{ ��1C II _ IIII A► ► �sr„ aAI, ■!�► �F11, !fir �, �,• ti s� �^ ��� �� ��IF. •� Ir 1161 1�1i �� -�I�!► Elm DIVISION h.. �'' �'��� III ,. '�t �f �1<s��� f■ ■ 1► iA■. _ ._y !�► :111 '� �'y filAl ♦J' �.► ' nr o ;y� �1n°*''� IGIEIII■II ���6►;a�r��! � � ri i. ` �i � •� �����yy\'��C 'mil■� i Z 4I �r fl '!( • CIA � A k `=,•.��., � 'W I I� a - D vc��' '�■I\ �/iL S/� t'y'i �lr 'In tl r � ♦�� ��. � �IIVIO ,ir I r �y • � �)-v I ���,•,��--ee [`I�''p =iLiLll f�Imo_ , -...,-<- -. do Ilk 1111 - ��iR •� �� NO1c Aq Eve. IJ J ►�► ■ 111 ,1 �� ,�, w� ■ �li� «\EI•I'ri�/�'i�\` •��I ■ns III �,� ►,,. _■ 111 �� �;ar •� �I■■F+iii� � { � � �, � � � . man. ��� •1 7� �, � � '� J �"'� ��■.rte';. � ..:Q��r �■1 • Qji _ -:-111 .S\�' �•i\ tl1� ,• I `_: AMA' i11B •.� Y `,'6' 71N ��1► `�"� `�'1► `W►far - .ii I ��W ■r 71 Ali . 0flr 1, t lilt. --l- li � •Q\t�. Vii\ � • � � — IIIH ��r .9',�i �';1►�1'L ��i'�►~� �,� rl�n vier �►�� i►iii i►i1► _► i1 LJJ All IA1 IR iliw 111��l•!= ebr ,•� .Rr� •r ��' IIIH • , ' if - HE far �1�I, ��'�►�fy� '�'I1 "i INA am . 1 a . • . a` •wL `1; .: .►�ate. .��la-�. .►��I >olaif�A..�1iei.;i■� �`!Arll:u�i.�� ./�ill IS ■ 00 Oa0 p0° °e°O°e°o° >��� in �� r � ice► �°u ��,�� ►�+LII►�':�%IIIAb�=,�i/rl��i��1► mil • ♦ ! - ��■I I IIII!�. MD00000004■O V}""'•�� ^dam �/ � ��' ' ■ bb OOOftOO pbvO id0000eenpe00 �� •• , , 00660•ee0� «v�,.��,'.■� � ► , • I �IIII �., IIII!. -i IIIII �111111 ,1111 ■ IYf III I�,l i l l 1 1 1 I�I li�llll''��I I I I'�iillll I;I I I tl i !'. ■ V�� o a •.a. � r 1,, �I ���en± w'IO'O�a-���//� ���11�w!1 0 6�0/� ■ � ��f�'I-. �. ■ ■Dom' ���1 •�`� -lt��■Ae0�w�Y�11►:'111■ • ■I Cpl ice'°��.■::abw/1•i��•-,11+ � I��III( �,�iC OO Q��S� I■'1 loll I:::.... - �11���CIA►.. _ 11 /� � �'_IA• I is:::::: ._ d / ► ����%�, ; • • f�p4r. •\ --::::�ap�••bo�oo, �il/il►f�J�l«�`•'•� � �i � 11 ,•■iu���4000000sOU!� i■...... �� ..�.:. I BE ■■■■ -.yam �,� Y � r I' ■ . ■�■�■�■■ :i::ou !r>O � � O� •�. u■■. n ►„/a'. 1���• .1111► O �� 4 ate° ��.���■•>_o _ _■!!1 � ,as3,�oa ',ti�•,r,,a► .. = 11 .tw�i� -�11�'e° lOq n z • f •Iap; 460000 �1 '�` �■�■■l101t.A ���e°nOi��>■111>P--." 7.ffif �I��, 1► ��lr/a '��' � a0o�� ql�\o\o\,,O ■l..e'w-... ...�i.�w►s�'._Yi.9R► .(�•'R� .p�/1► '����n�iy1 1 , � �710a00� )r -- , --, ��—,1�!'�r:���� '•11+'A. •� �i'_ "OC■I�oo„••r•. �I■lld0 a fO 'alllli�`.i�tli\. Ip°pia I !'dO ��a\fD 'll .. 0 ��AT►"�`V •,� -�/1/1�► �_p1 EI�O'!+lo�,, � aAA1A li;,�ha C�� 1 I A• iL: 1 7�■■r�1 m ...■...... i I,� sytl/ � '�{�i�Y�:O� Iv! �.L.��\ Iu■.u.uu■■■o ' �I �tu,.wv14RQ1E�wae s Y.A :C:::::.......... A: _I ✓id1►�3�� ■ 161 1" • •i ::i:ai:::::::: al uu u■uo _ innn■ou W w � Cl w w Cl H Wa N 1 Jw �z o O I w Q D = �O pj Q� » EE0 iZ CO w j C7 . ; M p } a Q Z) aQ Z zQ �w _ �z W W a0 �� W uwi > F- w W H iu w p W w �4 r caiZ "� �a �W O rU aZ W_> U>co O fn} Qa ■� � Z Fn Z � gw ow w U) w � ca z z s a w i Qa �' 0U 0 ZW �z •� w(j) (Dill V o� w CO) o? CL W WCl) C •- Uw Uw W H 0 Q U~z 0 D U �■ .� Q � � m ■� W, w zI w W U Q� �Q UZ C7 QW ZF r z F-0- W ..Y m W " 4{ U w Cl)0 �Cf) o F- w w F- a ui j w mw Na) 2O WC av z co A U)Z Q0 s-° D Z � F- `gy p } rd r } wa .a W W IM. Q z 0 w Q} � < w 0 min w as w v 'r.r4N 0 U[n - u 0 - h 4ps` r r w U V) + K� "W .eyy C YrrFf'f v w u u y 0 ro m Cd U 3�:y11 i ro f � o i .O y Cd r � ro O '' �` ',`'tt 1, t . o o ° a eo 1 U n Al 4< ro^ O w O t J � } .vm4 d g cdtia W N- _- u cd .-•ice ro + F t ..o ro w 1�1 'N •q ri o y ryJ U vw U -II t4tt I I I I O t, � } 00 00 C O u « o — ro.a a r O ro Q W u_ aw" ._ •o -w UPn F p " v)9w Y R.. ° nln" x y O F pP Z 6 U Q g MRs V� �P F M h n o o F+�I 04 - - � •� obi U cn I m 7 YYM 'ae "� •y f- ff I ff. O yy r rrrr� 1s. � .. rrr rr�rrr ryh_ H' ,..... .r= ..' W if{ d • o a V4 V4 � O u "'r x 04 V4 co FM m� C M � � o N 'J t4 4 r " V C-' 3 r; r'r r t G � 9 v cn GU it 4-J �1 O rA -ts � �- o _ i o •PM4 �' a -- 0 0 o � cn U � N { z � oaf � C a �� Mo w' M `e6r:r M I fi F � ° 1 e AJ 1 A M �Yff� w ,',rrr.r, 0 be rrr r; 'O m d d C O 'D U in • a ea A bo A M 9 d m a d W ° 'a w O • a TO ba Ua •� O _II O _00 A a `o N \J A Y d d A Y ♦ u C rn a u o v7.� N y G 0 N M (n M Iw F�1 V Uz Zax , o� Q ; M n4 M � � O w, M r y r •K•f�`Y'1 ' r:r 1 I 1-+ d •� �. ,l_._r rr�%r . f •Y'�f t ffr'�^1 G r :try. a � I !^yI mg 14 V) pa 0 0 Cd ail, •^1 U cn a (/� ♦� O Cd w0 O U • � o •rl •ry � U QI o, o, a) 4J o ¢ v �P cad fr.•fo,o,�#f f a o a C d d u _ N M d C C3 C y w Y �PO4 O M � C Q O w a ro b „3 a 00 -0 +' 0 w o ll • ^ w� IL Uy N UN • k; O N r j t 0 •� C/3 O a cd a 1� d � w W � C M � d �p • �_ �_ d ►� H C. M _ W 0 W .r O W M C z W . A H Z o � a 3 a KP Y M w N w cd C a a 3 .rte � ` " W ' �� •^irlrfr' f : tr r� r 00 M � t ,M� ,• rfft� y s • � � � 'r�"rrr�r� u o `� . • �n a � .V-4 co n it 0 U h .� ocou V A d a z s� �P o ¢ u c o� a 3 ® 3A 0 (� M d a .fin M R d rr 7 ^ � N v a =o o w u Cd "o � a e U v7 N O Cd N ON JJ .d 0 O w' o _ Cld M Y a a 3 W d _ � c _0 a 00 qcoc� N 5 a d H d •1M4 a i•i 1 i•1 p0 N ap d Cd O • o eo > Urn a A' d cn W V� > •� � II�I z _II M \ II H 00 x O �" 3 zcx 3 NK M N � NY a � o o, rrrrf r Iffr � r E`rtrf; r r r ; fA :rcr;r r V � rrfY r r i r r r I r r In.r7'yff rf.. rA _ O � b�A •rl O p' P y S , 0 w , o Q � - � M U cn VOL O IV d •VE4 z ¢ � M � � p � � w 3 � d T w eo U a J U6• ir-i of ;� P %r a s � C s Wn E ° b _ 0 VO4 p U II II ka 00 \,y M S _ N v ' p 1 w _ Oo� U y O •4—) •VM4 a � W w, a v--4 a 72 1� • 0 W o U p# 00 d P Mh Cd -- M --4 M C •� W f f.. O 1.. fyut•}. _ r rtrf r r rCr d O C , :.yrrrr.- u d O AU �, .. � 3 d v4 Y t N h Y d o 00 lco a Cd d q u � a � a N 1 Y 1 O A N 00 N �d v o ti O u U N II II O i 0 € 0 M a 0 w` N ff rf' r`rrr r t y r r -d O w ,r N r p 0 a .,�__i . 4 � qM U' N k .', r.rr ..ref.. •^ I t r�r i w Z' ;y 4 'rl Mrffrr�r o ' i rr r y �r rtr r � rr 7 O « c �' Uw w• � m Qt u .p M C a O A p d H PC w u � � q d A N u d a � ..i q v. ,Ivw_' v W _I x �1 aw ~ o'ti U vi O iL qcoc� N O 1 �1 (A .,..� m u 4.. pv O o u 10 -7t• � 6... q U _ _ u � � a � u Z � � O o pq M o v�j�TW�l1 0 # 'a x � R JR I z x - or, �Fi O a N U N rrrrf[_f'I rr q X, a� Y � •�rt�r� f ft r, & y ) HfCfr C "O U � N q Ya N C" .d q O T Y M v. Y '• O �yI a U rA - — a u x O 'C0u bo "a w p o H ° q /�1 0 n (n o. O A Y " a J o Y q Wq N _O O 4j O _ z '"Arm" 00 > � O � 4 a o;o Y � rWl w E;a UH R R =u o� a3 9 N N ^„„ A pilwom . . Alfer av' • I A y , AV 1 � I Of Cr- Er' O O O , /• • V�I1age '• Isom e .t r •� Itd �.�c • r• ��>^ •CIF � � �y�� • s ' • r J t ' y - tj oaf 1 y • 1 1 ,T� O Ih w -° y O O r„ w R7-. T 0 a�+ " o a+ O U N o 0 u U m .+ 0 b N •�\ tl+ d ° O It a+ O •O I Or a - Q - • d E• u 4-J O+eo I- O N OO N U U w ° o O C7 h M >1 y ° OO W" 'O O y ro Q cb 99 ~ � W d H d d •1� A �I H _ -O O a. A M •rl O N W N v rr 1. �I / --- � o u o o a 6 fA - 4 u > O w O O % � w -4 o u b b A .a •� CII w o " 0u, u w 1 4)-o u.n _ o:ti o w 1. O w O m ^) bo Ac O ° rl a w E U n" F .5, t: Nfi. •� o w m u 'ti V p y...t�_. > NO Out A u "d i-4 v> 04 A N O C obi > a (n •�--� d N b d '' Q. Q Cld C7 d O, f..� a ow u u w , ... o A 4-J U V >, rr N a V)w A rr5 c V OOu° •V.4 T2 w _ d o O �_. N u � W 0 co >11 r to • tko .4 � N O V 60= A R o " z W :tau d x G0° tim I/1 �aQ eimpeo'uggn4 cn 3 W � l52P6'Z6(9LNXV� OOLCLW(9L81,31 S2i31N3�J.aN3J32i N� � $.�'� �a. �- �n.910 OVS Nniana ld 39VIIIA 3Hl d sunlnj Byl 6uldeyg >�e3 ��� 4 b � y Z9Z8 Wd JO E 1302Nd-d` V4 3AUVA31 ONUS3n fs"'" 9 L 0-9000'996 NdV I OO 3J ONISS ONO WINDOW �y > .Elt R 31ANG` (IN310VH I g g s _ � .L9OlY z, z I I z I !Ij S m .S LL I I III I $i HAl9 I I <NCS �I -1 I o I z w z q h , w I I I I I p s g III U.1 LL •Ig i i I I m III O I � m 3.99.E LN I I I p.' V)d W I FI I $I I I I I .ITr 3.9^+BY.L I O I I y > — i i i I z� w z z Lu �d fy J "s g 0 LLI I I R o Fzz. gig CO \ $ I __I II Fayy ui .LS_41 b / �g eL I Fi v� yS2 Z '9aztc I W 28 Do, M 'K �3/b J\ ; � 3BfM LN I II III S 03 F O AN Q J w_s_ mI I�� ` N �Owe'uL aye��i 9� °°oI`�e�<o �il QI o 61 G 4a J w -- $ a w LL m I mss, � z s r \a M I I 1 � III 0 J_ w m c0 r lai w � 4€ ya J rn I r-�s9sY.LN I Z M V O v Z 4", ILV - II II' F `_' b 7AMN1 z Z nYa¢ i u aru�1 1 1 ui W ClNY7 L N L T .1fY1"--� W 1. m I I I ry ILJ� Z Q I $ I III I & I C�/�) �i/ I I I -IIIS g Q gz � �/� LOU� �NUI I w Q� O Omml I I+i I � 090 Z I I I II ALI O a I I I 1 ;z za v I Lu I I I we -hp H H. I a i g I ' a � 8_'a z - Il �f� a urwi A OV02i aIONbV a Rl slo <r 5 e zl,o-7£00-9S6 NdV �J��.�_�I 3OIddO sndAvO 1NVOVA �� hU eiwo}peo'upgnd duet ` 4 _ ��I■/��� ��e�l°«:,� S�131N30 I.0N3J32i �� � • � J °-N3YMOVS Nnonci iV 39V71A 3Hl Q. etn�n j eyt 6uldeyg " �•'63jS/9� S� � oup✓B� �' NV-1d 3AS AbdNIWll3'dd-Z 39ViS a I I I I I I i e —� 1 T IVION3NNOO IV83N39 q / 1 JNISSOHO VON310VH \ 3/UaaVaN310VH-- 010 I I I i •� w I LL ` ' �� L^b \ W I i ��� I � 'Nr U q ■ I t■■t■■t 4 ' y 1 I b - N�� I I � I III � ❑ III >� m z EE tt tt w a uj I II b. i o " b dI"I�o•. E' g I b L= I s I s IWgu 4rc `. x b b 1 I I I I j ��bil �o yWI w b]I I w 3 r2 F 3 YYYIII Y a w D 76r` w_ Z Z I r ! I I 2S - I I I II � .: �•�:�: ! i i w E:•: � � � iii I R •� 'I ( i l � N w It Lu UG ( I II b bi � '��� � 1 !■�� I I �� � Z �N ° $ ! I I I II I �I�, ��"� � " •.•°. � � I I I � k off, °J ����� ���8�� 9m Y x� b1..•s•F, I I I i �� �< 3- wS< S i IhI , 1 III k � r f OVOU MNHV nl KOO-996 NdV ' 301330 SndV4vO 6 1NVOVA I � Ii lj 1 I eiwo}peo'upgno S2OiNI30 AON3`732A Z r, ismFm(eYN.xvj m�erse(a�.-ai rya r✓n:osweasrre�rc3'ranr,uma�rn w� C3 OIN3WVSDVS Nnanci iV 3E)V IIIA 3H1 g m a(nbn j ey8 6wdu4S oup ism V Ndld A1n1n kbVNIW1.13bd Z 30VIS S LO-9000-996 NdV I . I lVI0a3WW00 1VN3N30 i I R JNISSOLiO VON310tlH _.. It ry e —as r - w u I i i 888 '' Y�YYY� J 51 � .,., ° e ice' ui Nog LLI c? a 0 8 ' I Z I w n , RM n � ' p -1 R �e � I : �� 1,3► I ' J I I :W , I) ;IRI N� � iZ 1 ■`� m :I R` � iG -P QO E i I ili I j-01 <D I N§ I I i I R1i( III 0 ry >a I I Iw II I I W z : ,�d ID ^_ $W-_ Y Ll i N o aww Ell n – — — — – - _GWOU Q-IONHV e •j a - «n: 1 301jjOSfldWVJ y �b 1%Rb s>e� 1N`dOVA I elwo}peo'upgnp �cca 2 S?MN130.13N30321 o Z .sm¢ermd:xve mlcaum.d:� s � g � szae YJWJ6VNFN5 aY3ll'C3'�8'�V.V68YI110L �.+ Y °1N3Nb2YJb5 N n o n o ld 3 E)VII IA 3 Hl �, g arnlnj(yl Bu,deyS 5 w Oup./Bo C� NVId 3E)VNIVd i4/JNl(]V2JJ,k2IVNIWIl3bd Z 30ViS � fs"'" g { { { { 9 w-9000-996 NdV W1083NN00 Wd3NM R ONISSONO VON3IOVH as cs .. a - a - -- -- — — — — — 3N21Q VaN3101/H - r II. ; i �LL .i ll t ry A uj o % i� J 1 4:1 40 --... , a Z W 1' :•, / :;-.-------"--__---."rc y - '�••'-_-—__ - 114 ' I -- I `'' ( f 51 ------ 3 ! �. z -- f fit z I x I r - - --- WZ O ■nom ..�'!!I' I �j O am I pp I� L�AI i I� s �+ II I I Ii 4 1 11 t f 1 v 'aI tr O ` w� 4��` /1 W u l � { I { ;v':•. ��� S /I ' ill . :I I l i i I f .... a I --- OVOU GIONIN l I �L I r �►� 'il :I i f Z emo}peo'uiignQ wcca _ 2 S2OiN30 AON3J3d ss�v✓t >s3ucaraaruaxsvnwe U emjn,i etn Buldeyg OupwES� u' NVId 1O2UNOO NOISO213, b`dNIVVA3 Jd-Z 30V. s LO-9000 996 NdV JVI0a3W00 1V'd3N 3E) ONISS00 VON310VH I 1 i ?� P 3 iz > .•, � 11 Z w - � ° ° ._ y l Oft is ij + � F i h ui N a A ( I ( i •1 �� ;( 4 ii a �- '�• ao 1 I Za ¢ op i r� .• z i f � I i !! I I •iY Y lI :( I � 9 i� •: 1 � �i I I� W ' 2w L)O° `fig°a€ � uio Q NA ■ —� o I , U Q� d 1 �wW II__ ( i ( �I > '� Wqp�qp� ' 7 g w az ( 'RR G ' Puw W '�•� aZ LU yl i 'j i I I°I I gaff _ 0 yg�IM o ° w E O J F j ; o s4 K zoo rsoo ses Nav 0 ly 301J=1O SndVIVO v w 1NVOVA O 3 y6 r � eiluopeo'uggn4 ca Sa31N30 AON3`J321 Q. arnln j ey)Buldeyg °bv3^"w"s Nnena iV 3JblllA 3Hl o"13/Bo N` Id WH/Aill` no 2131`dMVOMS.l2MIN1138d Z 30ViS 63fs73tl S I I I I I Slo-8000-996 NdV 1V10L13WW00IVN3N30 ' ON1SSM30 VON310VH _ W N 1� W J I _ N Z — — — — — —3Awa VaN310VH 9 J 9 z= _ 0 r �a Z r� I � II II I I WLLe rr En m N I I - �.; 1 Lu o 6 >_ I � � � W Na -- L)J mom_ zm oir PIP LL w a I a i it II ` ) n& �eBnanazagg :• a a°a a°a°a°a°a°a°a a a i r c -C� t']i 4 � ����I� :Y Y I � I � .:,�� ��•P'r.9'�"�GI'�..r".J^.GYA Z �' da,asa�ras�a��n>nr o � i0 II g �<� �o�•�J��6�68m a Atl ti g '�yj � °�"" I u I v t ..sb>aaT••,ssa�sa� m 0 rc� �. Tr� W b u ZLL°Q i•I II I E04 i_ 3 00 U 0 J� � }� Vi >a I I I � Itlt I i > ZQ Z g �m r a m Nd a 1 I II aka; 11 I i i 0¢ <QDm l 1 j y az a oo €� Zm W� Irc (1)z �m �cr Ii i II fr A�j I I <> erc Qm ma f I I h og U �<' < pc II III � 4 i ili li I j =< I` I P 11 i 1 It � N _ - avow al0NUV < 1 y e m3 1. it 3 3nd 01JJ MO �i{ 1NVOVA 11 III I M e t S • It RESOLUTION NO. 13- xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PLPA-2012-00031 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Regency Centers, has submitted a Planning Application to construct a retail commercial center of up to 167,200 square feet on a vacant 14.32 acre site at 5054 Hacienda Drive. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Village at Dublin Retail Center Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. It was determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze the Project; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 7, 2013, to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on January 28, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) dated July 2013 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from July 30, 2013 to September 13, 2013 (45 days); and WHEREAS, the City received three comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period. The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), dated October 2013, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete Village at Dublin SEIR incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together. The responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments, and 1 ATTACHMENT 5 WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that the Final SEIR, including foemation clarifications ring and reci recirculation minor of the to Draft SEIR SEIR, do not constitute significant new under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 12, 2013 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final SEIR, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on November 12, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project, and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the project and approval of the project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR and all of the documents relating to the Project are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-2012-00031, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final SEIR and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for en CA 94568,is the f e City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dub NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the Final SEIR and the environmental review of the Project under CEQA: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft SEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project. D. The Final SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. aconsequer�ceseofltherprotposed the decision-makers and the public on the environmental 2 Project. E. The Final SEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council make all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:1PA#120121PLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PC Att 5-PC Reso FSEIR.docx 3 rr - - The Village @ Dublin �. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - SCH# 2013012027 - - — AN Lead Agency �. City of Dublin — Prepared by Jerry Haag, Urban Planner — October 2013 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 5 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................2 Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR ........................................................................3 Summary of Draft SEIR Comment Letters..............................................................................1 l Annotated Comment Letters and Responses ..........................................................................12 Appendices Attachment A: Table 1.1 (Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations)...................22 Attachment B: WetlandDelineation................................................................................................................35 The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 1 City of Dublin October 2013 Ar! Introduction The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) was circulated for a 45- day public review period from July 30, 2013 through September 13, 2013, as assigned by the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and consistent with CEQA regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment. Draft SEIR circulation. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the Draft SEIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having op jurisdiction by law over elements of the project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the Draft SEIR review period. This "Response to Comments" document augments the Draft SEIR and, together with the WL Draft SEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (Final SEIR) for this project. This document contains all public comments received during the 45-day public review process regarding the Draft SEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. The Final SEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft SEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the Draft SEIR. The City has carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or clarifications and modifications to the Draft SEIR, against the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information, clarifications, or modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe significant impacts or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City has determined that no recirculation is required. Project summary. The proposed project would involve constructing a retail commercial center on the site that would include up to 167,200 gross square feet of floor area and are envisioned to include a specialty grocery store, two "soft goods" retail stores, restaurant N space and related retail space. Future buildings would be constructed generally parallel with Dublin Boulevard with limited surface parking north of the buildings and the majority of parking located south of the buildings. Small freestanding buildings could also be �r constructed just north of Martinelli Way at the perimeter of the site and along the main entry „. drive. The project would also include grading of the site and extension of nearby utility lines to serve proposed uses. ra The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 2 City of Dublin October 2013 Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR The following clarifications and modifications to the Draft SEIR are incorporated by reference into the Draft SEIR document. Deletions to Draft SEIR text are shown in stf-ikethr-ough text and additions are shown in underlined text. x I. Table 1.1 (Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations) is changed to more accurately reflect the actual text of the Mitigation Measure to be _A implemented and to clarify the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to meet the requirements of the Mitigation Measure. Table 1.1 is reprinted in its entirety and is included as Attachment A to this Response to Comments. 2. Page 40 of the Draft SEIR, MTS Aerial and Roadway Segments of Significance is changed to read as follows: MTS Arterial and Freeway Segments. The Alameda County Transportation Commission's (ACTC) 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP)requires analysis of Metropolitan Transportation System(MTS) roadway and transit systems if a project generates 100 or more PM peak hour trips. The 2011 CMP also requires a traffic impact analysis that includes use of the Alameda Countywide Transportation Demand Model (ACTDM)for analyzing 2020 and 2035 traffic conditions. The MTS roadway system in the vicinity of the project includes 1-580, 1-680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road,Tassajara Road, Hopyard Road, and Santa Rita Road. The LOS standard for CMA analysis of roadway segments is LOS E, as determined by the Dublin City Engineer. An impact would be considered significant when the project traffic cause an MTS network segment (roadway segment, freeway segment, or freeway ramp) to fall from an acceptable LOS L-(LOS E, V/C ratio of 0.99 or better) wa to LOS F,rvxava�segment, rcco�°gient, of f o. . uy:.mt We ratio of 0.99 or- less) in the AT D.- 'eet ease to an tinaeeeptable LOS F 1>/e of 1.00 e) or, if a segment is already operating at LOS F in the No Project case,the v/c ratio increases by more than 0.02 (for example, from 1.03 to 1.06). 3. Page 51, fourth paragraph, is changed to read as follows: Because widening of Dublin Boulevard might net be is not desirable or feasible due to right-of-way constraints, impacts to pedestrian crossing distance that would increase due to the street widening, and potential operational issues with the very large intersection dimensions that would result, this impact would remain Significant and Unavoidable. 4. Page 52, second paragraph from the bottom, is changed to read as follows: The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the City's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF)program as part of the widening of Dublin Boulevard to six through lanes at this location,which would provide the third eastbound through lane. Because this impact is caused by the short-term future land use growth in the region as well as the proposed project, and the required The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 3 City of Dublin October 2013 improvement is included in the TIF program, the mitigation for this impact is for the project developer to male a fair-share m .,o+ tfib ti a these .� rur to pay the TIF fees due on the project Thy or�n�r��r fees i 3--prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Page 61, third paragraph, is changed to read as follows: Because widening of Dublin Boulevard for this mitigation is not desirable or might not be feasible due to right-of-way constraints, impacts to pedestrian crossing distance that would increase due to the street widening, and potential operational issues with the very large intersection dimensions that would result, this impact would remain Significant and Unavoidable. 6. Page 64, SM-TR-7, is changed to read as follows: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-7(long-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Iron Horse Pkwy. intersection). At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway, the necessary mitigation measure is to add a second northbound left turn lane, resulting in two left turn lanes and a shared through-right lane on the northbound approach. Both northbound left turn op lanes on Iron Horse Parkway would need to be 400 feet long. This improvement ift would require the removal of parking on the east side of Iron Horse Parkway, traffic signal modifications, and changing the travel lane configuration and 1P alignment to create one 16-foot wide southbound receiving lane on Iron Horse Parkway,two 10-foot wide northbound left turn lanes on Iron Horse Parkway; and one 14-foot wide northbound shared throw h-right turn lane W 7. Page 67, second full paragraph, is changed to read as follows: ft Because widening of Dublin Boulevard for this mitigation m:,.�====grt fiet-be is not rr desirable or feasible due to right-of-way constraints and potential impacts to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, this impact would remain Significant and Unavoidable. 8. Page 71, first full paragraph, is changed to read as follows: The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the City's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF)program. Because this impact is caused by future land use growth in the region as well as the proposed project, and is included in the TIF program, the mitigation for this impact is for the Applicant/Developer to pay TIF fees at the issuance of the first building permit. 9. Page 84, SM-TR-19 is changed to read as follows: 1 The Village at Dublin Finat Supplemental EIR Page 4 City of Dublin October 2013 Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-19 (long-term cumulative roadway segment impact at the Dublin Blvd.between Dougherty Rd. and Tassajara Rd.). The potential mitigation measures for these arterial segment impacts would require widening Dublin Boulevard in both directions. Such measure could reduce the impact to less than significant.However,widening of Dublin Boulevard for this mitigation might not be-is not desirable or feasible due to " right-of-way constraints and potential operational issues with the very large intersection dimensions that would result. 10. Pages 92 and 93,paragraph than spans both pages, is changed to read as follows: Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. In the vicinity of the project site, there are Class II bike lanes on both sides of Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Central Parkway, and Arnold Road north of Dublin Boulevard, and on the west side of Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Martinelli Way. In addition to these existing bike lanes, according to the City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan', Class II bike lanes on both sides of Arnold are planned to extend from Dublin Boulevard all the way to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station on the south, where the bicyclists could continue to take the planned Class II bike lane on both sides of Iron Horse Parkway and/or - DeMarcus Boulevard, or the Class I bike path"Iron Horse Trail." in addition, Glass 11 bike lanes, with a minimum width of 5 feet and pFefer-ably 6 feet, are planned on bo sides of Martinelli Way between Drive and r,-en Hersemy, In Y addition a Class I multi-use trail, with a minimum width of 10 feet, is planned on both sides of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Iron Horse Parkway, -� immediately south of the proposed project site. Although the preliminary project site plan does not show the planned additional bike lane on the east side of Arnold Road along the project frontage or the bike lane on either side of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road, the eet • •ill be ~ fed to pfevide for- these AtQ Conditions of Approval have been written and will be applied to the project to provide for those improvements. 11. Page 112, paragraph describing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS),will be changed to read as follows: East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). The pr-ejeet site is leeated- in Alameda County and although. As a private development project,it The Village at Dublin is Willy not subject to compliance with the EACCS guidance. However, permitting agencies will utilize the guidance and policies contained in the EACCS to analyze the project. Conservation goals and objectives are described in Chapter 3 of the Final EACCS. There are multiple objectives listed in the Conservation Strategy; here are some objectives that apply directly to the Project Area: 1 City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan,Fehr and Peers,June 2007. The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 5 City of Dublin October 2013 12. After the publishing the Draft SEIR, a wetland delineation (approved by the Army Corps of Engineers) was submitted by the Applicant. Page 114, SM-13I0-1, will be changed to read as follows: o" Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1_(wetland and other waters).If avoidance of these jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory mitigation shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages.In such an eventuality, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement(or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site.if wetlands aFe deter-mined to be jurisdictional a C t' 404 of the- Clean Water- "et, The mitigation plan is subject to the review and approval of the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). if the potential u.s are non jWisdietional,the mitigation plan will be 4P subjeet to the Feview and approval of the RWQC-B-. 13. Page 115, SM-13I0-2,will be changed to read as follows: 1P Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2: Focused surveys for special- ` status plants shall be conducted on the site according to the California Fish & Wildlife Service (2009) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted throughout the blooming period of those species for which suitable habitat is present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to cover the blooming period of the plants in Table 4.4-1. If populations/stands of a special- status species are identified during the surveys and impacts are unavoidable, 1P compensatory mitigation shall be provided, such as the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in question, or purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the affected �w species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization for the preservation and management of existing populations. The location of mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with, and subject W to approval of, US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife Seniee. In the cases where the special-status plant species is neither federal- nor state-listed, the lead agency shall approve the mitigation approach for the given species using guidance provided in the East Alameda County Conservation Strateey and in consultation with the City's consulting biologist. Off-site compensatory mitigation shall be acquired at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired:impacted). For esker off-site mitigation options, measures shall be implemented (including contingency measures) providing for the long-term protection of the species. 11 14. Page 116, SM-13I0-3, will be changed to read as follows: The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 6 City of Dublin October 2013 ■r Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls prior to grading or construction activities.These surveys should conform to the survey protocol established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012b) and ConseFva Strategy (I 2010) The r t• Strategy depieto_th •tt+site being l + a as Conservation Zone 4 � . SUPPOAS 11 per-cent of the Conservation Strategy's study area's unpr-oteeted potential habitat for bur-FOWiftg .Burrowing owls could nest or winter in the site's approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed non- native grassland habitat and within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site. The following measures are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife standards: a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If no owls are found during this first survey, a final survey will be conducted within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that burrowing owls are still absent. If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days after the initial take avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including the final survey within 48 hours of disturbance).All surveys shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish & Wildlife guidelines. b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of Fish & Wildlife and other applicable standards, 1CF 2010. More specifically, if the surveys identify breeding or wintering burrowing owls on or adjacent to the site,occupied burrows cannot be disturbed and shall be provided with protective buffers.Where avoidance is not feasible during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity,the duration and timing of the activity,the sensitivity and habituation of the owls, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) shall be implemented to encourage owls to move away from the work area prior to construction and to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall be subject to California Fish & Wildlife approval and monitoring requirements. Compensatory mitigation could also be required either by California Fish & Wildlife as part of the approval of an exclusion plan. Mitigation may include the permanent protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife. 15. Page 146, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-1, is renumbered as follows: .,r Supplemental Project Impact AQ42 (emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants during project operation). The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 7 City of Dublin October 2013 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) 16. Pages 146-147, SM-AQ-2, is revised to have language consistent with the TDM mitigation measure identified in SM-TR-1, and is changed to read as follows: IP Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 (emission of cumulative W* considerable air pollutants during project operation).The project applicant shall IP _work with the City to develop key elements of a Transportation Demand Management(TDM) plan,which shall be prepared by the Developer and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit The TDM plan should include, but not be limited to,the following measures: a. Appoint Commute Coordinator(coordinates information distribution). b. Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding 511,Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit, and any existing City CarShare programs. c. Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees. d. Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Greed' property to the south. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to participants IP e. Provide bicycle parking facilities for 10% of car spaces or a number approved by the City. L Provide secured bicycle parking(lockers or cages) for employees g. Join City Car Share as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of 5% employees. h. Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no IP cost or subsidized rate to all employees. i. Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent Under Section 132(F) of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $230 per month for qualified transit vanpool or parking costs Or, an employer ft may offer$20 per month for bicycling costs Full information is available at: http://rideshare.511.orp-/rewards/tax benefits aspx IP j. Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street Parkin requirements. The City shall require the following additional measures to reduce overall vehicle- related emissions: k. Provide shading in the parking lot,to the maximum extent possible,to reduce evaporative ROG emissions; and OR 1. Provide appropriate electrical outlets and signage to reduce truck idling and a use of mobile refrigeration units that are powered by diesel fuel. The projeet applieant shall Feduee future employee trips 1-1—'15- per-ee t through a Tr-affie Demand Management (T-DAI)program approved by the City and ineluding,but not 4 ..he following-nK-as*Fes+ The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 8 , City of Dublin October 2013 Appoint a Commute Coordinator—, r, cog, Wh 1 /i A VT A shuttles tar nal transit and !"pity CaFShare• d. Promote and distribute information on implemented measures by quar-tffly email blast by pr-ojeet sponsor- or-Commute CooFdinator- designee; • Invite Wheels, t least two other commute alt tiye sn m��reel,, LrIIALl♦l J<l vIt,t L Provide bieyele PaFkiHg facilities for-20 per-eent of ear- spaees or- a HumbeF appFOVed by the rat.,. g. Provide seeure bieyele par-king (loelier-s or-eages) for- employees; h.jo• City CaFShare as a "Biz Prime" member- and pay far member-ship of i. implement a BART subsidy pr-Offam that would provide BART tiekets at no eost subsidized rate to all employees; implement a Commuter-Tax Benefit Program a„ ., eq 1 Provide preferential parking f r ear-pools and ya.,pools as part of off street 17. Page 148, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-2, and the paragraph immediately following it, is renumbered as follows: Supplemental Project Impact AQ-33 (violation of air quality standards). The project would result in a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would partially,but not fully, mitigate the above impact and Supplemental Impact AQ-23 will remain M significant and unavoidable. 18. Page 152, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-3, is renumbered as follows: Supplemental Project Impact AQ-34 (conflict with applicable clean air plan). The project would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan. 19. Page 159, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-4, is renumbered as follows: Supplemental Impact AQ-45 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions). The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 9 City of Dublin October 2013 1 20. Page 160, SM-AQ-3, is renumbered as follows: r.a Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-35 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions). The final design of the project shall include all requirements of the City Climate Action Plan,including policies A.1.4,A.1.5,A.1.8,A.1.9,A.3.4, and A.3.6. In addition,the project proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate Action Plan polices A.2.4 and A.3.5. 21. Page 166, first bullet point, is deleted. There was no Urban Decay Impact identified ` in the Draft SEIR. Lant4 Use, Planning and Urban Deeay: Land use within the pr-ojeet aFea would remain as it etiffently exists and there would be no impaets related to ufban deeay of- existing shopping eentefs in the Ptiblin market area. 22. A Wetland Delineation for the site, as approved by the Army Corps of Engineers (dated June 14, 2013) was submitted by the Project Applicant after the publication of the Draft SEIR. The Wetland Delineation is included as Attachment B to this Response to Comments. Op W op The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 10 City of Dublin October 2013 1fiF Summary of Draft SEIR Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the Draft SEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties. Commenter Date Federal Agencies None State Agencies 1.1 Department of Transportation Caltrans 9/12/13 Local Agencies 2.1 Dublin San Ramon Services District 9/9/13 DSRSD 2.2 Alameda County Transportation 9/18/13 Commission ACTC Interested Persons/Organizations None The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 11 City of Dublin October 2013 IP rrc op Annotated Comment Letters and Responses Ip I► F The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 12 City of Dublin October 2013 rt By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5559; Sep-12-13 4:47PM; Page 1/2 eosxnwN n� c�. � DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P.U.BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 94523-0660 plexyourpower! PHONE(5.10)2$6-6053 Be energyef/lcknll FAX(320)Z86-S5S9 '1'rY 711 September 12,2013 ALA580866 Letter 1.1 ALA-580-18.82 ' SCII#2013012027 Ms,Kristi Bascom - City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Dear Ms.Bascom: The Village at Dublin Retail Project—Supplemental Environmental-Impact Report Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the environmental review process for The Village at Dublin Retail project.The following comments are based on the Suppl'einental Environmental Impact Report. nip Generation Table 4.2-2 on page 44,shows the project will generate 119 inbound and 113 outbound trips during the AM peak hour,and 334 Inbound and 339 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. However,Exhibit 4.2-3 on page 97 shows 68 total inbound and 104 total outbound trips for the AM peak hour,and 190 total inbound and 314 total outbound trips for PM peak hour derivcd• w from Intersection#9 and#23 which serves as project driveways,Please clarify this discrepancy. i Operations We are unable to review MTS Roadways and Freeways Levels of Service(LOS)for Short-Term 1.1.2 Cumulative Condition(Table 4.2-13)and long-Perm Cumulative Conditions(Table 4.2-14) � - without the Existing Condition.Please provide it for our review. In comparison between intersection Existing Condition LOS tkom Tab16 .2-1 on page 43 and 1.1.3 intersection LOS for Short-Term Cumulative Condition from Tablo 4.2 4 4 on page 48,please i explain why some of the intersection delays would improve over time Without mitigation, For example,for Intersection#4,the delay under Existing Conditions during AM is 469 seconds but would improve in Short-Term.Cumulative Condition AM to 23.7 seconds. Please explain the discrepancy between the LOS and volume/capacity(V/C)ratios for MTS Roadways and Freeways Levels of Service(Table 4.2-13&Table 4.2-14)and Route of Regional Significance Lcvcls of Servico(Table 4.2-15&Table 4.2-16). Fox oxample,far.the eastbound segment of Dublin Boulevard AM.from Dougherty Road to hacienda Drive in•Table 4.2-13 (page 79),V/C increase is 0.005 and both No Project and Plus Project LOS's are A but in Table 4.2-15 (page 86),V/C increase is 0.016 and both No Project and PIus Project LOS are D. ; 'oltrarta Improves mo611ity across California' j i Received Time Sep. 12. 2013 5:25PM No- 2048 lent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNINO; MO 286 5550; Sep-12-13 4:48PM; Page 2/2 Ms.Kristi Bascom/City of Dublin •September 12,2013 Page 2 For the northbound segment of Tassalara Road from Dublin Blvd to Interstate 580,please explain 1.1.5 why the capacity is 4,200 in Table 4.2-13 on page 80 but it's 3,150 in Table 4.2-15 on page 86. Please insert the freeway mainline section LOS thresholds for this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please call VA kwan,A'ICP of my staff 1.1.6 . . at(510)622-1670. Sincerely, ■r LR1 'AL1VI;' 1CP ••bistrict•Branch•Chief _ W LoGa1'Dever ogitnextt-Ititergoveiii riental Ri evkw' ab op •, " 'c:Stala�Clearitighouse ' : .• ..• .. • . . . . . ... •. . ', • ' �' . • .. •:.. . .. .. . • . . ... .. . ... . .' • .. • . . • '. ..'• . . .. err= .:. .Received T 12—:2013.' c�ta►�IIns im�frGi B: 6$Jii, ffWW Ca{sforiita" ime_•Sep. 5:25PM- No. 2048 w...w-wr- .-.�..._.vt.. rv.wt iSM:._?.��i•:V�';v.u__:t.}::,..._ y��40N SEgyfc,d\ tff DUBLIN ,3 � 7051 Dublin Boulevard SAN R"ON � Dublin,California 94568 P 'v Phone:925 828 0515 SERVICES ttdp�'i�ts•�ru,tntu. - FAX:925 829 1180 DISTRICT J` SjNC81g�3 ♦vww.dsrsd.coin September 9,2013 Via Fax Letter 2.1 Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner City of Dublin,Community Development Dept. 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental EIR for the Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-2012-00031) Dear Mr.Haag: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(Draft SEIR)for the Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA- 2012-00031). This proposed project is within the service area where Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) currently provides potable water service,recycled water service and wastewater collection service. These services are generally discussed under item 17 of the EIR checklist,"Utilities and Service Systems." This project is in the area discussed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed for environmental impacts under the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR reiterated that DSRSD will provide the potable water,recycled water and wastewater collection services for this project and the area surrounding the project. The Utilities and Service Systems environmental impacts of this project were dealt with in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This fact was noted in your Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Seeping Meeting letter dated January 7, 2013. DSRSD issued comments for the Eastern Dublin EIR. Our comments have not changed to this time. We noted that this specific Draft SEIR does not address any environmental impacts dealing with Utilities and Service Systems (Number 17 on the standard list of Environmental Impacts.). Since this specific Draft SEIR does not deal with issues relating to DSRSD's role in this project we have no comments. Sincerely, STANLEY KOI ZE,P. Associate Engineer SK/ST cc: Dave Requa,DSRSD Rhodora Biagtan,DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Entity H:\ENGDEPT\CEQA\DSRSD Response to CEQA Documents\City ofDublinr2013\Comments on Draft Suppl EIR-Village at Dublin Retail 9-9-13.doc ALAMEDA 1333 Broadway, Suites 220&300 Oakland,CA 94612 PH:(5 10)208-7400 r�County Transportation or www.AlamedaCTC.or Cnrni on 9 1� J September 18,2013 op Kristi Bascom Letter 3.1 IF Principal Planner City of Dublin,Community Development Department W 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 kristi.bascom @dublin.ca.gov rs SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-2012000031) Dear Ms. Bascom, ■v Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the The Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-2012000031). The proposed project IP would involve constructing a retail commercial center on the site that would include up to 167,200 gross square feet of floor area. Other improvements would include surface parking lots, installation of utilities and services,site landscaping,pedestrian plazas and placement of 1P identification signs. The project site contains 14.3 acres of land located in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area of the City of Dublin. The project site is located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Drive to the west. Martinelli Way fonns the southern boundary of the site. The Alameda CTC respectfully submits the following comments: PF On page 40,the DSEIR states that"The LOS standard for CMA analysis of roadway 3.1.1 segments is LOS E." This is statement is not accurate and should be removed. The LOS E threshold is used as to determine deficiencies during biennial Level of Service monitoring of existing conditions that the Alameda CTC conducts as the CMA for +rr Alameda County, but is not a threshold of significance for development impact analysis. As stated in the NOP response letter for this project,the Alameda CTC has not adopted any policy for determining a threshold of significance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP and professional judgment should be applied to determine the significance of project impacts. The text on page 40 should be changed to state that the LOS E threshold for MTS roadway segment impacts is a threshold that has been defined for this project,not a threshold set by the Alameda CTC. The Village @ Dublin Retail Project is situated an opportune location for multimodal transportation circulation. The project is immediately adjacent to two Priority Development Areas(PDAs)that are planned for and already experiencing significant new housing development, including some higher density housing(Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings and the Dublin Town Center). Furthermore,the project is located in close proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the LAVTA Rapid route,and the Iron Horse Trail,and the _., September 18,2013 Page 2 project falls entirely within an Area of Countywide Significance from the Alameda Countywide Pedestrian Plan. In addition,the project is implementing the City of Dublin's Complete Streets Policy and General Plan,which identify a commitment to a transportation network consisting of "facilities that are planned,designed, operated,and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users,including bicyclists,pedestrians,transit riders,and motorists"and that"serve[s]to enable active travel as part of daily activities,reduce pollution,and meet the needs of all users of the streets." With these considerations in mind,the DSEIR should consider the following: • Several mitigation measures should consider secondary impacts to all road users: 3.1.2 o Page 62-63,the DSEIR proposes removing a crosswalk across Dublin Boulevard if the preferred mitigation of grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian bridge cannot be implemented at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Boulevard. This intersection is a critical pedestrian junction as it is located along the Iron Horse Trail and in the vicinity of the Dublin Pleasanton BART station. Opportunities for maintaining the crosswalk should be considered if bridge construction is not feasible. o Page 68,the DSEIR proposes widening Dublin Blvd to add a fourth eastbound 3.1.3 through lane at the Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection. Opportunities for accommodating increased transit,bicycle and pedestrian activity should he considered at this location. • The DSEIR proposes a suite of TDM measures for impacts at several intersections(e.g. 3.1.4 page 67 and page 71). The DSEIR should consider whether TDM measures could be appropriate for all locations rather than the few locations where it has been determined there is insufficient right of way to add turn pockets. The DSEIR should consider opportunities to implement the proposed segment of bike 3.1.5 lane from the Alameda Countywide Bike Plan on Dublin Boulevard to the cast of Tassajara Boulevard. This segment would complete a route for residents of the Town Center PDA who wish to access destinations to the west, such as the Village @ Dublin retail center or the Dublin Pleasanton BART station. This improvement could serve to mitigate some of the impacts that the DSEIR identifies along Dublin Boulevard. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (510)208-7405 or Matthew Bomberg of my staff at(510)208-7444 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Beth Walukas "A Deputy Director of Planning Cc: Matthew Bomberg,Assistant Transportation Planner File: CMP—Environmental Review Opinions—Responses-2013 Letter U: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • Comment 1.1.1: The commenter requests clarification regarding project trip generation, specifically a perceived discrepancy between Table 4.2-2 and Exhibit 4.2-3, which appears to show differing a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips to and from the project site. Response: Table 4.2-2 contained in the DSEIR shows all net additional project- generated trips, which are assigned among all of the project driveways,while Exhibit 4.2-3 only shows the project trips using the two signalized project driveway intersections that are included as study intersections (#9,#23). Per the preliminary site plan that the DSEIR is based on, there are also several right-in/right-out driveways along Dublin Boulevard,Martinelli Way,Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive in addition to the two full access project driveway intersections shown in Exhibit 4.2-3. The project trips not accounted for at the driveways shown on the Exhibit are expected to use these other driveways. The volumes at the other study intersections as shown on the Exhibit fully account for all net additional project- generated trips. Comment 1.1.2: The commenter states an inability to review MTS Roadway and Freeway Levels of Service for Short-Term Cumulative Conditions and Long-Term Cumulative IP Conditions. The commenter requests this information. Response: The information requested by the commenter is not required for traffic analyses prepared pursuant to Alameda County Transportation Commission(ACTC) requirements; therefore, existing condition information was not colledted as part of this study for MTS roadways or freeways. The DSEIR includes appropriate tables that clearly IP show project impacts under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. ik • Comment 1.1.3: The commenter requests clarification regarding DSEIR information as to IP why some intersections analyzed in the document would improve over time without mitigation. The commenter cites study intersection#4 where delay under Existing Conditions during the a.m. peak is 46.9 seconds but would improve to 23.7 seconds under Short-Term Cumulative conditions Response: The decrease in delay of intersections under future conditions would be reduced due to existing roadway improvements that are planned by the City of Dublin and funded by transportation impact fees. The model results reflect not only changes in the land uses, but also changes to the street network over time. The reason some of the I impacts are lower in future years is due to the fact that some of the improvements to the street network are expected to come on-line between by 2020. Therefore,the analysis shows redistribution of traffic due to these anticipated changes. Please refer to pages 53 to 54 of the DSEIR for detailed description of street network changes. ■ • Comment 1.IA: The commenter requests that the perceived discrepancy between the LOS and Volume-to-Capacity for MTS Roadways and Freeway Levels of Service and •w Routes of Regional of Significance be clarified. The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 18 City of Dublin October 2013 Response: For the NITS Roadways analysis,per the requirements of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program(CMP), the Alameda Countywide Transportation Demand Model (ACTDM)was used to obtain the baseline and with project volumes as well as the link capacities. The V/C ratios were calculated using the link volumes and capacities obtained from the ACTDM model, and the LOS results were determined by the V/C ratios. For the Route of Regional Significance analysis, the segment volumes are estimated based on the closest intersection turning movement volumes, and the link capacities are taken from the City of Dublin Travel Demand Model (CDTDM). For the intersection turning movement volumes, the baseline volumes are the same volumes as used in the Dublin Crossings Specific Plan DEIR, and,the volumes for with project scenarios are based on the methodology of directly overlaying the project trips onto the baseline conditions. The V/C ratio increases with the addition of project trips based on this methodology are expected to be the same or higher than those based on the comparison of the direct ACTDM travel demand model run results for baseline and with project scenarios. This is because when running the regional travel demand model with the project added, the model may reassign some of the baseline trips to other less congested routes instead of a route where project trips increase congestion. In addition, , the LOS results for the Route of Regional Significance analysis are based on the 2000 HCM Arterial Level of Service methodology • Comment 1.1.5: The commenter requests clarification regarding why the roadway M capacity for Tassajara Road between Dublin Blvd. and 1-580 is identified as 4,200 vehicles on Table 4.2-13 and 3,150 vehicles on Table 4.2-15. Response: As explained in Response 1.1.4, for NITS Roadway analysis,per the requirements of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the Alameda Countywide Transportation Demand Model (ACTDM)was used to obtain the link capacities. For the Route of Regional Significance analysis, the City of Dublin Travel Demand Model (CDTDM)was used to obtain the link capacities. There are differences in land use assumptions in the two models, and the use of each is specified by the respective responsible agencies. • Comment 1.1.6: The commenter requests information on freeway mainline segments LOS thresholds. Response: The commenter is directed to page 40 of the DSEIR that provides standards for freeway segments. This standard has been modified based on comments provided by the Alameda County Transportation Commission(see Comment 2.2 and the Changes and Modifications section of this DSEIR) The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 19 City of Dublin October 2013 1 Letter 2.1: Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD) • Comment 2.1: The commenter notes that the Draft SEIR does not address Utilities or Service Systems and the District has no comment. .. Response: No response is required to the above comment. Letter 2.2: Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) 1 • Comment 2.2.1: The commenter notes that the Level of Service(LOS) for CMA analysis of roadways is LOS E. This comment is not correct, since the ACTC only uses LOS E to determine deficiencies and is not a threshold of significance. Response: Comment noted and the respective change has been made in the EIR. The EIR recognizes that the Alameda CTC does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance for CMP requirements and expects that professional judgment will be used to determine project impacts. Therefore, for the purpose of this traffic analysis, the Dublin City Engineer, on the basis of engineering judgment,has determined LOS E as the threshold of significance for the CMP land use analysis. If a segment operates at an unacceptable LOS without the project, the impact of the project is considered significant if the contribution of project traffic results in an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio of at least 0.02. This threshold is consistent with prior traffic impact analyses in the City of Dublin. • Comment 2.2.2: The commenter notes that the project is situated in an opportune location PP for multi-modal transportation circulation. Several mitigation measures should consider rr the secondary impacts to all road users. A Mitigation Measure on pages 62 and 63 of the DSEIR proposes to remove a crosswalk across Dublin Boulevard if a proposed grade Ae separated bicycle and pedestrian bridge cannot be built. The commenter notes this is a 1k critical pedestrian junction in the vicinity of the Dublin Pleasanton BART station and opportunities for maintaining the crosswalk should be considered if the bridge is not OF feasible. Response: The City is pursuing multiple sources of funding to conduct a feasibility PF analysis of the Iron Horse Trail connectivity from Dougherty Road to the (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. It is recognized that a grade-separated crossing in this location could significantly enhance bike and pedestrian access to and from the project area and beyond. To support this project, the developer of the Dublin Crossing project is contributing $50,000 towards the feasibility analysis, and the City is seeking additional funding from ACTC's own Sustainable Communities Technical PF Assistance Program. It is the City's full intent to pursue a grade-separated crossing at this location, and at this time the alternative mitigation measure of removing a portion of the crosswalk across Dublin Boulevard will remain in the SEIR. The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 20 City of Dublin October 2013 • Comment 2.2.3: On page 68,the DSEIR proposes the widening of Dublin Boulevard to add a fourth eastbound through lane at the Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. intersection. Opportunities for increased transit,bicycle and pedestrian activity should be considered at this location. Response: Design of the intersection improvements will be reviewed for consistency with the City's Bikeways Master Plan and reviewed for consistency with the City's Complete Streets Policy(adopted by the City Council in December 2012). The City will also coordinate improvements with LAVTA to ensure adequate accommodation of public transit at this location. • Comment 2.2.4: The commenter notes that the DSEIR proposes a suite of mitigation measures for impacts at several intersections (pages 67 and 71). The DSEIR should consider whether TDM measures could be appropriate for all locations rather than a few locations where it has been determined there is insufficient right-of-way to add additional turn pockets. Response: To encourage the use of alternatives modes of transportation, several TDM measures have been proposed that would improve overall traffic operations along key arterial streets that would serve the project. However, on the basis of TDM literature available to the City, it is difficult to predict the mitigation of project impacts through TDM measures alone. It is expected that the TDM measures may relieve some of the congestion at nearby intersections where physical improvements are not feasible due to right-of-way constraints,but would not be able to fully mitigate impacts identified in the DSEIR. • Comment 2.2.5: The DSEIR should consider opportunities to implement the proposed segment of the bike lane from the Alameda Countywide Bike Plan on Dublin Boulevard to the east of Tassajara Road. This segment could complete a route for residents of the Town Center PDA who wish to access destinations to the west. This improvement could serve to mitigate some of the impacts along Dublin Boulevard identified in the DSEIR. Response: The City of Dublin has a Bikeways Master Plan, adopted in 2006, that includes the development of an integrated bicycle circulation system throughout the community. This plan is consulted whenever street improvements are proposed and/or mitigation measures are considered for the installation of bicycle facilities. The City's Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with the Alameda Countywide Bike Plan, which addresses only major arterials in Dublin. The City's Bikeways Master Plan illustrates the existing and future bicycle network on arterials, collectors, and residential streets throughout the City. Mitigation Measure TR-2 of this SEIR identifies improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. At the time this roadway improvement is constructed,bicycle facilities, as identified in the City's Bikeways Master Plan, will be constructed. The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 21 City of Dublin October 2013 r. .. w rr� ATTACHMENT A: Table 1.1 (Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations) w op The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 22 f City of Dublin October 2013 P 16 cd ci ,n +' O t=+ d v o z � a Y U w o cd `n sn, .y O p ° cci w G O ° Q O O y t O p p 0 0 4 O Q g X p y o In 0 3 O o 0 as G, ° i•a U y s"' Y �"' E-� Q C) 3•. O 'O d cC N `� t3 N N y y : �� b cd 09 bi.a �I O ,.0 U .-� d cC py Fl, ° N U p Ri Cd cd cd s Owlr ate" y U b O �n H sn a3 In bi O U p U cd y� ° O b > CO •3 p p sU UD 3 O ti Cc o O o W O O p ,y p O ° M Cc .4 = cn —•� O O 4� N L: O "U cC L=� O s. cC-13 N N O a, cd c'a a'i °� N sn (L) 12 o U tj O :b In p U c>C Q �"Cd c6 N °O N y N U p .ms. �+ p U rn ° 'J ai c�C O vUi O . O O O a� tj F-' O y p �'' C v' U N N N .�.. > O . 0 72 0 o cd cn �r p 0 0 cd O "0 N Q p = r. 'O 4 cC V] O OC)'wo O U a� F. . p p CL - NOW a cd ro- �. ° oo ° o °y' Q � a cd Cd N > ° 00 a H H H PF V M N Li «s � •� � � � � illy y % a a � irr o a ,o > 4-4 y W 0 o � 0 '� 0 y o w b o .� '� OQ 0 > cd � U q one cdi o (1:° ' ° > W on o � ``" � Q 3 Cd aim w w o ° oy 40 C/] "d 0 0 y 0 'C3 N 'o U-;; O O N Cd v cn G to y o �� a>i . oq ao > `0 y c�i o cd ° o �. o b Y :3 p Y w p to 0 to to tj to o0 � > o °' 'Aaq ° r. � . ti Ld o � �. .� cd p .M cd y cc � •� acdi � � -o W .�' � Ab -ye�sy °? "3 °�° � CIS 0 Y_ � •'a ttS it � ° L. Y Ow W Ld „ . o a y o > R; CYi Y ° Cc Q. v ° '� N p sue. O O ° 3 4° cC v� � F:-o0 cd 3F• . v� . OA .� to r. 0 bb bA bb rn Cd o 0 0 w n o t a d na� c .c o .cv onA �. ° o A 21 a; W U U ° UAA k" U "5 In oUA 0 w: W p „ UA V] 0 «3 U) = N N 4+ cd U] C s• E- a� 0 , . i vo 0 � > �' O G o 4 , U o o � 0 0 w U LV� U 0 4E b 0 00 — > ' , r. O U � Y MOO �A to o Alm tiM N M ,u cc cd RS p•„ a> U U co U � C ll h I�1 icdr b4 N O c6 cd ,tom. •��, O Q) .''•' O y a> �p a) vUi "C a) G .��" �+ a) > -' o a) a) Q) •p"U > yY � C's0 o a? ° � °' � ,°, Eo � o 0303 0 o 9 °o o P., 0 0 d — O v ° p o a>O o " 0 y o -8 o a 0 � N ° N y x pa ... N � N ' 0 C' o � Y Cd 0 N Y �Q 4 > O-°o 'cd ° G U 0 b q o c H � -a ri d 'w to cd U Y �. A a> p g 04 0 'o cd °'•' o �-d •� °�' '�-' � -d 'd � G+, °�' p '� aY�i ~ � .'� � •� 'd aY�i U Gn N 4. O�i d bo N « y fl ° O� 0 i N ° .y vpi " > ri o 0o w d In 0bow o ° d we o .„>5 o o 'o 3 o 0 q o aD o0 � .� Vic° aa) �-' o (D 0 > a cd ca y ' o b y a c° � 0 �a�i ° c� �, 0 cd U b U o cd is Y a> p+ o .d _ a> cs 3 a� yc Li .y a) CC Y a> U 3 y QJ b y O N O CA � �"" " O Y bq o i•� U a> api U t3 ai a> '� 3 0 a0> � � 3 0 U p ~ o a0> to "o .� a> b > O nC O '° y •� r tj y O a) 'd '-' t., cy Q +-� w? i' Q C O ' Y a) N •� `� O •� 'sf~n s. si O'•" ,�o .0>� �ai d�' '••� �.-b o�r>.s:a'.q o a> b� O i =ai �••i d " ¢�"; ' P > a°o^a cd > c U cd P3 b ED cd 'd 0 o p Q a> 0 0 }O ° b p °a a 'i.cC r °bp bb 0 t )o > a p p �� Q O ' r ° g > a n . F y o ~ �> > o > o > ' a> •� F .� a> o + -0 .� •.. En ° a> o N ° ° y ° �i O ID o Y O >d o s, x d &n �, m cd cd U 3 s, tc t Oo bo .b O •yy o Y a�~n ..O p •o cad r. -C •�• W 0 0 w � .o ° x o 0 ° ��c o 3 ' 0 ° a -d 3 cd 0 En Y 0 u q r. 0 � Y q � � � " > ° q 0 O •o° ° .> ° N O O o vi ° �. .> d cd 0 0 0 ,n a 0 ,U+ 'b cd 113 O 'C3 a) `-•� •� Q. W 0 V> � 0 •3 ^a .� N Y U U r� N T� a> " Y y N "� 'i N -C U C�K Qy N 2 " a tor. o cd cd w �- F H y GQ w 0 . � cd ° b-o -v d as ° > a o o o �P, O Q cd cd F H W 3 0 cC Cd Y pp O F F' PF w pp c`1 M N Cd L: C ° a. �a cd � aio O am .y y y y � a PF i Y O C) av CIS> C C cd b U o - 0 m 0 Cai cc ti cc I.0.. O cd w o o p �0 > Cc. 0.to r. Ld A 3b i l to 0 -14 0 tl - En C,3 = 0 w �ccd p a� p F c� r� O t7 w ° pc v .� 0 0 O cd j O 3 O 1 N s. 4•a -> sO�� > -0 w O > to 4 YO r. �'� 1S -0 O y Cc O p p 1 N p N cd cd bA N N o cd YO > 'U -0 b�q > S]. 6' ca U .9 cd 0 cd N N �+ 0 �• to Y N q J o � � •° •° .� a�i 3 0 �Q cad ai a°i ° � 0 40. � � fYf Q " ami Ems- d Cd O� o� Y En� - 0 �A i O O .. p '—~• Y to o � ' on o cd on -� o -a .' °° 1 b O ° o w Y �°.'y' f a,La.i iy ,y'�• •y°, 'd���cd ,•p y �O Q °cd aUi �C I a�N Y•1 • v d 3 1a•, b l '° >o ,0 0 o -0 x C� p r cd � 3 °0 0 -0 Q o o � fo �U wa .n o U � W N U Q � ° U �Q y v o U o > x 0 0) g-. > o > ¢ O U `c�I°y �y;/�+�vb w�) /Y > a 000 '; b' Q // � o � O 0 ^� xj � L 1 � O 0 0 O O Y Q Y 'd c ° cd .b cd O ° O C o ¢ r a°,P. , 'O 0 c. U° 0 o p U 1:54 EE - ocbd ad U . �cd � E � 4 � o A •� p > 0 N M a) C> C� , bo bo � � U a a a ' � o � O O c0 a C � � by'p 'Y � � bq a) (� �" YO 3 � �+ � N � H bA O a) •� lu- bo C O O L O H 0 CA bp r+1 ;; 00 N �n •a; CC 'G 00, ,� Cd�' ,�, , cn 'y cC cC m cC 'o y by bb 0 cd o O to o CA ° o as E, ° o o ° ' C c) zi In Q Q. Q a a � o b ebb A o O �27s `}' w O 0 12.10 cd 'A o 0 0 ° o cn .� o y o o �oq Cd to 0 'd Q y '.: .y c� Cd Q. a) .b •iG O ° O O bb O N .� w O C V1 bb > 0 u u a) b I by.y ° /'l O N y v� O 3 . to as s o ° o a> rs bq b , as n cu o � „ •i� .b � y a�i � � a' y .� � ,� �' o '°o 'y ?: y sue" � � .o .Y � y .� � vOi O by.+ 3 N H U cn p N s0, ,b H v O � cd f..+' U O"_ a) S-'-. N s"' cC y w cG .s." N s•� cC bb c� � O a) •0 a) a) «i O o O b bQ Y > SFr O ai a, a� v v) C O ar y 's O a0i N O Y O a�i 'd 'O N o r% -C� O O C) bs"„ a) a) a) .Y -.� o . V cl r ° w �bA Q+b O N y w y °S3 d chi c7 ' zi oAo o a� °o° oQ o `~ a' ° o6 ;3oQa ov' U O En F U o Y y FUU oil F � a3 � N o'� E-� b - by � 'E� A e'' It o> z a (L) � F F' Fri H U N M C a pOq N C� C3 cd C N CJ v to a O L: E= G: o ed dl 1�1 ��+y N N kn _O O f-1 Q + O �.." b4 03 to cd rq "d d Cd ;j = 0 ° p4 0 n c4n) o 'x t� Nto U w cd p cC pp E1 cd N U cC cC $-4 +•+ tg to cd ' . N U ' w° p cd r - � ?? t. p moO 1.- .�� 0 w cd 3 > cd `� on v on 10 � Cc o o b O v 3 0 a> v ab ' cd Ago " � q � 6 �El ° a ' 3cl oo .o �. ApYo o �o d a_ '� F oyb � .� C.) `NO O 0 a0i w 0° ' a`�i 8 o i 3 o E ¢ y` ". ` to ci '40 � err m C > H y 1n cd bA v b N v a Q op•^ -p a •� 'O p > U> ^0 0 > H v O �y w e.H�+ y .fl a v O t y vN U .�.s..•' .w O� Im , N N O = c cC °O 9 C ° > .-. X O as b X bo N + > � y a> N v> cis cd 0 0 cd 3 � x a� o o ao � � a' 3 �yx cox a' 3 a :.a w � ;b � �, �.-o � a� a� a, 1 c;. a � � •� -o o �, 1 =:. � " � .r, p 'O a� 6ao0 ai a vi rvO � U — U U O �.U E� U FUU 1�r OF+ b0 � cd �o 00 ^ A ~ 1" > O Fes- U rn r, t N ~C) cl 03 C4 C. C G bA N cd t. cl ,aea L. bq cC Lv: Y O A Q O cn by �C,3 V b -0 Y yam. v iC cc Y r p. 0 p y > Li O 0 cn to 3 o a. &. � a� �+ .� o ��„� 0 0 � 4. P.Y i.. Cd F. ° 0) o >, �. o o Y I • f C amFbO d r. Y Y ti v Cd 3 o 0 3 C a p. � C vAo ° 0 ID a� Y cc bo ° y bA a� o a� 'El N C3 d „ o In t P; o r a �° o o �, o bu 3 w 0 In O F._ U 0 b � El cd 41 O bb o v°i D N c3 '0 .Y a a ° rY 3 v ,.., CL P. Q o wpo v) A • o b a� rn W A r/� c°» c O a� Obo ' p F t. ° ;.a V N b Y °p�•.. _ id w G ¢, c� ���++ O .o V DA 'L3 'O In cc > Li .''.. 'C) "' "d -�"+ VJ G O O O � "„+ bA .-+ S-i >,.�. ...' r.r ayi O Cd Cc N O 'O O Yn-. 0 y.» O� yN., 'C OU O"0 bA C� 'CJ O ° �; N '�W .4 N 3 00 V 0u p s. O t '� O b ccd 2s V v � �'" ° bOAb .G 0 o 0 p N bo•�� a� o nvOJ, $ o .� 0 O p A O cd a� ° ° c. °? 9 . ° �° a�i b 'o 0 0 a°i o ° �IUFyUAAE� ow o .� pw � ° ° aki ° A m ObA ON N N ~ ? 0 O M en a) N C� cC Cd L:. o y a > Ct w o a� ty N bA..� �" C'"r" •3 ' 0 t8 .cn O Cd a) O a) to. , � n om. a V ° o o 4.) O 9., cn o o o Y O 0 U C'J 44 M. aY' 0 w, o b .Cd v) y cd o Id 1.04 Q U - O cd >, > Q o � � a�i o 0 w vUi .� .. ��. OR ° N `4 '—' � � U cd� OU A 0 as w ' "0 > Z 0 ° ¢ 'a 0-. a) ,o O 0 >U w O O N O O w to H w O V 4 Y > F_I N Y ^ m O U .° o w^ ' C Q .° 0 N 0 cc 3 cd M n a d � ° 3 °� ° U > -0x4) yamQ 4 � y o p o o U U 0 cd M Q. v a i p" ° i D by w oo '° O o v, a) !�• O _cc 'b •� y O " c� ' . c w 'd N p V' . 'b cd cn En ,bn O ,o 4w. cd ° O rn U w > >,'Y^' b �, bb 0 Cd Q N b y U O on w 1.4 O • bq O � y w 0 U 3 b O p O w Q H 'd } Q cc 0 W 'U 7 0 m '� U — r. 0 A m r .O . 0 Cd N .0 Y >•^ w 0 m En q c. ,,, O .$ cc 0 [... "L7 U Cd 04 o i. o w O N p b�A n U cd O N a) cd • d 04 r4 01 0 O p�cN ~ >.�''.9 Cd sa-), a� s� q'w y-1 _ •> y U f 6U"�F' Y. Cc 0 bn Go V «i 9 72 o ° p0 Y ca ' U q O > Z o > r ° 'Y " O� rn L4 CC cC Cd w m Cl rn to Y H U H o bq Cd Ito,- o `° a�i ow 3 x y Cd a> y U Y 0 cd C/] y a) rn n G O (� w to V4 '2d w w is r. w 0 0 ° 0 3 a�i Q>comma cd ca c o n a o 0 Q. 3 0 Yr 3 3 CQ �,• 52 a � CQ a.•� o fl bn q ed ao � � Q N M > O 40 �+ y O to C'4 Cd U U Q tly Zir � U y Vl w{ S"i Y Ri Cd � T'"i i•+ Gr .q � � O O .O a) O cd -,0 b4 bA UN Y y W U O Y ... cd Y •q Q cd U N 03 -ate •,d Y N N •q -� a) 'b m U r O ¢, q S3, 4�.4 cd w ' �c^s w O .b b .O !, a) U rA .ti Q N cC N id O O t," N N � a) Gz �U+ 3 ° N Y }' � f3s. w cd O d bo C's U .>a q ¢' o �y y g p q q > �..a , � 'fl o Iti Cd cd N y .Y Cd� U �'.. "o q `'� • U " y • O > ` o to O to U cd O w O O b O cd cd �" U O q d y O d q —, " . v cd .f i cd q. C �.j G� cn cn U ryi� v� N cn U N cd rn O b 30 ZI 'n 4-1 N q > q.y O cd U •�-1 a..— +"•� ccd'� C.> �+-•, .'�+ 'V� O U U. S•I O 'b bA t-1 c0 cd rn O cd O ,q U N w N ',�•"y�I cd U Y Y +-+ 1"' cd _N -0 w .��" Iti + 'd y a) N O N Y cd 4� Vcn L. cd rn� Cd .a a In acd cd pp Oy, W.—Cd t;-4 q, 4•i q 4q. t '1) 00 - U N bq id 0 k U N H U cd w �.. . .. �+ C •f.J' CD F"n q .v b 0 p `n O U � .� q � q � .� •y. � �� � � � � p.� � ,� � 3 w 'd b �+ q 's cd b p, O q O + '> >,�d O a y d w w a) c d >ti U U cz bA 01-4 q N 0., N 4 U q a) Y q O n !] O a) q >» p :44 C;j M O �' `�''•i U _�ad ^_ `cd (1) T) a N In cz, y y U y ' p N ti Ofl M A id b ) d � cd a � w bq o to v v w� ° A W v Cd d -0 -0 � � M � tA7s ca p U L. cd a aO N to q —q v q O `d -0 tr ' b q ;„4 q y? ) 3 cc .o.3.n cd co r y A y b > a > b u � A 11) Q.) V cc a.) rq by q o o q o t c - o C > q O r > O a cd U cd U � 0 .— Y a o N ,� a) O L. O In Y ,•d .r' ti 4+ az"'+ N '�p b rn 3 .. . Y 5i r •- b„�. cd q O aU y p -0 cl ° ° Y 4, U ) 04—p •0 C13 pc n cd p a) p c d > a) 1 U 4qQ. o y' o o cd �b o N .O cd v x O .ty cd •„ 1 q r.l 0 0 q 0 w t7 •a) 3 U cd a) U a) yd cd cd cd O O Y U i••I ••1 c� cd �N�j y cd m +Y U U i••� �"� Y VJ q V] 0 rA (n V1 w N p O Vl 4 W :537 O 'Y >1 �i cd q 0.) a) w v q *C� O U Y O w O Y C ° a b q q L7, ci o CAU o � �A r, w M M N N bo Cd op U ca S a a a Cd b -0 3 W o U a S ° � o U 3 U o a> On v O O s» a> Cd 0 cC o �, -� yoy : 3 0 •.� ,b Y y�y o �..j f/l a� �j •h cc Ch i > 3'y cn a Y a o b a 0 3 -do'o o ° o a, a� o b � O �, a� ¢ o 4) o O 'O �' s0, L'" bA U Qtr ti Q cOi U a: Y Cd 4)y •'� N b - > 'o . > �C 4a N v ° cd O O b V by � .b -I • Q O ci O Vw N n + y 4 i y o o a b ° H o N ° a. 6, o a o. a�Ui o 3 $ ZS r!w O N ° o � ocd U o o 0 'd to a b " g °o N j ,Ny Y -° '� tea - ap A- 'A In N > bo t to 0 Cl, O �O > .- - 0 ' b y O N W O D O O d2 C13 G •Y +I 0 Cd to W Cd w 0 C]. O o �; bQ yY� 'Ci o .� a °�° c a" o a> w o en Cd bi y iC N ,�.,, 0 � >> N Q W y bn o o �'Y ° . t W `� Y > O o, 73 a� L;:; u C,3 N U U `ls 9 a� ¢ a> P 0 m ^ a a� -1=3 -S q irir � :3 3cdb U °3 CL Cd p.�b a� o m p.�aXi d uea� •�� 0 U 'If1. a>l „ "Cd o "0 � U U T .0 i W r' P4 E : 0 c�W . ° O j ' � (m � (O .A °� �U § � . .� x . , - . B o 0 ° odU o 0 0 ° UQ � ba Q 9 v ° w cc fl v J i o to F N cc lop Yto a� o Y N 0 .O Q b°v o y° Cd o CL Cc IF L. U 0 E In Cd to tti O bq 'fn .r O Q O _ H U Yf'i •C3 ,'' ti 0 p. Q bq i-I U N U Cl N •� � k. cd � u d) Cc z ao ° Wp PF 14 W N� Q d � N O ok z d °' pp „ems M M y O pq N P-� N CAC 4-cl CC O U O cd 0 U O COAL bD� ODD <yar N N Y C cmd U o C's 'n 0) C cd N M 0 .w cd cd > v A. YA pQ U• bo Cd kn. E C) bo in In kl Q � '� ' a a as �•�EP m 46 d a.a, a, b) Y b p 3 O �-+ Q C C cC c cC S-+'” .. .0 Ate C . 3 Q .O Y cc cn to O� cC 3 0 ' o •" cd ' o N 3 tn >Cd C* A a :5 r� �I > ° a a a W RS � cCA s. y y a a r 40. U _ O > b pp O In 'O .Q C's bD U Cd U .W ccd cd p cd rn - w O O W LG y O cd cd y U G ccdd ,cd C,3 y� �'+ b N U Ri y a d q O U p w O .0 'O O O U O cC,3 cd U O ¢ El O +C+ O CU A U U N c� O 4 t] w ' 'b cd O =Cd U a+ '0 In U U b O cd 0 Y w � � 4 = � � � •� U p V 0 O ,0 O y y OW C4 -p U U sr by cd 0 Q cd N O ;.d O by Ey � U 3 U t-, 3 �» Q Cd � y0 '�"-.�.� w N U o cd t: ao g � � � W0 o °' w Q U O co 3 U U U g w 1 O O cd�y .!:I cd L� c1l U O -g " " U � 00 U w avi 0 z U . -- U 9 •2 s U 2 cd v p Q O E U X v, U O 'd T3 O U b4 4. bU 9 0 0 0 � w�. Q O O by W Q In in w Z DI cc 0 In 0 W Y .O O vni U 0 N � U O y U O U PF 0 U O vUi U U Cc i G» U ¢. cd '�' aq�s c, o U U 3 U = U cud b °�' ° ° go 0>1 3 0 ° A t� A o ATTACHMENT B: Wetland Delineation bn 00 The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 35 City of Dublin October 2013 '-� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT,U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1455 MARKET STREET,16T"FLOOR PIP SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94103-1398 Ab REVLY TO JUN 14 2013 , ATiENT10N OF Regulatory Division SUBJECT: File Number 2013-00085S JUN. 1 8 K3 i lSA S,rC1A)L V'C' I l Mr. Chip Bouril P1 R'640fd0 off"i LSA Associates,_ Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond. California 94801 ilk Dear Mr. Bouril: W This correspondence is in response to your submittal of February 11. 2013,on behalf of ft Regency Centers,requesting an approved jurisdictional determination of the extent of waters of the III United States occurring on a 15 acre,rectangular parcel surrounded by suburban development, North of Highway 580 and Martinelli Way,between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive, south of Dublin Boulevard. Dublin. Alameda County,California 94568 (APN: 986-33-7,Lat: 37.7055 N, ! Lon: 121.8907 W). 11116 All proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary lP high water in non-tidal waters of the United States; or below the high tide line in tidal waters of kr the United States: and within the lateral extent of wetlands adjacent to these waters, typically require Department of the Army authorization and the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of 0 the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.). Waters of the United rr States generally include the territorial seas; all traditional navigable waters which are currently used,or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, !P including waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally; and wetlands directly abutting such tributaries. Where a case-specific analysis determines the existence of a "significant nexus"effect with a traditional navigable water, waters of the United States may also include non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent: ` wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary;and certain ephemeral streams in the and West. IP M& The enclosed delineation map entitled Figure 2. in one sheet date certified May 17,2013, op accurately depicts the extent and location of wetlands within the boundary area of the site that are not subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'regulatory authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These particular water bodies are considered to be isolated with no apparent Ili connection to interstate or foreign commerce. This approved jurisdictional determination is based on the current conditions of the site,as verified during a field investigation of April 18, 2013, a review of available digital photographic imagery. and a review of other data included in 1p fik -2- your submittal. This approved jurisdictional determination will expire in five years from the date of this letter, unless new information or a change in field conditions warrants a revision to the delineation map prior to the expiration date. The basis for this approved jurisdictional determination is explained in the enclosed Approved.hurisdictional Determination Form. This approved jurisdictional determination is presumed to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of January 9. 2001, concerning the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Corps or Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) ("SWANCC"). In the SWANCC decision.the Court invalidated, at least,portions of the Migratory Bird Rule as a sole nexus to the Commerce Clause, and ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had exceeded its statutory authority in exerting jurisdiction over non-navigable isolated, intrastate waters that did not provide some other interstate or foreign commerce use (33 C.F.R § 328(a)(3)). The current absence of jurisdictional waters of the United States within the boundary area of the site does not obviate any requirement to obtain other Federal, State,or local approvals necessitated by law. Any impacts to federally-listed threatened or endangered species and/or designated critical habitat may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). If"waters of the state" are potentially present,the site may be subject to regulation by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as amended (California Water Code § 1300 et seq.). You are, therefore. urged to contact these agencies directly to determine the need for other authorizations or permits. You are advised that the approved jurisdictional determination may be appealed through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'Administrative Appeal Process, as described in 33 C.F.R. Part 331 (65 Fed.Reg. 16,486; Mar. 28, 2000), and outlined in the enclosed flowchart and Notification ofAdministrative Appeal Options, Process, and Request for Appeal(NAO-RFA) Form. If you do not intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination, you may elect to provide new information to this office for reconsideration of this decision. If you do not provide new information to this office, you may elect to submit a completed NAO-RFA Form to the Division Engineer to initiate the appeal process:the completed NAO-RFA Form must be submitted directly to the Appeal Review Officer at the address specified on the NAO-RFA Form. You will relinquish all rights to a review or an appeal,unless this office or the Division Engineer receives new information or a completed NAO-RFA Form within 60 days of the date on the NAO-RFA Form. If you intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination,you do not need to take any further action associated with the Administrative Appeal Process. You may refer any questions on this matter to Justin Yee of my Regulatory staff by telephone at(415) 503-6788 or by e-mail at Justin.J.Yce @usace.army.mil. All correspondence should be addressed to the Regulatory Division,South Branch. referencing the file number at the head of this letter. PP The San Francisco District is committed to improving service to our customers. My Regulatory staff seeks to achieve the goals of the Regulatory Program in an efficient and cooperative manner, while preserving and protecting our nation's aquatic resources. If you would like to provide comments on our Regulatory Program, please complete the Customer Service Survey Form available on our website: http://,,%,v%,w.spn.usace.army.mil/regulatory-/. Sincerely, 1P 14 ^_ A 0 I'�` ob Jane M. I-licks Chief, Regulatory Division Enclosures WP Copy Furnished: op Rob Mokry. Regency Centers, 2999 Oak Road, Suite 1000, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Copy Furnished (vv/Encl I only): CA RWQCB. Oakland. CA Copy Furnished (w/o Enels): U.S. EPA San Francisco, CA CA SWRCB, Sacramento, CA op 1p op ib 1p W NOTIFLCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.OPTION_S AND PROCESS-AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Chip Bouril. LSA, for Regency Centers ' File Number: 2013-00085S Date: 5/31/13 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) A PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERry1INATION E SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http•//wNvw usace.army.mil/cec w/pages/reg-materials.aspx or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. " A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit.you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP).you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety.and waive all rights to appeal the permit. including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein.you may request that the permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section H of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter.the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may:(a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns.(b)modify the permit to address some of your objections.or(c)not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections.the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration.as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP)_you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety.and waive all rights to appeal the permit. including its terms and conditions.and approved jurisdictional determinations associated��ith the permit. m • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein.you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section It of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section H of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice. means that you accept the approved JD in it entirety.and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish. you may request an approved JD(which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. 1P SECTION II-RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS;TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT II6 REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an IF initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) op 16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record.the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to rr clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However. you may rovide additional information to clarif y the location of information that is already in the administrative record. 1111P POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFOR VIATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal if you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may process you may contact: also contact: Thomas J.Cavanaugh Cameron Johnson Administrative Appeal Review Officer, South Branch Chief,Regulatory Division U.S.Army Corps of Engineers ' San Francisco District,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division 1455 Market Street, 16th floor 1455 Market Street.20528 San Francisco,CA 94103-1398 San Francisco,California 94103-1399 Phone:(415)503-6773 Email:Cameron.L.Johnsoma usace.army.mil Phone:(415)503-6574 Fax:(415)503-6646 Email:tomas.'. ayanau htn�usace.armv.mil RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,and any government PP consultants.to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation.and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. Date: Telephone number: 1111 Signature of appellant or agent. 1b SPD version revised December17.2010 op its Administrative Appeal Process for Approved Jurisdictional Determinations District Issues approved Jurisdictional Determination(JD) to appllcantAandowner with NAP. Approved JD valid Does appl'icant/landowner for 5 years. Yes accept approved JD? No Max.60 days District makes new Applicant/landowner approved JD. 4 Yes provides new information? No Applicant decides to appeal approved JD. IF Applicant subm b RFA to division engineer within 60 days of date of NAP. Corps reviews RFA and notifies Max.30 appellant within 30 days of receipt. days To continue with appeal process,appellant must revise RFA. Is RFA acceptable? See Appendix D. No Yes Optional JD Appeals Meeting and/or site investigation. RO reviews record and the division engineer Max 90 (or designee)renders a decision on the merits days of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of an acceptable RFA Division engineer or designee remands decision to district, with specific instructions,for 4 Does the appeal have merit? reconsideration;appeal Yes process completed. No District's decision is upheld; appeal process completed. Appendix C APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S.Army Corps of Engineers pp This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the.11) Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION(JD): May 17,2013 Wk B. DISTRICT OFFICE: Son Francisco District FILE NUMBER: 2013-000855 File Name: Regency Dublin Waterbody Name: Seasonal Wetlands trr C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: California County/parish/borough: Alameda Co. City: Dublin Center coordinates of site: (lat/long(in degree decimalfomwty Lat: 37.7055 N Long: 121.8907 W Pick List (lat/long(in degree decimal format): Lat: Pick Long: Pick rL Pick List (Wong(in degree decimal format): Lat: Pick Long: Pick Universal Transverse Mercator: 10 Name of nearest waterbody: Tassojara Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water(TNW)into which the aquatic resource flows: N/A Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code(I-IUC): San Francisco Bay,18050004 ® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request ❑ Check if other sites(e.g.,offsite mitigation sites,disposal sites,etc)are associated with this action and arc recorded on a different 1D form. 1). REVIEW PERFORATED FOR SITE EVALUATION(CHECK ALL THAT APPL)'): op ❑ Office(Desk)Determination. Date: Ilte ® Field Determination. Date(s): April 18,2013 SECTION I1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RII.A SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There are no°ncn•igable waters ojthe U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act(RI 1A)jurisdiction(as defined by 33 CFR part 329)in the OP review area.[Required]. ❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. ❑ Waters are presently used.or have been used in the past,or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Erplaln: 1P B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION fir► There are no-waters ojthe U.S"within Clean Water Act(CWA)jurisdiction(as defined by 33 CIR part 328)in the review area. [Required] � 1. Waters of the U.S: tow a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S.in review area(check all that apply): t ❑ TNWs,including territorial seas PP ❑ Wetlands adjacent to'I'NWs ❑ Relatively permanent waters (RP►►-s)that flow•directly or indirectly into TNWs t11111b ❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPR's that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Ilk ❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TM`s ❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters ❑ Isolated(interstate or intrastate)waters,including isolated wetlands b. Identify(estimate)size of waters of the U.S.in the review area Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width(ft)and/or acres.(other comments: ) 1P Wetlands: acres. (other comments: ) C. Limits(boundaries)of jurisdiction based on:Pick List lrir, Elevation of established 0)-IWM(if known): 2.Non-regulated waters/wetlands(check if applicable):3 Irr 'Boxes checked below shall_he supported-by completing the appropriaye.sectiow-in III below.,.._. _ r.- 'for purposes of this form,an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not-a:N•«"and that typically IkitiS year-rixutd prh�ccnntuniutis flo+c•at IiasY"s� ovally" (e.g.,typically 3 months). 'Supporting documentation is pre-mroted in Section III.F_ ® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain:Three small wetlands in the southwest corner of the site are not large enough,not connected to any drainage,or in a sufficiently sloped area to allow connectivity to the perimeter drains located more than 50 ft away,even if the perimeter berms were removed. SECTION ill: CWA ANALYSIS A TN1Ys AND NETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNLN's The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TN`1Ys. If the aquatic resource is a TNNY,complete Section Ill.a.l and Section Ii1.D.1.only:if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNNV.complete Sections IiI.A.I and 2 and Section III.D.I.;otherwise,see Section 111.13 below. 1. TNW Identify TNT: Summarize rationale supporting determination that waterbody is a TNW: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is"adjacent": B CH_ARYCTERISTiCS OF TRIBUTARY(THAT IS NOT A TNNY)AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS(IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands,if any,and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of"INWs where the tributaries are"relatively permanent waters" (RPWs),i.e.tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally(e.g.,typically 3 months).A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional.If the aquatic resource is not a TNW,but has vear-round(perennial)flow,skip to Section IiI.D.2.If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,skip to Section IILD.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation.Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial(and its adjacent wetlands if any)and a traditional navigable water.even though a significant news finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody4 is not an RPW,or a wetland directly abutting an RM,a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW.If the tributary has adjacent wetlands,the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands.This significant nexus evaluation that combines,for analytical purposes,the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary,or its adjacent wetlands,or both.If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands,complete Section iII.B.1 for the tributary,Section IILB.2 for any onsite wetlands,and Section 111.14.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary,both onsite and onsite.The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section iILC below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: a. Relationship with TNNY: ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW ❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW Project waters are Pick List river miles from'rNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial(straight)miles from T%%-N. Project waters are Pick List aerial(straight)miles from RPW_ Project waters cross or serve as a state boundary. Explain: ldentifv flow route to TNW5: Tributary stream order,if known: 'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales.ditches,washes,and erosional features generally and in the arid West. `Flow route can be described by identifying,a tributary a.which flows through the review area.toillow-into-tributary b,which.tben flows 4MT.% :; W080207 MV _ 2 b. General Tributary Characteristics(check all that apply)- Tributary is: PP ❑ Natural:(comment if needed ) trrt ❑ Artificial(man-made):Explain: ❑ Manipulated(man-altered):Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank(estimate): No Average width: feet(measured from top of bank to top of bank) Average depth: feet.(measured from OHWM to top of bank) Average side slopes: Pick List Primary tributary substrate composition(check all shat apply): ❑ silt: ❑ Sand: ❑ Clay: ❑ Cobbles: IP ❑ Gravel: ❑ Muck: ❑ Bedrock: Illp ❑ Concrete: ❑ Vegetation(Type/%cover): ok ❑ Other(Explain): Tributary condition/stability(e.g.,highly eroding,sloughing banks. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry:Pick List. Pit Tributary gradient(approximate average slope): % h C. Fww LNFORNtATION Tributary provides for:Pick List IP 17stimate average number of flow events in review area/year:Pick List kk Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: OP Surface flow is:Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ❑ Dye(or other)test performed:. Tributary has(check all that apply): ❑ Bed and banks ❑ Ol l WM6(check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear,natural line impressed on the bank ❑ the presence of litter and debris ❑ changes in the character of soil D shelving ❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ the presence of wrack line ❑ vegetation matted down,bent,or absent ❑ sediment sorting ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ scour ❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events ❑ sediment deposition ❑ water staining NP ❑ abrupt change in plant community. Explain: to ❑ other(list): ❑ Discontinuous OHX1'NL7 Explain: PF If factors other than the OH W\1 were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction(check all that apptv): ❑ I ligh Tide Line indicated by: OR ❑ Mean l Iigh Water Mark indicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum PIP ❑ fine shell or debris deposits(foreshore) ❑ physical markings to 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction(e.g.,where the stream temporarily flows underground,or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime(e.g.,flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert),the a_.encies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. ` 'Ibid ud080207 7141) 3 Ohl • t ❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other(list): AA (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary(e.g.,water color is clear,discolored,oily film;water quality:general watershed characteristics. etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants,if known: (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports(cheek all that appir): ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics(type,average width): ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ❑ Habitat for ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas.Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatie/wildtife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNT that flow directly or indirectly into TNN (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries.Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is:Pick List Explain: Surface flow is:Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow:Pick List Explain findings: ❑ Dye(or other)test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ❑ Directly abutting ❑ Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Erplain: ❑ Ecological connection. Explain: ❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximily,(Relationship)to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. ' Project waters are: Pick List aerial(straight)miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List A Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the: Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system(e.g.,water color is clear,brown,oil film on surface;water quality:general watershed characteristics;etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants,if known►:Explain: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports(check all that appl)): ❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics(qpe,average width): ❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Erplain: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Erplain findings: ❑. ..Fish/spawn areas.Erplain findings: >< 07 NEV 4 ❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Erplain fradings: ❑ Aquatic/wildlil'e diversity. Etplairt findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary(if any) (i) All wetland(s)being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List (ii) Approximately( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. 1P tits (iii) For each wetland associated with the reach or w•aterbodv being analyzed in this form,specify the following: Number/Names Directly abuts(Yes/No) Size Number/Name Directly abuts(Yes/No) Size MP lair Pick acres Pick acres Pick acres Pick acres RIP Pick acres Pick acres tlllta Pick acres Pick acres Pick acres Pick acres Pick acres Pick acres IFF rill (iv) Summarize overall biological,chemical and physical functions being performed: era C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION P A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical.physical,and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations.a significant nexus exists if the tributary.in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands.has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical,physical Pit and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include.but are not limited to the volume,duration.and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW,and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to detennine significant nexus based solely OP on any specific threshold of distance(e.g.between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the Ilk TNW). Similarly,the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Op Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance lib and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: (! • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs,or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? Mk • Does the tributary.in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any),provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species,such as feeding,nesting,spawning,or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary,in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? RP • Does the tributary,in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any),have other relationships to the physical, chemical,or biological integrity of the TNW? ire Note:the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: op 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into � TNAVs. Evplain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below. based on the tributary itself,then go to Section IILD tt In the Number/Name column,add the number and/or name that you have given the wetland being referred to in the table.Example.you are referring to a wvetland on your wetland delineation map number h•that you call wetland No.3 on a reach you refer to as Puwh Creek. For this wetland you would add to the table:n the NumN-rAc!me column.Wnt thin like the fuilewving:Nis-ra:4`titate•Cl:.._�tr►F ;,{3_. r;,:ra,a:•..:h_ : .:, . :;0 ud080207 W41) %a*. �: ;'t>.. 5 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent.yet lands,where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Erploin findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below. based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands,then go to Section IILD: 3 Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Eiplain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below,based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands,then go to Section IILD: D DETERMINATIONS OF.IURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS.THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ 1. TIMs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: ❑ TNWs: linear feet width(R), and/or acres. ❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. ❑ 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional.Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: ❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow"seasonally"(e.g.,typically three months each year)are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area(check all thnt app ) ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width(13). ❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s)of waters: ❑ 3. Non-RPWs9 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW.but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW,and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional.Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. �. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area(check all that npplr): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width(ft). ❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres. identify type(s)of waters: ❑ 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that now directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IH.D 2.above.Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow"seasonally. Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section IiI.D.2,above.Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. ❑ 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ' ❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW,but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they arc adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands.have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional.Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section II I.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. ❑ 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters,and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands.have a significant nexus with a'I'NW are jurisdictional.Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section I I I.C. 111116 Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. OR sk ❑ 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.10 Pill As a general rule,the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. ku ❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from"waters of the U.S.,"or ❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above(1-6),or ■ ❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce(see E below). L. ISOLATED INNTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE]WATERS. INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS,THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WII ICI I COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COi11MF.RCE,INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS(CHECKALL THATAPPL)-):" El which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. ttt� ❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. ❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. 1P ❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain: ❑ Other factors. Explain: Imo, Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: OR Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area(check all that app/T) ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width(ft). ❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s)of waters: ❑ Wetlands: acres. 1P F. NON-.JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS(CI IF.CK ALL TlIA'P APPLY): lb ❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area,these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of OP Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate(or foreign)commerce. rte ® Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in"SIl ANCC,"the review area would have been regulated based os Iely on the"Migratory Bird Rule"(MBR). The site topography does not provide sufficient slope to drain the small wetlands and there are no drainages which connect them to an RPW.They are in shallow depressions and 66 given maximum average rainfall for Dublin,CA[3'for Jan and Feb according to weather.com],there still would not be sufficient to allow flow to the drainage inlets which are over 50ft away over varied topography. P ❑ Waters do not meet the"Significant Nexus"standard,where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. E.iplain: ❑ Other:(explain.if not covered above): 1P Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area,+-here the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors(i.e..presence of migratory birds,presence of endangered species,use of water for irrigated agriculture),using best professional judgment(check all that appl),): ❑ Non-wetland waters(i.e.,rivers.streams): linear feet width(ft). ❑ Lal es/ponds: acres. ❑ Other non-wvetland waters: acres.List type of aquatic resource: ® Wetlands:0.008 acres. 10 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section II I.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 11 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category,Corp%Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA IIQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA a/rntarundum Regarding CJV4 Act Juriwdicdon Following Rapanos. ud080207 REV 7 �1► SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD(check all that apply-checked items shall be included in case file and.where checked and requested.appropriately reference sources below): ® Maps,plans,plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:LSA,Figure 2,2012. ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Chip Bouril,LSA,2013 ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ® Data sheets prepared by the Corps:DPI,bP2,bP3 J.Yee 2013. «* ❑ Corps navigable waters'study: ❑ U.S.Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ® U.S.Geological Survey map(s).Cite scale&quad name:CA-bublin. ❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.Citation: ❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ❑ State/Local wetland inventor'map(s): ❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ® Photographs: ® Acrial(Name&Date):Google Maps 2013. ® Other(Name&Date):Site Photos 2013. ❑ Previous determination(s). File no.and date of response letter: ❑ Applicableisupporting case law: ❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature: ® Other information(please specify):Rainfall Data for Dublin,CA: www.weather.com/weather/wxclimcitology/monthly/graph/94568. B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: .x g ud086207 WD Cs( OF DU��,2 19 X82 STAFF REPORT %z PLANNING COMMISSION FO DATE: November 12, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Prepared By: Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to add a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family; 2) Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R-2 (Two-Family), R-M (Multi-Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and 3) Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses. The Planning Commission will review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Submitted By u keviewed By Senior Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: File ITEM NO.: • Page 1 of 8 DESCRIPTION: Background At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2) require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. On July 10, 2012, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received input from a local developer who expressed concerns regarding the proposed multi-family accessory storage requirement (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission weighed the developer's concerns and recommended City Council approval of the Amendments with modifications. Following the Planning Commission meeting, two additional local developers expressed concerns over the increased parking requirements for condominiums and the inability to use tandem parking as required parking (Attachment 4). One of the concerns expressed was that the proposed changes to the parking ordinance would limit the developers' ability to construct for-sale residential projects on in-fill sites as well as limit their ability to achieve residential densities greater than 15-18 dwelling units per acre on in-fill sites. As a result, fewer units would be constructed, thereby lowering land values and limiting opportunities for first-time homebuyers. Another concern expressed was that the increase in required parking is contrary to Senate Bill 375 and parking trends in surrounding jurisdictions. The City of Livermore was cited as requiring 1 guest parking space for every 4 units in contrast to Dublin's proposed 1 guest parking space per unit. The developers also expressed concerns over eliminating tandem parking especially for smaller, 1- bedroom units. They believe that maintaining flexibility with the use of tandem parking on in-fill sites could produce affordable by-design for-sale housing for first-time homebuyers. Ultimately, the developers foresee the changes to the parking regulations as inhibiting the development of for-sale housing on in-fill sites and facilitating the development of higher density rental housing. As a result, these developers felt that the proposed changes to the parking regulations would result in unintended consequences that should be further evaluated. On November 20, 2012 the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems to assist Staff in preparing an economic impact analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The findings of the economic impact analysis were presented to the City Council on September 3, 2013 (Attachments 5 and 6). The City Council directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums by requiring 1 guest parking space per unit for condominium projects; 2) require a minimum of 200 cubic feet of personal storage for attached residential units with private enclosed garages; and 3) restrict the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements except in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. 2of8 The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed amendments and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 7) recommending City Council adoption of the proposed amendments (Attachment 7, Exhibit A). Each of the proposed amendments is described in further detail below and can be found in Attachment 8. ANALYSIS: Apartment and Condominium Parking Standards Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) sets forth the minimum parking requirements by Use Type. Apartments and Condominiums currently have the following parking requirements: Table 1. Section 8.76.0803 (Residential Use Types) RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Residences Apartments Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. 2+ Bedrooms 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. Condominiums Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 2+ Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) Guest Parking Projects with 10 or more dwellings shall provide one additional guest parking space for every 2 dwelling units which shall be marked as a guest parking space. The guest parking requirement for apartments is one parking space per unit; for condominiums, the guest parking requirement is one parking space for every two units resulting in less guest parking for condominium projects than for apartment projects. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment combines the parking requirement for studio and 1 bedroom units into one category since the number of parking spaces required is the same for both. The proposed Amendment also creates a consistent guest parking requirement among both apartments and condominiums as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethr^„^" and the new text shown in underline): 3 of 8 Table 2. Proposed Amendment to Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Types) RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Condominiums Studio and 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 quest parking space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest parking space 2 or more Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 quest parking space per dwelling which shall be marked as a quest parking space Studio 'I GGyeFed or gaga ed nor dwelling plus guest parking (coo mow) I BedrGem 1 Govered er garaged peF dwelling plus guest paking (s belew) 2+ Bedreems 2 Govered or gaFaged peF dwelling plus guest parking (s G e6t PaFkiRg­ PrejeGtS with 10 or more dwellings 6hall pFevide one additional guest parking spaGe fer every 2 dwel'iRg unit6 whiGh shall be marked as a guest narking sp Personal Storage for Attached Residential Units While some existing multi-family residential developments include personal storage areas for residents (commonly provided in closets on patios and balconies), the Zoning Ordinance does not require that personal storage areas be provided, thus leaving it to the discretion of the developer whether to include this amenity in a multi-family project. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of personal storage be provided per unit for all new multi-family developments in the R-2 (Two Family Residential) and R-M (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning Districts and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts as well as the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) is proposed to be amended as follows (with the deleted text shown in e+rikethFo uirh and the new text shown in underline): 4of8 Table 3. Proposed Amendments to Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential Development Reg ulations) STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M LOT AREA Interior lot 100 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Corner lot 100 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. LOT SQUARE NA 4,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. and larger FOOTAGE PER DU larger as consistent larger as consistent as consistent with with General Plan with General Plan. General Plan LOT WIDTH & FRONTAGE Interior lot 300 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet Corner lot 300 feet 60 feet 90 feet 60 feet LOT DEPTH NA 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet RESIDENTIAL USE 1 du. 1 Second Unit 1 du 1 Second Unit 2 du's 1 du per full 750 sq. (maximum per lot) ft. (and larger as consistent with General Plan) SETBACKS Front 50 feet 20 ft. avg. 18 ft 20 ft. avg. 18 ft. 20 ft. minimum to garage minimum (1) Side 30 feet (2) 10 feet 10 feet (3) Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet (1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft.from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size. (2) Side Yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet. (3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R-M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side. STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M DISTANCE B ETWEEN 100 feet 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet RESIDENCES MAXIMUM LOT NA 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, COVERAGE 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories COMMON USEABLE NA NA NA 30 % of net site area OUTDOOR SPACE ACCESSORY STORAGE- NA NA 200 cubic feet 200 cubic feet MULTI-FAMILY(1) minimum per unit minimum per unit HEIGHT LIMITS (2) (2) (2) (3) (1) Multi family accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable PD(Planned Development)Zoning Districts and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District See also Chapter 8.08(Definitions). (2) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories. (3) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du.and lot coverage does not exceed 35%. A minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage per unit is proposed for the storage of personal effects. 200 cubic feet consists of a space that is 5'x5'x8' (in any configuration of length, width and height). While none of the surrounding Tri-Valley cities (Livermore, Pleasanton or San Ramon) currently have a similar requirement, a number of cities throughout California do have such a requirement. Table 4 below summarizes a survey of cities that was conducted 5 of 8 through the League of California Cities Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED) Listserv: Table 4. Multi-Fa illy Accessory Storage Requirements Survey CITY STANDARD Square Feet Cubic Feet Surface Area Volume Sierra Madre 150 square feet/unit 30-inch min. dimension Lemoore 32 square feet/unit Livingston 30 square feet/unit Paso Robles 250 cubic feet/unit Dana Point 250 cubic feet/unit Lawndale 200 cubic feet/unit San Dimas 150 cubic feet/unit Fontana 125 cubic feet/unit San Gabriel 90 cubic feet/unit Glendale 90 cubic feet/unit (new construction) 60 cubic feet/unit (condo conversion 3-foot min. dimension 24 square feet min. surface area In addition to adding a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R-2, R-M and comparable PD Zoning Districts and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family is proposed to be added to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) as follows: Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects. Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage-Multi-Family Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space. Tandem Parking The Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the use of tandem parking within single-family dwelling unit attached garages. The Tandem Parking regulation (Section 8.76.0601) reads as follows: L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off-street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. Tandem parking is permitted within single-family dwelling unit attached garages. This may be accomplished by the use of tandem, wedge or other techniques approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. 6of8 The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments would more clearly distinguish between the use of tandem parking for commercial/industrial uses and the use of tandem parking for residential uses. The Amendment would further prohibit the use of tandem parking as required parking in residential projects except within the Downtown Dublin Zoning District where up to 25% of the required parking in a multi-family project could be tandem parking with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the standard Conditional Use Permit findings and three additional findings would need to be made. The proposed Amendments would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethrough and the new text shown in underline): L. Tandem Parking. 1. Commercial and Industrial Uses. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off- street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. Tanden; paFking is permitted within single farn"y dwelling URit attaGhed garages. This the Zoning Administra}^r The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. 2. Residential Uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. The Planning Commission may approve an off-street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing up to 25% of the required parking as tandem (front to back) parking for multi-family residential uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District if all of the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made and the following additional findings: a. The allowance of tandem parking will not be detrimental to the project or surrounding properties. b. There are adequate provisions for dedicated personal storage that exceed minimum requirements for accessory storage in multi-family residential projects. c. Alternative modes of transportation are available in close proximity to the proiect effectively reducing dependency on the automobile as the primary mode of travel. 3. Residential Uses outside of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Tandem (front to back) parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within a sinqle-family dwelling unit attached garage or a multi-family dwelling unit attached garage. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include policies that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi-family housing and the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on-going enjoyment of residential properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations. 7 of 8 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on the City's website. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 2012, without attachments. 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2012. 4. Letters from Kevin Fryer and Pat Costanzo regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. 5. City Council Staff Report dated September 3, 2013, without attachments. 6. Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc and Joe DeCredico Studio dated June 4, 2013. 7. Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations), with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 8. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments in strikethrough/underline format. 8of8 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File #570-20 DATE: February 7, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager a. r' SUBJECT: Area G Parking Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will receive information on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and/or provide Staff with direction on whether or not to research steps that could be taken to minimize parking challenges in Area G and in future unentitled higher density residential neighborhoods. Submitted By Reviewed By Planning Manager Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: At the City Council meeting on October 18, 2011, Councilmember Biddle requested that an item be placed on a future City Council Agenda to discuss the status of the parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (see Attachment 1). Area G, commonly referred to as "Dublin Ranch Villages," is bounded by Central Parkway to the North, Dublin Boulevard to the South, Keegan Street to the East and Brannigan Street to the West. The overall area is comprised of 1,396 approved and constructed medium-high and high density for sale condominiums (the Villas, the Cottages, the Courtyards and the Terraces), a 5 acre Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons), a 2 acre Neighborhood Square (Devaney Square), and a 23 acre neighborhood retail commercial property (commonly referred to as "The Promenade") bisects the area and is as yet undeveloped. Three of the projects are constructed and completely occupied and the fourth neighborhood (the Terraces) is still selling. Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 7.1 ATTACHMENT 1 fie` y% The Cottages � The Courtyards Devaney Square _ Bray Commons Dz '" IF7 The Villas The Promenade The Terraces The four residential projects located within Area G comply and exceed the parking requirements that are established in the City of Dublin Zoning Code (Section 8.76.080). The required parking for condominiums is shown below. Condominiums: - 1 Bedroom Units: One (1) covered or garage space per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per unit - 2+ Bedrooms: Two (2) covered or garage spaces per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per unit The Cottages and The Villas Two neighborhoods comprise the westerly half of Area G: "The Cottages" is designated as a Medium-High Density development and is comprised of 200 side-by-side and stacked flat condominium units. "The Villas" is designated as a High Density development and is comprised of 289 stacked flat and side-by-side condominium units. The following table illustrates the required and actual number of parking spaces for these two projects. Page 2 of 8 Table 1: "The Cottages" and "The Villas" The,-C©tta" @ 200 Units Garage Required Provided Excess Parking One bedroom units (23 units @ 1 space/unit) 23 23 0 Two bedroom+ units 177 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 354 354* 0 Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 1 100 108** +8 The nits Garage Required Provided Excess Parking . One bedroom units (112 units @ 1 space/unit) 112 112 0 Two bedroom+ units (177 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 354 354 0 Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 145 1 161** +16 '103 tandem garages=206 parking spaces(described below) "There are an additional 22 on-street parking spaces along the Chancery and Finnian frontages of Devaney Square. "The Cottages" and "The Villas" comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance with respect to parking and, due to restriping of Brannigan Street before occupancies, excess guest parking was achieved adjacent to DeVaney Square. Tandem Parking- There are no tandem garage parking spaces in "The Villas." However, "The Cottages" have 103 garages in a tandem configuration (total of 206 parking spaces allowing for 85 two bedroom units and 18 one bedroom units). The Courtyards and The Terraces Two neighborhoods comprise the easterly half of Area G- "The Courtyards" is designated as a Medium-High Density development and is comprised of 281 side-by-side and stacked townhome condominium units. "The Terraces" is designated as a High Density development and is comprised of 626 stacked flat podium condominium units. Table 2: "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces" The Cc ,01 ?ardsy 281 aUnits ;. Garage Required Provided Excess Parking One bedroom units 0 0 0 Two bedroom+ units (281 units@ 2 spaces/unit) 562 562* 0 Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 1 141 1 146 1 +5 Th+e Terraces 626 Units Garage Required7 Provided Excess Parking Page 3 of 8 One bedroom units 92 units @ 1 space/unit) 92 92 0 Two bedroom+ units (534 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 1068 1068** 0 Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 313 1 330*** 1 +17 'The Couryards:258 tandem garages =516 parking spaces "The Terraces. 137 tandem parking spaces in parking structure —There are an additional 71 on-street parking spaces along the Maguire and Finnian frontages of Bray Common. There is an excess of 22 guest parking stalls for "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces" The provision of guest parking on the east half of Area G did not take into account any parking adjacent to the Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons). The frontage on Maguire, Finnian and Keegan yields approximately 71 additional on-street parking stalls. Currently these uncounted stalls are being utilized by residents for overnight and guest parking. It should be noted that there would be a total of 93 additional parking spaces (71 on-street spaces, an additional 5 spaces on "the Courtyards, and 17 spaces on "The Terraces.") beyond those that are required by the Ordinance for the east half of Area G. Tandem Parking: "The Courtyards" have a total of 258 tandem garages accommodating 516 garage parking spaces. "The Terraces" has a total of 137 tandem parking spaces within the parking garage. The Homeowners Association, managed by Massingham Associates, continues to encourage the residents to park both their cars in the designated garage and keep the garages free from storage (see Attachment 2). The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) state "that you must keep your garage clear enough to park the number of vehicles in it that it was designed to hold." Contributing Issues to Parking Concerns While there is a myriad of factors that could contribute to the parking issues in Area G, Staff feels that there are three primary contributing issues that appear to affect the parking conditions in Area G. Tandem Parking: The City of Dublin Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking in multi-family projects. Additionally, the Planning Commission, in review of the projects acknowledged the tandem parking design solutions in the graphics provided for review. In many instances the residents of Area G are using their tandem garages to park two cars however, due to the inconvenience of having to move one car to get to the other, some residents choose to find parking on-street or within private parking courts. Over time, the unused second car space becomes an area for storage. Multiple Cars: Most residents have only one or two cars which can be adequately parked in their garages; however, some residents have a third car, a business truck or recreational vehicle which can displace parking. When this happens, guest parking is used to accommodate the additional vehicles. Page 4 of 8 One-Bedroom Units: In accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.080) Parking Requirements, one-bedroom condominium units (of which we have 227, including 23 in the Cottages, and 112 in the Villas, and 92 in the Terraces) are only required to have one parking stall and 0.5 guest stalls per unit. It is entirely possible that there are two people, with 2 cars living in these one bedroom units. The second car is then relegated to the guest parking stalls located on the private streets, public streets or one of the guest stalls provided on site in designated parking courts. By contrast, the Zoning Ordinance requirements for apartment parking is one covered or garage stall for each unit regardless of bedroom count and one unreserved guest parking stall for each unit resulting in more required spaces per one bedroom unit and less required spaces per two bedroom unit than required for condominiums. It is actually conceivable that an apartment project can provide more parking than a condominium project. Comparative Projects California Highlands: For comparison, Staff reviewed California Highlands, a 246 unit condominium project which was developed over 10 years ago and is located near the Dublin Boulevard extension to Schaefer Ranch. The Planned Development Zoning requirement is to provide 15% of the overall parking for guest parking, resulting in one guest parking stall for approximately each 8 units. However, the guest parking was provided at a ratio of one guest parking stall for each 3 condominium units, thus exceeding the minimum parking requirement as noted in Table 3 below. No known guest parking issues have been raised at California Highlands. As noted above, the ratio in Area G slightly exceeds 1 guest parking stall for every 2 condominium units. Table 3: California Highlands Calfornia Hi h.lands` 46 Units LL m Required Provided Excess Parking One and two bedroom units (246 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 492 492 0 Guest Parkin 246 x 15% 1 37 1 84 1 +47 Sorrento West: Sorrento west is comprised of 5 neighborhoods. Neighborhood 1 is a traditional single-family detached product with a standard 2 car garage. Guest parking is on public and private streets and is provided at the required ratio of 1 guest space for each residential unit. This product does not compare with a product in Area G. The following table illustrates the required and actual number of parking spaces for the remaining 4 neighborhoods in Sorrento West. Table 4: Sorrento West x. Garage Required Provided Excess Parkin Two bedroom+ units (117 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 234 234* 0 Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 59 79 +20 *18 tandem garages =36 parking spaces Flf'G't1Ze �6� Ut11tS Page 5 of 8 Garage Required Provided Excess Parkin Two bedroom+ units (66 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 132 165 +33* Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 33 42 +9 *An extra 3rd car tandem space provided on 33 units Siena 64 Units) Garage Required Provided Excess Parkin Two bedroom+ units 64 units @ 2 spaces/unit) 128 192 +64* Guest Parkin 0.5 space/unit 32 79 +47 *An extra 2-car garage space (tandem 4-car)provided on 32 units Amalfi 96 Units Garage Required Provided Excess Parking Two bedroom+ units (96 units 2 spaces/unit) 192 192 0 Guest Parking 0.5 space/unit 1 48 1 48 1 0 Excess guest parking in Sorrento West is 78 stalls; however, Sorrento West is developed at a Medium Density land use where the neighborhoods in Area G were developed at a more urban Medium-High and High Density Land use. Sorrento West requires a parking permit to parking in the guest parking spaces overnight. Additionally the additional 3 and 4 car garage spaces in the attached Firenze and Siena product provide uncounted excess resident parking which provides additional parking for homeowners with extra personal vehicles. Currently, the City has not received concerns regarding parking in Sorrento West. The Milano and Amalfi projects are complete but not completely sold and the Firenze and Siena neighborhoods are almost complete with unsold units. Trevi still has two buildings to construct. The CC&R's for Sorrento West have identical language as Area G regarding parking the number of vehicles in the garage and not allowing storage to obstruct vehicle parking. Massingham Associates (the same property manager as Area G) has been issuing Community Bulletins, in a similar manner to Area G, stating these requirements. Potential Options for Area G: The following is a discussion of potential options for the homeowner's association and/or the City to pursue in order to address the parking concerns within Area G. Potential Action by the Homeowner's Association 1. Increase the amount of guest parking. This option would require the HOA to identify locations where it is practical to add additional on-site parking, prepare improvement plans and process an amendment to the existing Site Development Review permit. However, there are limited opportunities to create additional parking spaces because the Page 6 of 8 development is at a relatively high density and the improvements have already been constructed. 2. Require a parking permit for all vehicles that are parked overnight in the on-site guest parking spaces. This would force the residents to park their vehicles in their garages, leaving the guest spaces open to visitors. This would require an amendment to the CC&Rs by vote of the property owners. It would also require enforcement by the HOA, which could include citation or towing of vehicles. However, this could result in additional vehicles parked off-site on public streets. 3. Establish a protocol that residents cannot park company owned vehicles anywhere in Area G. Many companies find it cheaper to have employees drive their company vehicle to and from work rather than provide space to leave company vehicles. This would require a vote of the owners to amend the CC&Rs. The City is limited in its ability to require action by the property owners and their HOA. However, Staff could work with the HOA to try and implement measures as directed by the City Council. Potential Action by the City 1. Enforce the rule prohibiting vehicles to be parked in the public right-of-way for more than 72 hours. This would force the residents to use their garage spaces for their vehicles. As a result, this option would help make street parking available for guests and help to ensure that street parking is not used for long vehicle storage. This would require increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this requirement. However, this option would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G. 2. Prohibit overnight parking on surrounding streets. This would force the residents to use their garage spaces for their vehicles. This would also help make street parking unattractive to residents thus freeing up spaces for guest parking. This option would require increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this requirement. This would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G. 3. Staff could meet with Massingham Associates, the management company for the various homeowner's associations, to discuss the parking issue and methods to address the concerns using existing rules. Staff could evaluate the viability of enforcing these measures as directed by the City Council. In which case, Staff would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of these measures and the fiscal impacts. Potential Options for City-Wide consideration: 1. Establish consistency in the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for condominiums and apartments related to amount of parking provided for one bedroom units and required guest parking. 2. Evaluate a requirement to provide a minimum square foot area for personal storage for all attached products. 3. Evaluate the effectiveness of tandem parking stalls and consider policy alternatives to restrict the amount of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements, or prohibit the use of tandem parking for compliance with required garage parking (additional stalls could be allowed as tandem as long as the required stalls are not). Page 7 of 8 Staff could further evaluate these options as directed by the City Council. In which case, Staff would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of these measures and the fiscal impacts. Conclusions Some of the residents of Area G have raised concerns regarding the perceived lack of guest parking within their neighborhoods. The parking provided at the Villages (Area G) is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Area G has more guest parking than a similar project, the California Highlands. There may be reasons beyond the City's regulations for these problems, such as the displacement of the automobile by storage, the inconvenience of tandem parking and households with multiple cars which were detailed above. Without the ability to conduct studies which include going on to private property, it would be difficult to ascertain these reasons. However, the City Council could direct Staff to analyze alternatives to address these issues with future development projects, as outlined in this Staff Report. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: This is a public meeting item. Although we are not required to notice public meetings, the City Council has previously provided staff with direction to notify the affected neighbors on any issues relative to Area G. In an attempt to implement the City Council's direction, Staff provided a notice of this Public Meeting to Massingham and Associates who are the property managers for all of the Homeowner's Associations in Area G and Sorrento West. Massingham Associates posted the Public Meeting Notice at each of the mail kiosks in each of the projects they manage the week of January 23, 2012, which is the legal posting place for messages in each of the neighborhoods. Additionally the notice was placed in the Board Members' meeting packets and announced at the Homeowner's meetings over the last three weeks. The notice was also published on the HOA web site for each neighborhood. Staff surveyed all of the posting locations on January 31, 2012 and the notices were all clearly visible with the exception of The Terraces. The Notice had not been posted at The Terraces. As a result, the HOA immediately posted the notice at The Terraces. Additionally, a Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from October 18, 2011 City Council meeting 2. Massingham notices distributed to the Cottage and Villas Residents Page 8 of 8 Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report 7:25:51 PM 8.2 (920-10) Director of Parks and Community Service Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that In November 2008, the City Council adopted the Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan. Staff would present an annual report on the strategic objectives accomplished during Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This item was first agendized for the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting. By consensus, the City Council moved this item to the October 18, 2011 City Council meeting Mayor Sbranti asked when the connection would be open from the East Bay Regional Park District's (EBRPD) Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon Creek Trail. Ms. Lowart stated she would follow up on whether any event was planned by EBRPD for the opening of the connection between its Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon Creek Trail. The City Council commented on the growth of the Parks and Community Services' activities. It was vibrant and an asset to the community. The City Council received the report. OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 7:38:38 PM Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had nothing to report. Cm. Biddle stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, an Alameda County Transportation Commission meeting, an Alameda County Housing Authority meeting and the School of Imagination ribbon cutting. Vm. Hart stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School of Imagination ribbon cutting. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING ���; OCTOBER 18, 2011 \ Cm. Swalwell stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, and the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting. Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School of Imagination ribbon cutting. He stated he attended the City of Dublin — Dublin San Ramon Services District Liaison Committee meeting, the Alameda County Mayor's Conference, and the Residential Realtors Roundtable. He asked Dublin residents to participate in the Dublin Reads event. Cm. Biddle asked Staff to update the parking study done a few years ago regarding the Promenade development. Included should be what did the parking code mean. Also looking into how the parking was managed. What was permitted to park there? Was storage permitted? Were there assigned spaces? In terms of similar complexes, how did they manage their parking and what problems did they have. Also look at solutions how the management of complexes could manage their parking or what the City could do to help resolve the situation there; how much could the City do regarding parking issues versus the how much the management of the complexes could do. Ms. Pattillo asked if Cm. Biddle wanted it as an informational piece to the City Council. She knew something had been done several years ago and it was more of a cursory look at the parking situation as it related to the Promenade. Did he want Staff to look at each Homeowner's Association (HOA) as well? Cm. Biddle stated just those HOAs within Dublin with a similar type of housing as the Promenade. Did they have the same type of parking situational problems? City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could begin with a cursory look at was done with the Promenade. She confirmed that what Cm. Biddle was asking for was to update the study that had been done a few years back as an informational piece, and also understand if there were any comparisons within the City of Dublin as it related to density and types of housing and see if there were any parking issues. Was he also looking for how each HOA managed their parking? Cm. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what was their system. What were their parking rules? What was and was not permitted? City Manager Pattillo asked Cm. Biddle if he wanted to see what role the City had. Mr. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what could the City's role be in solving the parking issue, if any. Cm. Hildenbrand asked if he was asking if there was permitted parking. Cm. Biddle stated he wanted to know what the management of the complexes could do, as well as the City, in solving parking problems. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES g VOLUME 30 Of 10) REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011 19 V�'✓��� City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could build off what was done before, and how it was planned, including the previous parking study, HOA discussion, looking at the designation, and what role the City had as it related to parking. She might ask for clarification at a later date if needed. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57:39 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops. Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk. IV Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 30 �` oFOUBy REGULAR MEETING Ir_-� OCTOBER 18, 2011 THE COTTAGES AT DUBLIN RANCH OVVMRS ASSOCIATION c/o Massingham and Associates Management, Inc, 1855 Gateway-300,Concord,CA 94520 COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER JULY 2011 Board of Directors *Shop in Dublin! Dublin is a great city to live in. Steve Westerfield Check out the many services and programs available to Eric Lars Hanson citizens at: www.ci.dublin.ca.us And keep in mind that when Mary Warren you shop in Dublin that the sales tax you pay does help keep Paul Cardoso the city keep running all the better to serve us all! HTAstrov *Walk to Farmers Market! Every Thursday from 4PM to 8PM there is a cheat Farmers Market at Emerald Association Insurance Glenn Park which is located at Corner of Tassajara &Central Farmers Insurance Cc/ Greg Norris Agency Parkway and an easy walk from the community. 415389-8200 * Real Estate Values! The National Association of (Coverage for main buildings and common area) Realtors states that On average home prices double every 10 Unit owners are encouraged to obtain'H06 coverage to ...�•rss.. protect inside of unit and owner liability years'...,des despite reCCSns, epress!on,>, has been the e 100 years. Financial Information 5/31/2011 Must Park in Your Garage! The Rules an Operating Cash: $189,369.61 Regs and CC&Rs of the Community state that you must keep your garage clear enough to park the number of vehicles in it Proudly Managed b that it was designed to hold. You may not convert your garage Y g y to any other use like Play Room or Storage Room.. You MUST Massingham &Associates Management, Inc. park inside your garage. Street parking was meant for visitors 1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300 and guests and does have_a 72 hour maximum limit before Concord, CA 94520 will occur, *Pod �n ed Your Management Team that: *Pool and Spa hours are 7am to 10pm * No glass bottles Greg Thibodeaux- Manager are allowed *You may bring 2 guests per owner(no organized Veronica Johnson- Community Assistant pool parties are allowed) *Please be mindful of noise levels, as Phone: 925-405-4728 it does travel to adjoining homes. If you see trespassers, Email: Veronica LC�Massingham.com please call the police. *All Pool Rules Are Posted at Pool- please read. Dublin Police Dispatch: *Watch for Solicitors! Recently there have been Report suspicious activity: 925-462-1212 reports of'rude and questionable'solicitors trying to sell in (They WANT You to Call! You May Remain Anonymous.) the community. The Dublin Police Department request that we call them on their non-emergency line of 925- 462-1212 to report any solicitors in the community. The Police would like The next board meeting will be held: to check out these people to make sure they are legitimate. August 4"' 2010 Dublin requires that each solicitor carry a permit and ID card. 6:30 pm in Community Room There are some unsavory characters out there, so best to have ***Community information and new the police check them out! notices can always be seen at the bulletin *Dog Poop! Yes, unfortunately we have a problem with board by the Pool*** this! Residents are reminded that dogs must always be on a leash, and always picked-up after. Thank You THE COT rAOES AT DUBLIN RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION c/o Massingham and Associates Management, Inc,4085 Nelson Avenue, Suite A, Concord,CA 94520 COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER MARCH 2011 Board of Directors Steve Westerfield Eric Lars Hanson Residents Must Park Inside Own Garage! Mary Warren residents, owners and tenants alike,are reminded that the Paul Cardoso CC for the community mandate that you park inside your HT Astrov garage the number of vehicles it was designed for. Garages Association Insurance may not be converted to any other use like game rooms and storage rooms. If you do not park in your garage,you may not Gregg Norris Insurance Co. park inside the community where slots are meant for guests 415-389-8200 and visitors;you must instead park out on Finnian, Chanery, Brannigan and Central Parkway.Those violating parking rules Financial Information 12/31/2010 side the community will be subject to towing. Operating Cash: $112,153.02 Proudly Managed by -'' Your New Board of Directors Massingham &Associates Management, Inc. Up for election this year were 3 board positions, with 2 of the 1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300 incumbents wishing to re-run. An additional 2 homeowners Concord, CA 94520 came forward and volunteered to run for the board, making 4 candidates vying for the 3 positions. Election ballots were Your Management Team being prepared to be mailed to all owners ahead of the April Greg Thibodeaux- Manager meeting, when in February director Allen Deering announced Veronica Lewis- Community Assistant a surprise sale of his home and news that he would resign Phone: 925-405-4728 from the board. Thus we ended up with 3 applicants for the 3 Email: Veronica LO)Massi ng ham.com open positions.An election with the related mailing costs was then not needed.At the April meeting it will be established Dublin Police Dispatch: your board of Directors for 2011 are Mary Warren, Eric Lars Report suspicious activity: 925-462-1212 Hanson, Steve Westerfield, Paul Cardoso, and HT Astrov. (They WANT You to Call! You May Stay Anonymous.) M` The next board meeting will be held: Massinghanl Offices Have Moved April 2011 After 5 years at our office located at 4085 Nelson Ave,Suite A (exact date and time to follow) in Concord, Massingham's Concord Branch relocated on ***Community information and new February 18,2011! Our new office is located less than 5 miles notices can always be seen at the bulletin from our old location. Our phone and fax numbers will remain board by the Pool*** unchanged for your convenience. ( Please see left column) For more than 25 years Massingham &Associates has provided homeowners and Boards with the guidance and support needed to conduct HOA business. The new office space will provide a variety of efficiencies and offer added space for expansion of staff to service our clients. The Cotta es t�. .i. k" -4Y , Go Massingham&Associates Management Co 4085 Nelson Avenue Suite'A' Concord California 94520 Phone:925-005-0900 Fax:925-405-4747 .Important garage Use and Parking Notice TO: All Cottages Residents FROM: Cottages Board of Directors/ Massingham Management RE: Parking Policy of the Community Due to violations and many complaints, it is necessary to strongly reiterate the CC&R rules regarding use of visitor parking in the Cottages community and the requirements to park in your garage. While a compliance campaign was undertaken 2 years ago, due to increasing abuses it is again time to refresh remind everyone of the requirements and penalties: • You must park inside your garage. Your garage must be kept clear enough to park the intended number of vehicles it was designed to hold. • You cannot just use your garage as a storage unit, or other use that prohibits your cars from being parked inside. (CC&R sec 4.9) • If you do not park inside your garage, you may not park inside the Community. You must park on Finnian, Brannigan, Central Parkway or Chancery Way. • Handicap Parking is for Handicap use only. Others will be ticked and fined by the Police $271 • You may Never park across your garage door or in red-zones. These are subject to immediate towing/ fine • Inside the Community is reserved for Visitors and Guest and Handicap Parking. Street Parking is Limited to 72 hours Towing will result for non-compliance. • Those residents who do not use their garage will be subject to monetary fines per the Fine Policy of the Community up to $150 per event. We kindly ask all owners and residents to assure compliance with the community's CC&Rs and rules to make the community a more livable place, and to void violation status/ fines. THANK YOU> Dublin Ranch Villages Parking Violation Warning Notice In accordance with the Association's parking polity,this vehicle is in violation of the parking policy is being ticketed by a member of the Parking Committee, Board Member or Mana e ; U Residents SHALL not,use their garage for any purpose that will revert them from kin = P par _. g their vehicles within their garage. Vehicles shall only park along curbs designated for parking if they have used the full parking capacity of their garage.,Using the garage area for any other purpose does not grant non-garaged parking. © A vehicle is subject to being towed automatically without notice for any of the following b reasons: • Is parked along a red curb, Is parked in front of any garage, Is parked in a non-designated parking space, • Is parked in a way that extends pasta parking area or space, Is parked in any way that interferes with the flow of traffic Is parked in a way that prevents the egress or ingress of any other vehicle. Street parking is limited to no longer than 72 hours. Vehicles parked longer are subject to being towed. w C.06 0� CJ ,cam � G dam'e-,� '�w Cottages at Dublin Ranch Garage Parking Requirement To: All Cottages Residents From: Your board of Directors and Massingam & Associates Management Re: Requirement to Park in your Garage As we all know, parking in Cottages Community is tight! It seems everyone is upset about it...residents and visitors alike. You could say there are 3 main contributors to the problem: 1) The original plan assumed that each home would only have 2 cars, and the street parking could handle the occasional 3rd car. 2) It has become apparent that some households have 4 cars! 3) And while the CC&Rs require that every garage be used for parking vehicles and not for storage, it has come to light that many residents still have their garage filled with junk, and park their cars out on the street. Of the 3 items listed, only item # 3 regarding use of garages for parking and not storage can really be controlled . It is after all a community CC&R requirement. It is estimated that 20 to 40 parking places can be freed up of those people would clean out their garages and use them to park their vehicles, freeing up these spaces for visitors and guests, and those that really need them! Notice: Starting January 12th 2009, inspections will be made to assure that each Cottages garage is not full of storage or junk, or converted to any other use that would preclude parking vehicles inside. So make a New Year resolution to `organize that garage!' to be in compliance with the CC&Rs, help your community out, and to avoid a violation. Thank You! ***Keep in mind that parking in a fire line or across any garage door subjects you to immediate towing with a minimum charge of$300!*** J11 LA I oin tium Welcome New Residents ! We welcome you to your new home in the Dublin Ranch Community! We love this community and we work hard to keep it a good- looking, desirable place to live! - Often during the hectic move in period, individuals don't have time to read all the paperwork that came with the property, including all the rules and regulations. So below is a reminder of some of the most critical: o Trash/ Garbage *All Cans must be put back in your garage right after the Friday collection . date.....they cannot be left out for days at a time *The Garbage Company will not pick up junk just left next to you can: all items must be placed inside your can to be picked up *AVI allows every owner several free'junk hauls'a year, but you must call . them at 925-479-9545 to arrange it o Garages/Parking ' Your ajWUP_ML1�;T_tv- kent dgill;e0augh tn nark ggtjr=hides inside Never Park across your garage door! You will be bowed Street Parking is meant for visitors and guests with a 72 hour limit o Dogs Dogs must be on a leash at all times inside the community Please pick-up after your dog o Quiet Time/ Respect of Neighbors Remember that 1OPM on is quiet-time in the community Remember that loud voices on balconies and porches travels far Remember that even inside your home that loud base music, blasting TVs and surround-sound should be kept at minimal levels. o Pool & Spa *Pool and Spa area are open year-round, thought pool is only heated May- October. POOL AREA CLQSES AT 10:QQ_PM . NO GLASS or Alcohol is allowed.ln.the pool area. Those breaking the rules will loose their pool privileges for 30 days! If you are a renter, remember, that these are townhomes, NOT Apartments and You are subject to the rules! Thank You! The Villas at Dublin Ranch Villages Garage Parking Requirement To: All Villas Residents From: Your board of Directors and Massingham & Associates Management Re: Requirement to Park in your Garage As we all know, parking in Villas Community is tight! It seems everyone is upset about it...residents and visitors alike. You could say there are 3 main contributors to the problem: 1) The original plan assumed that each home would only have 2 cars, and the street parking could handle the occasional 3rd car. 2) It has become apparent that some households have 4 cars! 3) And while the CC&Rs require that every garage be used for parking vehicles and not for storage, it has come to light that many residents still have their garage filled with junk, and park their cars out on the street. Of the 3 items listed, only item # 3 regarding use of garages for parking and not storage can really be controlled . It is after all a community CC&R requirement. It is estimated that 20 to 40 parking places can be freed up of those people would clean out their garages and use them to park their vehicles, freeing up these spaces for visitors and guests, and those that really need them! Notice: Starting January 12th 2009, inspections will be made to assure that each Villas garage is not full of storage or junk, or converted to any other use that would preclude parking vehicles inside. So make a New Year resolution to 'organize that garage!' to be in compliance with the CC&Rs, help your community out, and to avoid a violation. Thank You! ***Keep in mind that parking in a fire lane or across any garage door subjects you to immediate towing with a minimum charge of$300!*** OF��Dil�2 �i�✓ 19 8 2 STAFF REPORT j PLANNING COMMISSION IF'OR��� DATE: July 10, 2012 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Prepared By: Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to add a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family; 2) Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R-2 (Two-Family), R-M (Multi-Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and, 3) Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses. The Planning Commission will review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Municipal Code. Submitted By R04ewed By Senior Planner Planning Manager COPIES TO: File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 7 GAPAM20121PLPA-2012-00028 Off-Street Parking&Loading ZOM07.10.12 PCSR Ch. 8.08, 636, 8.76 ZOA.doc ATTACHMENT 2 DESCRIPTION: At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2) require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and, 3) eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed amendments and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council adoption of the proposed amendments (Attachment 2, Exhibit A). Apartment and Condominium Parking Standards Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) sets forth the minimum parking requirements by Use Type. Apartments and Condominiums currently have the following parking requirements: Table 1. Section 8.76.080.8 Residential Use Types) RESIDENTIAL USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Residences Apartments Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. 2+ Bedrooms 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. Condominiums Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 2+ Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) Guest Parking Projects with 10 or more dwellings shall provide one additional guest parking space for every 2 dwelling units which shall be marked as a guest parking space. The guest parking requirement for apartments is one parking space per unit; for condominiums, the guest parking requirement is one parking space for every two units resulting in less guest parking for condominium projects than for apartment projects. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would create a consistent guest parking requirement among both apartments and condominiums as follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted): 2 of 7 Table 2. Proposed Amendment to Section 8.76.080.8 Residential Use Types) RESIDENTIAL USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Residences Apartments Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling fer unreseR�ed and guest parking. 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling fer unreserved and guest Varking. 2+ Bedrooms 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved quest parking space per dwelling for URreserved and guest ,aFking. Condominiums Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling see betew) 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per cl)A nc1(&ee--betew3 2+ Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling(ree-be4ew) Guest ng Personal Storage for Attached Residential Units While some existing multi-family residential developments include personal storage areas for residents (commonly provided in closets on patios and balconies), the Zoning Ordinance does not require that personal storage areas be provided thus leaving it to the discretion of the developer whether to include this amenity in a multi-family project. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 90 cubic feet of personal storage be provided per unit for all new multi-family developments in the R-2 (Two Family Residential) and R-M (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning Districts and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts. Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) is proposed to be amended as follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted): Table 3. Proposed Amendments to Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential Development Reg ulations STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M LOT AREA Interior lot 100 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Corner lot 100 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3 of 7 LOT SQUARE NA 4,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. and larger FOOTAGE PER DU larger as consistent larger as consistent as consistent with with General Plan with General Plan. General Plan LOT WIDTH & FRONTAGE Interior lot 300 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet Corner lot 300 feet 60 feet 90 feet 60 feet LOT DEPTH NA 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet RESIDENTIAL USE 1 du. 1 Second Unit 1 du 1 Second Unit 2 du's 1 du per full 750 sq. (maximum per lot) ft. (and larger as consistent with General Plan) SETBACKS Front 50 feet 20 ft. avg. 18 ft 20 ft. avg. 18 ft. 20 ft. minimum to garage minimum (1) Side 30 feet (2) 10 feet 10 feet (3) Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet (1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft. from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size. (2) Side Yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet (3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R-M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side. STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M DISTANCE B ETWEEN 100 feet 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet RESIDENCES MAXIMUM LOT NA 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, COVERAGE 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories COMMON USEABLE NA NA NA 30 % of net site area OUTDOOR SPACE ACCESSORY STORAGE- NA NA 90 cubic feet 90 cubic feet MULTI-FAMILY (1) minimum per unit minimum per unit HEIGHT LIMITS (2) (2) (2) (3) (1) Multi-family accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts See also Chapter 8.08 (Definitions). (2) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories. (3) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du. and lot coverage does not exceed 35%. Staff is proposing a minimum of 90 cubic feet of storage per Unit be provided for the storage of personal effects. 90 cubic feet consists of a space that is 3'x5'x6' (in any configuration of length, width and height). While none of the surrounding Tri-Valley cities (Livermore, Pleasanton or San Ramon) currently have a similar requirement, a number of cities throughout California do have such a requirement. Table 4 below summarizes a survey of cities that was conducted through the League of California Cities Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED) Listserv: 4of7 Table 4. Multi Family Accessory Storage Requirements Survey CITY I STANDARD Square Feet Cubic Feet Surface Area Volume Sierra Madre 150 square feet/unit 30-inch min. dimension Lemoore 32 square feet/unit Livingston 30 square feet/unit _ Paso Robles 250 cubic feet/unit Dana Point 250 cubic feet/unit Lawndale 200 cubic feet/unit San Dimas 150 cubic feet/unit Fontana 125 cubic feet/unit San Gabriel 90 cubic feet/unit Glendale 90 cubic feet/unit (new construction) 60 cubic feet/unit (condo conversion 3-foot min. dimension 24 s uare feet min. surface area In evaluating what might be an appropriate size requirement for accessory storage, Staff selected a size that was small enough that the accessory storage area could not be legally converted to a habitable room such as an office or bedroom. The minimum size for a habitable room is 70 square feet with a minimum width of 7-feet. In addition to adding a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R-2, R-M and comparable PD Zoning Districts, a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family is proposed to be added to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) as follows: Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects. Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage-Multi-Family Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space. Tandem Parking The Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the use of tandem parking within single-family dwelling unit attached garages. The Tandem Parking regulation (Section 8.76.0601) reads as follows: L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off-street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. Tandem parking is permitted within single-family dwelling unit attached garages. 5 of 7 This may be accomplished by the use of tandem, wedge or other techniques approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would separate the regulations pertaining to the use of tandem parking for commercial/industrial uses from residential uses and would limit the use of tandem parking in residential projects so that it could not be used for required parking. The proposed amendment would read as follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted): L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off-street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. Tandem parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within single-family dwelling unit attached garages or multi-family dwelling unit attached garages. Thi6 may be aGGOMplished by the use of tandern, wedge or other teGhRiques that an att8Rdant be on duty during normal business hours. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include policies that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi-family housing and the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on-going enjoyment of residential properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on the City's website. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. 6of7 ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012, without attachments. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 7of7 4.N 191 o 2i Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 6:58:57 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub and Brown; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Vice Chair Brown, on a vote of 3-0-1 (Cm. O'Keefe was absent from that meeting), the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLP -2012-00002 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub ask d if the fabric canopies on the south elevation will remain. Ms. Bascom answ ed that it will be removed. Cm. Schaub asked if y canopies will remain. Ms. Bascom answered t re are shade canopies throughout the site and one on the north side of the building will remain. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the ew part of the building will extend as far out as the canopies. Ms. Bascom answered that it will end approximately as far as the canopies, but the new entry portal is set off the building and then ies back in with the columns and the roof structure. Ms. Bascom pointed out on the site plan here the new entry portal will be located. She stated there is an existing driveway that will be re ved as part of the construction. =111�ni ing Connnfssion 'Jury 10,012 Wwgufdr"Wet.tgj 53 ATTACHMENT 3 Cm. Brown asked to clarify that the existing service check-in area is not changing. Ms. Bascom answered that is correct Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscaping plans were too small to see the details of the elevation on the south side. Ms. Bascom shared a full sized set of plans with the Planning Commission and explained the changes included in the application. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Roxanne Duchaney, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and explained the area Chair Wehrenberg was asking about. Cm. O'Keefe asked if installing turf instead of grass was more cost effective. Ms. Bascom stated it is not artificial grass but sod. Ms. Duchaney stated they looked at installing artificial grass but decided on sod and mentioned they received approval to install the landscaping so the lot would look better during construction. Cm. Brown asked if any of the signage would change. Ms. Duchaney stated the directional signs will remain the same. Ms. Bascom added that the wall signs will be re-utilized in other areas on the building. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings and had no issues with the project. Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings and felt it is a great update to the building. Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings and felt the project would enhance their business opportunities. Cm. O'Keefe stated he can make the findings and was in support of the project. He suggested removing the other canopy as well. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN (T&nnirig('OMMISsion 7uiy T0,2011 tGgufarsa� .��� g 54 BUILDING, MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7120 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 8.3 PLPA-2012-00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub wanted to make sure the proposed size of the storage area is 3 ft X 5ft X 6ft, Ms. Delgado responded yes; the proposal is 90 cubic feet which is approximately the size of a bathtub with a height of 6 feet for personal storage. Cm. Schaub felt that most garages have wasted space above the cars, He stated there are a lot of people that have added racks in the garage that fit directly above the cars. He asked if the developer installed those types of racks, would that suffice. Ms. Delgado answered yes; the size was only meant to be an example but can be in any configuration that equals 90 cubic feet. Cm. Schaub asked if installing the rack would meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Ms. Delgado answered yes. Cm. Schaub felt that would only address those units that had private parking. He felt in podium parking the developer would need to have the ability to install them and thought that was possible. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has discussed this issue with a developer in the past. Cm. Schaub agreed and felt the rack could be an option. Cm. Brown felt the racks are a good idea and recently installed two similar racks in his own home. He recommended adding ceiling storage as an example to include in the definition. Ms. Delgado responded the definition currently allows for the storage to be within an attached or detached individual garage. She stated that whether the storage is provided on the ground or overhead, both would be acceptable options as long as they meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could eliminate tandem parking. He felt that the Commission is trying to get people to park in their garage properly and allow for guest parking on the street. Mr. Baker stated that this amendment would eliminate tandem parking as part of the required parking. He stated that, in some of the developments with side-by-side garages, the developer provides a third tandem space as extra parking. This amendment would allow developers to continue providing bonus parking. If tandem parking was eliminated completely, the bonus parking would not be allowed. (Planning Commission July 10,2012 `RcburarJfeetirtg 61 i Cm. Schaub felt the bonus parking did not have to be called tandem parking. Mr. Baker responded that the way the amendment is written, whatever the bonus parking is called, it still allows the bonus parking but it would not allow tandem parking as part of the required parking. Cm. Brown stated he is in support of eliminating tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. He asked if a study had been done that showed whether a developer would not continue with a project if they were not allowed to include tandem parking as part of the required parking. He asked if eliminating tandem parking would increase their development costs. Cm. Schaub felt it would only take 2 or 3 units out of a project. Cm. Brown asked if there has ever been an objection by a developer. Mr. Baker answered he was not aware of any developer that had backed out of a project over tandem parking. He stated that the format of parking impacts the footprint of buildings. He stated the Jordan project was an example where there was a mix of side-by-side and tandem parking. Eliminating the tandem parking would require some changes to the design which could impact the units and the site plan. Cm. Schaub felt, if the Commission had eliminated the tandem parking from the Jordan project, the developer could have moved two of the buildings and only lost two units. Chair Wehrenberg felt they have eliminated tandem parking because after the City Council review of the Jordan project they did not want to see tandem parking again. Cm. Schaub felt that there were some projects with tandem parking that were approved some time ago but have not yet been built. He asked if there are any projects left in that category. Mr. Baker answered there are a few. Cm. Brown asked Ms. Delgado to explain the elimination of the paragraph regarding guest parking in the chart in the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado responded that the row in the parking table Cm. Brown is referring to is the guest parking requirement for condominiums that requires 1 guest parking space for every two units. Staff is proposing to replace that with 1 guest parking space per unit and the language has been added to each row based on bedroom size. Cm. Schaub asked if the result of the change is more parking. Ms. Delgado answered yes. It would increase the condominium parking requirement to match the requirement for apartments. She stated the apartment standards will remain the same. Cm. Schaub asked how condominiums are treated when a condo map is approved but the building is operated as apartments. i ti3r�rnrcin$('nm.misi�r, JuCy 10,2012 , v�:�jcrlr�r'A4reitrty 62 Mr. Baker answered if there is a condo map on the project then they are technically condominiums. The proposed parking requirements for condominiums and apartments are the same except for the 2-bedroom condo which has 1 additional space. Cm. Schaub felt 90 cubic feet of storage space is too small. He proposed that it be at least 200 cubic feet especially if the units will be in garages. Chair Wehrenberg felt a 200 cubic foot requirement would make it mandatory for the developers to include the rack in the garage in order to meet the requirement. Cm. Brown felt it would help eliminate using balconies for storage which makes the street look terrible. He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the minimum requirement should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. O'Keefe also agreed the minimum storage space should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke regarding the amendment. He stated his company developed Elan and Dublin Station which were completed in 2008. Last year, the Planning Commission approved the 2nd phase which is now under construction between Dublin Station and the BART Station. He was speaking on behalf of the other people who want to develop apartments in Dublin. He felt there is an unintended consequence of this amendment. He understands the issue of parking and storage and agrees there is a problem, but apartment projects don't have that problem. He understood the problem to be residents using parking spaces for storage instead of parking. He stated that, in Dublin Station, there is no problem because of the common garage which has no individual, enclosed parking spaces. He stated they handle storage by providing locked storage in dead spaces in the building or in the garage. He mentioned the reference to using balconies for storage and stated they don't have many of balconies and are very rigorous about not allowing people to store anything on them. He asked what problem the amendment is trying to solve for apartment projects. He stated that storage is not a problem and proposed to exclude from the amendment the projects that do not provide dedicated garages. Cm. Schaub asked if the project that is under construction at the East BART station has a condo map, Mr. White responded that most apartment projects have condo maps. Cm. Schaub stated that, under that condition, they would still have to provide storage. Mr. White felt that it didn't matter whether it was an apartment complex or a condo but what type of building that it is. He felt that in open parking there wasn't the problem of misusing the parking spaces for storage. Cm. Schaub asked if it would be difficult to provide lockers above the cars. Mr. White stated that 10% of the residents at Dublin Station utilize the storage provided and felt requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for every unit is not needed. t':;zarrz ,imms:;.;w ;ury 10,2012 £,,Cnr;arr ra,u 63 Cm. Schaub felt that just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't need it. He stated the Commission is trying to create projects where young people can live and asked how much of a problem it be would to add storage. Mr. White felt it will make the project bigger than it would otherwise be and they would have to provide more space in the garage to access the storage. He felt it wasn't possible to add the storage because everything has to be ADA accessible, even the bike parking must be accessible. He stated that if the City requires storage it will have to be ADA accessible storage. He felt there was no problem with storage whether an apartment or condo. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White what he would like the Commission to do. Mr. White suggested differentiating storage requirements by type of parking; common parking or individual garages. Mr. Baker felt Mr. White was suggesting that storage be required only where there are individual private parking garages. Mr. White agreed. Cm. Brown referred to Mr. White's question about "what problem are they trying to solve." He stated that his vision was to solve the problem by making storage available for units with a dedicated private garage. Cm. Schaub asked, if the storage units are required above the parking spaces, are they required to be accessible. Mr. White answered that 5% of the parking stalls must be accessible and some percentage of the bike storage must be accessible. Cm. Schaub felt that the Commission was trying to find a solution and found an ADA problem. Mr. White felt that the accessibility issue is only part of it and asked again what problem we are trying to solve. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that projects with open/podium parking should be exempted from the amendment. Mr. White stated if it doesn't have dedicated, assigned, enclosed garages then it should be exempt. Mr, Baker stated the intent was to address the issue of residents using their enclosed private garage for storage and this proposed change would require storage for units with enclosed private garages and help to alleviate the parking issue. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with exempting the parking garage. Cm. Schaub agreed and asked Ms. Delgado her opinion of the proposed change. 1 Isnrtznq(,ar,=>c .n?rr 'u l^;, To, '012 rt�r:' �atee�tr�, 64 Ms. Delgado felt it would be acceptable. Cm. Schaub asked the Commission if they agreed with increasing the amount of storage from 90 to 200 cubic feet minimum. Cm. Schaub felt that if there is a condo map on the project and it has enclosed garage type parking; they should be required to provide 200 cubic feet of storage. Ms. Delgado wanted to clarify that Staff is not distinguishing on this standard between apartments and condos but indicating on multi-family projects, within certain zoning districts, where the higher density units occur. Mr. Baker confirmed that the Commission would like to have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage per unit that has private enclosed garage type parking spaces. He stated Staff could modify the footnote on page 4 of 7 in the second table to address that issue. Cm. O'Keefe appreciated Mr. White coming to the meeting and sharing his concerns. Cm. Schaub also appreciated Mr. White's input. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, with the modifications to the chart requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for units with private, enclosed parking spaces, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW OR UNFINIS D BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - ONE 10.1 Brief INFORMA N ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committe Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at ity Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Schaub stated he asked around the Sorrento development to see how it looked. He mentioned the "alley-I ded" projects; he was concerned to see how little space there was between the units. He as also surprised to see the front of one unit facing the back of another unit. He felt the mmission missed those small details. He suggested that the other Commissioners wa around to see what was built after the Planning Commission approves it. 'Pfl nninfl('o nmisssior `July 10,2012 1ttlt ulUr"1tazrirt 65 10.3 Mr. Baker updated the Commission regarding: 1) REI — The City has made considerable effort and has now engaged the CEO to move the project forward. The CEO has addressed the issues including the tower--and the project should be complete within the next 6 weeks; 2) Montessori Plus — buR ing permits were issued Friday. 10.4 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that the City Council will hold a work session regarding the Economic Development Strategy on July 19th at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers. 10.5 Mr. Baker mentioned th Jeri Ram, CDD Director, has announced her retirement as of September 4, 2012. 10.6 Mr. Baker advise he Commission that there will be a new group under the Planning Division called eighborhood Resources. The new group will include existing staff from the Police partment. The new group will focus on outreach to the community and include pr grams such as Neighborhood Watch. 10.7 Chair hrenberg stated she may not be able to attend the July 24, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 8:45:13 PM Res ectfully submitted, �c- oreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B ke Asst. Community Development Director G:IMINUTES1201ZPLANNING COMMISSION107.10.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx.doc }'fttnn=ng(:ommxssiOtt Juts 10,201 Fucr.`.4featiryl 66 i i Marnie Delgado From: Kevin Fryer<Kevin @missionvalleyhomes.com> f Sent: Monday, July 30,2012 5:59 PM To: Marnie Delgado Cc: Mikep; Chris Foss Subject: Response to Parking Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Marnie, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recently proposed Parking Standards. As a developer of properties in East Dublin I am well aware of the history of concerns and problems at certain sites in Dublin. in fact, I believe that our Jordan Ranch project and it's few remaining tandem garage units accelerated the urgency behind parts of this proposed ordinance. While i applaud the effort to provide more certainty and clarity on actual parking standards in Dublin I feel that the proposed standard is a dramatic overreaction to recent tumult. The proposed requirement of 2 covered plus one guest per dwelling for every condo or townhome with 2 or more bedrooms is an unreasonable standard with consequences that I fear have not been considered. Here are a few thoughts for consideration: r 1) Not just an East Dublin Ordinance: Projects like Jordan Ranch have been able to provide significant guest C parking(even meeting this proposed standard or exceeding it) because they are large parcel, master plan i communities. Much of the land that will allow for attached residential for-sale development in East Dublin is gone. A few sites remain,but this ordinance will impact all of Dublin including the downtown. Dublin will soon transition from a town that presses east for all new housing to one, like most core Bay Area cities,that looks to convert old, underutilized sites into residential and mixed-use opportunities. A parking ordinance like this will ensure that all housing provided in smaller parcels is rental housing as one fewer stall is required for similar sized units. The reason for this is simple math,the percentage of a site that will be dedicated to parking alone will limit the ability to deliver densities in the 15-17 du/ac range. A loss of units=a loss of land value 2) Density is not always bad. As the City looks to satisfy its required share of housing allocations over the years and looks to add bodies to parts of town where their presence will help retail and office growth and stimulate tax dollar generation for the City this parking ordinance will prove a significant deterrent to having property owner residents. Making it more difficult to deliver for-sale density means that homes that are built will be larger, and more expensive increasing the difficulty of first time home buyers finding an entry level home in Dublin. 3) Parking is an issue not the only issue. This ordinance will create a sea of guest parking on sites small and large and the result is more pavement, more impervious surface, more heat reflective surface-less pedestrian oriented,less landscape, less open space, more impact on the environment. A balance of these issues(including concerns about providing adequate guest parking) needs to be reached-this is an imbalance. it is an overreaction. 4) Consider what others are doing in the area. According to their website,the City of Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 3-55 regarding Residential Townhouse Development: refers you to section 3-20-050(Minimum off- street parking requirements)to provide their required guest parking (which they call"street parking") The relevant Section reads: "Townhouse/Condominium. Two stalls for each dwelling unit in the townhouse/condominium development, one of each shall be covered. One additional guest parking stall shall be provided for each four dwelling units. These stalls shall be located to provide reasonable utilization for all of the dwelling units within the project. Tandem parking shall not be utilized to 1 ATTACHMENT 4 meet these requirements. Stalls shall not be located within any required project street frontage yard." f. That's 1 guest parking stall per 4 units. That is 1/4 the parking you are proposing. Not sure their number is the right one, but it offers an interesting perspective about what other nearby towns,who have managed to revitalize their downtowns, are doing. This is only one example and other jurisdictions no doubt have more stringent requirements than Livermore but this is still informative and demonstrative that the proposed requirement is extremely stringent. 5) The elimination of tandem parking is likely a foregone conclusion here in Dublin...and that too is an unnecessary overreaction. A smaller,one bedroom condo or studio that has a tandem garage is a nice alternative to offer first time homebuyers-more affordable,with a large flexible 1 car garage. If you allow the 2 car tandem to count for 1 stall you are ensuring it cannot serve as a garage for anything larger than a 1 bedroom unit. You are eliminating your flexibility as a City and your opportunity to provide varied housing products in unique configurations in locations that will support them. Why do that? It is not necessary to outlaw tandem parking to achieve your goals. Modify how it can be used and what it can serve and create i flexibility for in-fill locations and interesting,affordable by design for-sale housing products. 6) Be careful what you ask for: All of the above reasons/concerns explain why townhome/condo for-sale product ranging from 15-17 du/ac(typically)will be more difficult to deliver. As the economics of attached for-sale products fail on sites developers will look to rental product as an alternative. With apartment parking standards less stringent that towns/condos,when the market supports it and where appropriate you will likely see apartment densities (28 du/ac MINIMUM as high as 60 du/ac here in Dublin) instead. If reducing density is a goal,or a reason for support by some folks, consider the likelihood that what will actually result from this ordinance is increased density on certain sites. I appreciate that there have been legitimate parking issues in certain projects In town and agree that clarity and modification of the parking standard is appropriate. I have found that Council has often been careful to consider "unintended consequences" and l believe that this ordinance has many that should be well considered and studied. I am happy to participate and assist in any way possible in that process. Thank you for taking the time to consider these thoughts. �I Sincerely, Kevin Fryer MVP Development 925-899-5065 2 PCJ Real Estate Advisors, LLC Cell:408-8884224*Email: patcjr @comcast.net R DATE: August 3,2012 Delivered via Email I TO: Mamie Delgado City of Dublin FROM: Patrick Costanzo, Jr. I CC: Jeri Ram Chris Foss RE: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Residential Tandem Parking Thank you for your letter dated July 2e asking for input on your proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. I offer the following comments on the Residential Tandem Parking proposed changes: I By eliminating the opportunity to utilize tandem parking to satisfy required parking within multi-family dwelling unit attached garages you are severely limiting creative design opportunities for the developer/architect. If I am reading the proposed changes correctly, you could never have a unit less than 21 feet wide because you always need a garage that is 2 cars wide and 20 foot clear. The struggle is that this affects our density solutions.Without the availability of tandem parking,we struggle to achieve densities above 16-18 du/ac. Why would tandem not be allowed for the requirement for a Studio or 1 Bedroom Unit? If only one space is required and 2 are provided in a tandem configuration why is this not acceptable? I suppose the way the language is written you can enclose only the rear space and have the front space be covered but not enclosed, however, I do not believe that is the intent of the language. I would suggest that instead of eliminating the ability to use tandem parking you modify the language to read that"if Tandem Parking configurations are used,only one of the two spaces will be permitted to satisfy required parking." Additionally,for 2 bedroom units I would suggest allowing 1 covered space and one reserved uncovered space rather than requiring 2 covered or garaged spaces. The 2 covered or garaged spaces can then be required for 3+bedrooms. Below are comments from one of the architects that do business in town: "Under SB375, the State is looking towards higher density near transit and other service hubs. This effectively flies in the face of that as it will severely limit the developer's ability to meet what are at times required densities in the urban area. As noted, we will top out for row town style of housing at 16-18du/ac. The other issue is with condos...if you require 1 guest per unit, even studios and 1 bedrooms, at higher densities or with very tight sites in an urban area,they still take a lot of space. 100 unit condo project would require 100 guest spaces...at 270sf per stall, that could translate to an additional 27,000sf or.62 acres. Depending on the site,that's a lot. Where in an urban area do you have the luxury of an extra half acre? This change is doubling the required parking...again,directly in conflict with SB375." Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions I can be reached at the number above. i 1b -'- 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File #450-20 DATE: September 3, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager( o SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Multi-Family Parking Regulations Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On February 7, 2012, the City Council received an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch and directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi-family parking regulations. Staff presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning Commission on July 10, 2012; the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the amendments, with modifications. Based on feedback received from the development community, the City Council directed Staff to enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), to prepare an economic impact analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments on future residential projects. The economic impact analysis is complete and Staff is reporting back to the City Council on the findings and seeking direction related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: During FY 2012-2013 a budget transfer from the General Fund Contingent Reserve line item was approved to cover the cost to engage Economic & Planning Systems to conduct the economic impact analysis. The not-to-exceed contract amount is $48,500 and to date $29,688.75 has been expended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide direction on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi-family parking regulations. L Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.1 ATTACHMENT 5 DESCRIPTION: Background At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2) require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. On July 10, 2012, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received input from a local developer who expressed concerns regarding the proposed multi-family accessory storage requirement (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission weighed the developer's concerns and recommended City Council approval of the Amendments with modifications. Following the Planning Commission meeting, two additional local developers expressed concerns over the increased parking requirements for condominiums and the inability to use tandem parking as required parking (Attachment 4). One of the concerns expressed was that the proposed changes to the parking ordinance would limit the developer's ability to construct for-sale residential projects on in-fill sites as well as limit their ability to achieve residential densities greater than 15-18 dwelling units per acre on in-fill sites. As a result, fewer units would be constructed, thereby lowering land values and limiting opportunities for first-time homebuyers. Another concern expressed was that the increase in required parking is contrary to Senate Bill 375 and parking trends in surrounding jurisdictions. The City of Livermore was cited as requiring 1 guest parking space for every 4 units in contrast to Dublin's proposed 1 guest parking space per unit. The developers also expressed concerns over eliminating tandem parking especially for smaller, 1- bedroom units. They believe that maintaining flexibility with the use of tandem parking on in-fill sites could produce affordable by-design for-sale housing for first-time homebuyers. Ultimately, the developers foresee the changes to the parking regulations as inhibiting the development of for-sale housing on in-fill sites and facilitating the development of higher density rental housing. As a result, representatives of the development community felt that the proposed changes to the parking regulations would result in unintended consequences that should be further evaluated. On November 20, 2012 the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems to assist Staff in preparing an economic impact analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The purpose of this Staff Report is to present the findings of the economic impact analysis and seek direction from the City Council on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. ANALYSIS: The economic impact analysis (Attachment 5) evaluates the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments that would: 1. Require a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage per unit for multi-family projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units; Page 2 of 5 2. Increase the guest parking requirement for condominium projects from .5 space per unit to one space per unit; and, 3. Eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects. As part of the economic impact analysis, EPS researched residential parking policies in neighboring jurisdictions in the greater Tri-Valley area; evaluated the use of tandem parking in residential projects throughout Dublin; interviewed stakeholders and planning professionals; and prepared a case study to illustrate the difference in residential densities with and without the use of tandem parking. Accessory Storage The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage be provided per unit in multi-family projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units. This requirement is intended to provide residents with an alternative to storing their personal effects in their private garages thereby freeing up the garage for the parking of personal vehicles. Interviews conducted with developers confirmed that the provision of some additional interior storage space would not create a financial burden for residential projects. A modest amount of additional storage can be integrated into residential products without a significant impact on the product format. Guest Parking The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase the guest parking requirement for condominiums from .5 space per unit to one space per unit consistent with the current guest parking requirement for apartments. Based on the economic impact analysis, most project sites offer sufficient surplus land to provide the additional guest parking without impacting project densities or creating a financial burden to developers; however, landscaping, open space and other common areas are likely to be reduced in size in order to accommodate the additional guest parking. In-fill development and other projects with limited site flexibility will suffer a greater burden associated with the increased parking requirement, as these sites are less likely to accommodate additional surface parking without an impact on density. Tandem Parking The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects. According to the economic impact analysis, the elimination of tandem parking is unlikely to create a significant financial burden for residential project developers; however, the resulting product type is more likely to be lower density, larger units with a lower price per square foot. The demand for this larger product type may or may not be absorbed by the market thereby constraining developers in the type of residential product that would be delivered to the community. Additionally, development sites that are constrained due to their size or other natural or topographic features would produce fewer units thereby increasing the potential for financial impacts to the project. Furthermore, this constraint on product type would limit the diversity of housing types and sizes to meet the various needs of the community. As a result, the economic impact analysis suggests that some allowance of tandem parking may be appropriate under certain circumstances and recommends allowing tandem parking for up to 25% of the units in a project. Page 3 of 5 According to the economic impact analysis, the primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban-sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow-lot tandem-parked residential unit can "fill out" a site where side-by-side parking formats will not fit. Based on interviews with representatives in the development community, an allowance of tandem parking for up to 25% of the units in a project would allow for significantly better efficiency in site development. The economic impact analysis further suggests that in those portions of the City where higher density development is desired (i.e. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area) that tandem parking be permitted in order to maximize densities and facilitate the redevelopment of smaller in-fill sites. Options for Consideration Related to Tandem Parking Based on the conclusions of the economic impact analysis, Staff is presenting the following options for the City Council's consideration: Option 1 • Amend the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area; • Allow 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, by-right; and • Allow more than 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Under Option 1, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where tandem parking would be permitted by-right for up to 25% of the units in a residential project with the option to increase the amount of tandem parking with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This option would provide maximum flexibility for residential projects in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area to facilitate development including development on small or constrained sites, achieve higher densities in an area where higher density is currently encouraged, and foster greater economic development opportunities within the Specific Plan area. Option 2 - - - - • Amend the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area; and, • Allow 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Under Option 2, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where tandem parking would be conditionally permitted for up to 25% of the units in a residential project with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This option would provide some flexibility for residential Page 4 of 5 projects in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area to achieve higher densities but would be subject to a discretionary review process to determine appropriateness of the tandem parking and certain findings would need to be made in order to approve the tandem parking. Option 3 • Amend the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements City-wide, including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Under Option 3, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects City-wide including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. This option has the potential to slightly reduce residential densities and increase the potential for financial impacts in projects that are proposed on constrained sites due to the parcel size, configuration or other natural or topographic feature. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council. However, City Staff did send a letter to the development community and interested persons who were previously notified that the City was undertaking Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi-family parking regulations. Additionally, the Staff report was made available to the public on the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 2012 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2012 4. Letters from the development community regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5. Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems dated June 4, 2013 Page 5 of 5 MEMORANDUM To: Marnie R. Delgado, Senior Planner, City of Dublin From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., and Joe DeCredico Studio Subject: Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment, EPS #122118 Date: June 4, 2013 `17r� h;rirur�rnfrw �3Jfera<r( (:_.� The City of Dublin (City) engaged Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) and Joe DeCredico Studio (JDeS) to provide assistance in evaluating a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) that would: � ' 1. Eliminate tandem parking as a means of meeting parking requirements in residential development projects. 2. Increase the guest parking requirement for condominium projects from 1/2-space per unit to one space per unit. 3. Require a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage for multifamily projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units. EPS understands that the City is concerned the tandem parking spaces are being used as in-home storage areas rather than as parking for automobiles. In addition, the City is concerned that tandem parking spaces are inconvenient for residents and are, thus, not utilized. As a result, City streets, as well as private streets and guest parking spaces, are congested with parked cars in areas where tandem parking is prevalent. The policy goal of the ZOA is to require parking in a format that will be used by residents for their cars, thereby minimizing the residential parking overflow to City streets. To provide the City guidance concerning the proposed ZOA, EPS and Economic&Planning Systems,Inc, JDeS (1) reviewed relevant policy literature and the parking ordinances 2295 Gateway Oaks Dive,Suite 2.50 of nearby municipalities, (2) conducted interviews with stakeholders and Sacramento,CA 95833-4210 916649 8010 tel local real estate/planning experts, and (3) developed a simple test case 916 6492070 fax to analyze a typical real estate development project that might use tandem parking or traditional side-by-side parking to satisfy the local Berkeley parking standard. Denvor Lois Aog&" i sacramenro I www.epsys.com I Attachment 6 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4,2013 Summary of Findings • The elimination of tandem parking is unlikely to create a significant financial burden for residential project developers. Most developers will be able to reposition projects to lower density (DU/Acre) larger units, maintaining or increasing total project square footage. While product price per square foot is likely to fall with the increase in unit size, EPS finds that developers in most cases will be able to maintain total project revenue - potential. For projects that suffer from parcel constraints, particularly small sites, financial impacts may occur because of the inability to reconfigure the site for the larger product. • Increased guest parking requirements likely will be taken out of landscaping with no financial impact on project developers. Most sites offer sufficient surplus land to provide additional guest parking without a loss of density. However, surface parking for guests will reduce open space and project common areas. Infill development and other projects with limited site flexibility will suffer a greater burden associated with the increased parking requirement, as these sites are less likely to accommodate additional surface parking without an impact on density. • The proposed storage requirement is not an issue. Developer interviews confirm that the provision of some additional interior storage space will not create a financial burden for residential projects. A modest amount of additional storage can be integrated into residential products without a significant impact on product format. • The primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban-sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow-lot tandem-parked residential products can "fill out"a site, where side-by-side parking formats will not fit. A parking policy that allows a fraction of the units in a residential project to use tandem parking may be appropriate. Interviews and analysis suggest that allowing up to 25 percent of units to be parked in tandem could retain sufficient flexibility in site development. Parking Policy Standards A review of current literature concerning parking policy offers a broad range of recommendations to jurisdictions. In general, current best practices for residential parking policy focus on providing flexibility, managing demand, and connecting alternative modes of transportation, while minimizing impacts on residents. However, these best practices are geared toward parking in urban areas and transit-oriented zones. The ZOA proposed for the City addresses the concern that new suburban residential projects in Dublin are providing impractical (and therefore insufficient) parking. The ZOA would require that parking be developed in a traditional side-by- side format. EPS did not identify literature that addresses this particular policy issue. To evaluate the appropriateness of the ZOA in a regional context, EPS conducted research regarding off-street residential parking policies in neighboring jurisdictions in the greater Tri- Valley area. Specifically, EPS contacted the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek to determine whether these cities allowed tandem parking in residential projects. k EPS also identified off-street parking standards for prevalent residential land uses in each city. 6 I Of the jurisdictions surveyed, the City of Pleasanton is the only jurisdiction whose municipal code Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. A-2 I I M Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 does not allow for tandem parking. The other jurisdictions surveyed—Livermore, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek—have municipal codes that allow for tandem parking based on bedroom counts. Pleasanton The City of Pleasanton does not explicitly allow tandem parking. However, two multifamily Planned Unit Development (PUD) residential projects—one approved and one under review— contain units with a tandem parking design. If the residential development is contained in a PUD, the city will consider and potentially approve a tandem parking design if the project is in alignment with the city's planning and policy objectives. Because there are a limited number of residential projects in the city with tandem parking, city planning staff did not identify any issues related to this type of parking design (e.g., constrained on-street parking because the garage is not used to capacity). Livermore In the City of Livermore, tandem parking is permitted in all residential and mixed-use zones when two parking spaces are required for a single residential unit. For secondary residential units (i.e., in-law unit) with two or more bedrooms (which requires two parking spaces), the required spaces may be in tandem with each other, but cannot be in tandem with the required parking spaces required for the primary residential unit on the lot.' San Ramon In San Ramon, tandem parking is permitted through the issuance of a Minor Use Permit and must be designed to meet minimum dimension and size standards.Z 3 With the exception of one single-family residential project (approved and constructed when it was located in the unincorporated county), tandem parking in single-family residential projects in San Ramon is not permitted. Tandem parking is permitted for multifamily residential projects, although San Ramon planning staff generally discourages tandem parking design in residential projects. While staff acknowledged the shortcomings of tandem parking, they did not identify specific cases where projects with tandem parking created issues for residents. Walnut Creek The City of Walnut Creek's municipal code allows for tandem parking for multifamily and single- family residential projects in the case where housing units require two parking spaces.4 Tandem parking configurations can be utilized but one stall is not counted towards meeting the parking requirement, unless an exception is granted by the city's planning commission. Tandem parking for Second Family Units is permitted if the maximum of two spaces are provided and the City finds that the design and lot configuration precludes placement of the parking spaces elsewhere on the property. f i 1 City of Livermore Development Code § 4.04.010. z In San Ramon, tandem parking must be 10 feet wide by 40 feet deep (with a 9-foot door opening) and have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage area in or adjacent to the garage. f 3 City of San Ramon Zoning Ordinance § D3-35 A.2. 4 City of Walnut Creek Planning and Zoning Municipal Code § 10-2,3.206 Table A. Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. A-3 i Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Figure 1 Comparison of Multifamily Parking Standards Multifamily Parking Standards _ City Source Type Spaces/Unit Tandem Parking Livermore City of Livermore, Studio and One Bdrm 1 space+ NA Development Code, 1 guest space/4 units §4.04.010 Two or More Bdrms 2 spaces+ Permitted 1 guest space/4 units Downtown[t] City of Livermore Studio 1 covered space+ NA Downtown Specific (Includes apartments/flats/ 1(guest)/10 units[21 Plan lofts) Chapter 8 One Bdrm 1.5 spaces(1 covered)+ Permitted if 2 spaces (Includes apartments/flats/ 1 guest space 110 units[2][31 are dedicated to lofts) a single unit Two or More Bdrms 1.75 spaces(1 covered)+ Permitted if 2 spaces (Includes apartments/flats/ 1 guest space/10 units 121[3] are dedicated to lofts) a single unit Pleasanton[4] City of Pleasanton, Two Bdrms or Less Minimum of 2 spaces for projects Not permitted[5] Municipal Code, with four or fewer units plus §18.88.030 1.5 spaces foreach add?unit (at least 1 space must be covered) 1 guest space/7 units (may be open or covered) Three Bdrms or More Minimum of 2 spaces Not permitted[5] (at least 1 space must be covered) 1 guest space/7 units (may be open or covered) San Ramon 161 City of San Ramon, Studios and One Bdrn 1 covered space+ NA Zoning Ordtnance, 1 guest space 14 units , §D3-35 A.2 Tw-Three Bdrms 2 spaces Permitted(wl (at least 1 space must be covered) Minor Use Permit) 1 guest space/4 units Four Bdrms or More 3 spaces Permitted(w/ (at least 1 space must be covered) Minor Use Permit) 1 guest space/4 units Walnut Creek[71 City of Walnut Creek, Studio 1.25 spaces Permited[91[101 Planning and Zoning (1 covered)[31[81 Municipal Code, §10-2.3.206 Table A One Bonn 1.50 spaces Permited[91[10] (1 covered)(31[81 Two Bdrms 2.00 spaces Permited[9]1101 (1 covered)(31[81 Three or More Bdrms 2.25 spaces Permited[9](101 (1 covered)[31[8] 'pkg_summary' Source:Cities of Livermore,Pleasanton,San Ramon,and Walnut Creek municipal code,EPS. ' NOTE: This table is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of parking standards for all residential types identified in each city's municipal code, only the most prevalent, Also,this table excludes additional standards such as size dimensions and special circumstances that alter the standards shown here(e.g.,development within TOD). Please see each city's municipal code for additional details. Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. A-4 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4,2013 Figure 1 Comparison of Multifamily Parking Standards (continued) _ Multifamily Parking Standards City Source Type Spaces/Unit Tandem Parking (1] Within a specific geographic area,residential units above retail/commercial and live/work spaces shall provide required parking spaces on-site, off-site through the payment of an in-lieu fee,or through construction of parking facilities in the speck geographic area. (2] Guest parking is only required for projects containing ten or more dwelling units. Guest parking shall be provided on-site,off-site in a dedicated parking lot in the Downtown Specific Plan area that is within 600 feet of the project,or through the payment of in-lieu fees if an identified public parking structure in the Downtown Speck Plan area is located within 600 feet of the project site. [3] A fraction greater than or equal to 0.50 shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number,no additional space shall be required for a fractional unit of less than 0.50. (4] This table does not include reduced parking standards associated with Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA)sites. [5] Tandem parking may be proposed for units within a Planned Unit Development(PUD)and would be subject to case-by-case review and approval. (6] This table does not include reduced parking standards for mixed-use development in certain districts within the City of San Ramon. (7] This table does not include parking standards for residential structures that qualify for a density bonus or for structures with five or more residential units and either within 112 mile of BART or with lower income units. (8] Guest parking Is included within the multifamily parking standards for the City of Walnut Creek. (9] Tandem parking configurations are permitted but one stall Is not counted towards meeting the parking requirement,unless an exception is granted by the City of Walnut Creek's planning commission. (10] For projects that qualify for density bonuses,the City of Walnut Creek allows for reduced parking standards,and parking may be provided through tandem parking,uncovered parking,or other parking solution with the exception of on-street parking. E P Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. A-5 .a-e�y ==�yv-=«�� .=•��mu=,ea i Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Tandem-Parked Projects in Dublin The City of Dublin has identified a number of projects where the tandem parking format has been used by developers. As shown in Figure 2, the use of tandem parking in these projects ranges from 14 percent to 92 percent. However, only one project predominantly comprises tandem-parked units. With the exception of this project (The Courtyards at Dublin Ranch Villages), no project has more than 43 percent of units using the tandem format. The street parking congestion that has been attributed to tandem-parked units is most prevalent in Dublin Ranch Villages, where the greatest use of tandem parking (as a share of project units) is observed. Figure 2 Tandem-Parked Projects in Dublin No.of Units with Percent of Units Parking Guest Project Units Requirement Tandem with Tandem Parking Garages Parking Requirement San Ramon Village The Willows 56 units 8 units 14% 2/unit .5/unit Tralee Townhomes 103 units 18 units 17% 2/unit .5/unit Dublin Ranch Villages Cottages 200 units 85 units 43% 2/2+BR unit .5/unit 1/1BR unit 6 Courtyards 281 units 258 units 92% 2/2+BR unit .5/unit 1/1BR unit i Terraces 626 units 137 units 22% 2/2+BR unit 5/unit 1/1BR unit Jordan Ranch t Subareas 2 and 3 109 units 40 units 37% 2/unit .5/unit Source:City of Dublin f f Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. A-6 t Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Interview Findings EPS and JDeS conducted interviews with stakeholders and local real estate/planning experts to solicit input regarding the proposed ZOA.' Stakeholders The primary stakeholder group that would be affected by the ZOA is the real estate development community. EPS spoke with two developers active in the Tri-Valley, as well as two planning professionals active in designing residential products in the region. Overall, EPS finds that developers rely on small-footprint tandem parking as a tool to increase dwelling units per acre, particularly when site constraints (e.g., parcel size and configuration) do not allow for a traditional side-by-side garage format. In some specific cases, primarily large projects with planning and design flexibility, developers acknowledge the ZOA would have little to no impact on project density. However, developers expressed concerns that small projects planned for constrained sites could suffer density losses attributable to the proposed ZOA. Based on interviews conducted, it seems unlikely that developers would substitute a significantly higher density product(e.g., podium-parked multifamily residential) in cases where the ZOA introduces a development constraint. There are a limited number of high-value sites where a podium product is likely to be financially feasible (e.g., transit-oriented development areas), and these sites are likely to be slated for this format from early-stage predevelopment work onward. Conversations with a developer currently building a 3-story townhome project in Dublin, who is converting previously approved single-car garages to 2-car, side-by-side garages, indicate there is the opportunity to reconfigure projects and replace tandem garages with traditional ones. However, the developer emphasized the importance of the site geometry in making this change, particularly on constricted infill sites, and notes that it also requires redesign of the project. Planning Professionals Local planning professionals confirm that tandem parking is an important tool for efficient use of land. Of note, planners contacted suggested that a reduction rather than elimination of tandem parking would be desirable. Small-footprint tandem-parked units help to"fill out"a development program. It was suggested that allowing 25 percent of units to use tandem parking would allow developers to use this format sparingly, fitting it in as needed to take advantage of lots that cannot accommodate the wider, more traditional garage formats. Economic Implications To illustrate the potential effect of the ZOA on a typical residential project in Dublin, EPS and JDeS agreed on a case study that evaluates a generic townhome project on a rectangular 1.41-net-acre site. The case study includes illustrative planning graphics and a high-level assessment of economic effects. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present the case-study planning schemes. s Personal communication with Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Homes, 12/21/12; Patrick Castonzo, PCJ Real Estate Advisors, 1/8/13; Don Ruthroff, The Dahlin Group, 1/8/13; Steve Otto, City of Pleasanton, 2/15/13; Lauren Barr, City of San Ramon, 2/15/13; and Carlson Yin Chan, Ronsdale Management LLC, I 2/21/13, Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. A-7 ==i earn wrvrn>,xus,ism, oec 3cn i Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Figure 3 Townhome Product with Tandem Garages (Scenario 1) w a UNIT A-3 UNITS UNIT B-3 UNITS UNIT C-21 UNITS MAX LIVING AREA 1,278.5 SF MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF MAX LIVING AREA 1,387.5 SF Wrii A— UW p Nel W np Nee Gvg Aea G'A09 A- FloorI U`m9 Aea l:Jnp Aea Floor I Flaorl fbr3 floor1 liwr,0 Aea Wra Aea 105x3' Rood Fbor3 33'.10' 73'x40' 13'x50' 105.3' Fborl Fbor3 596 IF 1526'x40' 1615'x50' 4141F 020 IF MSF 695 IF 16.6'x40 156x90 610 IF 6105E 600 IF 0600F Gaspe Nea Grape Floc I 1 Oaope lava Moor 15.85x90' ! l 166x90' 610-506 13''.x 12' 6601 505 -3513 SF 606 IF -601.6 IF MAXIMUM TANDEM GARAGE TOWNHOMES W/10%ADA ACCESSIBLE UNITS 2 CAR GARAGE UNIT TYPE A:15.251 X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT W/TANDEM GARAGE UNIT TYPE B:23'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT W/SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE UNIT TYPE C:16'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT WITANDEM GARAGE FRONT SETBACK:10' SIDE SETBACK:5' ALLEY WIDTH:32 YIELD: 27 UNITS OR 19.15 du/ACRE Scenario 1: Tandem Parking The townhome product that relies on tandem parking is a three-level unit with approximately 1,280 to 1,390 square feet of living space. The garage uses most of the ground-level space in the unit, though there is sufficient space on the ground level for some storage. Living room, dining room, kitchen, bathrooms, and bedrooms are on the 2"d and 3'6 floors. In this test, a density of roughly 19 units per acre is achieved, for a total of 27 units on the 1.41-acre case- study site, including three traditionally-parked units that satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) target for ground-level living space. Based on the size and configuration of the tandem-parked units, EPS assumes current market pricing of about $390,000 to $416,000 ($300 to $305 per square foot). Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. A-8 ,z•,= »,--o­1-1-0 wosG- <> I ®I Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Figure 4 Townhome Product with Traditional Garages (Scenario 2) i rl i � V k� TRADITIONAL SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE TOWNHOMES UNIT B-20 UNITS 2 CAR GARAGE MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF 23'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT FRONT SETBACK:I SIDE SETBACK:5' ALLEY WIDTH:32' YIELD:20 UNITS OR1418 du/ACRE EE E Wmgp4a UwQa IQ T bu Fborl F2 Fl." 23'119• n'.m' 23'1A9• 414 sF 929$F 929 SF Gaspe pea 3'x2 2 6 12 990$F Scenario 2: Traditional Parking The townhome product with a traditional side-by-side garage includes about 2,250 square feet of living space. In this configuration, there is sufficient living area on the ground level to accommodate a bedroom and bathroom. Additional bathrooms and bedrooms, as well as the living room, dining room, and kitchen, are upstairs. The product achieves a density of roughly 14 units per acre, for a total of 20 units on the 1.41-acre case-study site. Based on the size and configuration of this unit, EPS assumes current market pricing of about $586,000 ($260 per square foot). Scenario Comparison Evaluation Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are illustrative of how a developer might plan a site for residential development with tandem parking versus traditional parking (with the ZOA), respectively. As demonstrated in the case study, a project composed of about 90-percent tandem-parked units on a land-constrained site would likely lose units as a result of the ZOA. In this case, 7 units are lost (26 percent) when the developer switches from tandem parking to traditional parking. 'I However, with the wider traditional garage, the developer is likely to transition to larger units. In this case study, a townhome with a traditional garage is 62 to 76 percent larger than a townhome with a tandem garage. The traditional garage necessitates a wider unit footprint; the Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. A-9 ��•.__, a 4,�,_,__„• =ec=�_ �i a Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 20I3 building height remains unchanged. Overall, despite having fewer units, Scenario 2 includes roughly 5,300 more square feet of living space. Residential market data reveal that unit values increase with unit size at a decreasing rate. While the smaller tandem-parked unit is likely to sell for less than the larger, traditionally parked unit, the per-square-foot value of the smaller unit will be higher. EPS evaluated several residential projects in Dublin to assess pricing for various unit sizes. Interestingly, current residential real estate market values indicate that the total finished value of Scenarios 1 and 2 may not be very different. Figure 5 presents the economic assessment of Scenario 1 versus Scenario 2. Figure 5 Case Study Economic Assumptions Unit Size Price Per Units (Square Feet) Square Foot Unit Price Scenario 1 Tandem Garage Townhome Product Unit A 3 1,279 $305 $389,943 Unit B 3 2,254 $260 $586,040 Unit C 21 1,388 $300 $416,250 Project Square Feet 39,735 Project Revenue $11,669,198 Profit Margin 15% Developer Profit $1,750,380 f i Scenario 2 Traditional Garage Townhome Product Unit A 0 1,279 $305 $389,943 Unit B 20 2,254 $260 $586,040 Unit C 0 1,388 $300 $416,250 Project Square Feet 45,080 Project Revenue $11,720,800 Profit Margin 15% Developer Profit $1,758,120 i Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. _ A-10 >„��„�,� m �• a_a�,:a � ,z� i i Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4,2013 Assuming the rate of return (profit margin) for a developer is similar across the two product types, this case-study example reveals that, in situations where parcel configuration and other site constraints are not present, there may be little financial impact from the ZOA. However, it is important to note the developer would be delivering a different product at a different price point, and market absorption (i.e., quantity of demand for the larger residential product) may or may not be the same. In addition, for projects that have planned on a tandem configuration, there will be significant planning and design costs associated with reconfiguring the project. Policy Recommendation The primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban-sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow-lot tandem-parked residential products can"fill out" a site, where side-by- side parking formats will not fit. A parking policy that allows a fraction of the units in a residential project to use tandem parking may be appropriate. Based on a recommendation received during the research process, EPS suggests that allowing up to 25 percent of units to be parked in tandem would allow significantly better efficiency in site development. Figure 6 illustrates the application of this policy recommendation (with the same site assumptions that are used the case study analysis, above). In addition to recommending that the ZOA allow a fraction of units to be tandem-parked, EPS suggests that it may be appropriate to exempt from the ZOA portions of the City where high- density development is most desired. While developers may opt for podium-parked projects in certain "premium" locations (e.g., near BART or retail amenities) with sufficiently large sites, narrow and other small or challenged infill sites will likely benefit from the tandem parking option to achieve the desired densities. It is notable that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan encourages density and parking flexibility. To maximize the potential for development at higher densities, the tandem parking format could be permitted there. Developers seeking to redevelop smaller infill sites may benefit from the use of tandem parking. In addition, these developments are most likely to suffer from the proposed guest parking requirement. f Economic&Planning Systems,Inc, A-11 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4,2013 Figure 6 Case Study of Policy Recommendation (25%Allowance) �p C y. UNIT A-6 UNITS UNIT B-16 UNITS MAX LIVING AREA 1,278.6 SF MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF ,I I1Nn0 Ma Lipp A lidn0 LMng A- f Fbor7 i"'nO Rea 0A'aa fbe 1 Fbor2 Fb o,3 f 109'x7 Ft-2 A-3 27x10' 77x40' 23'.67 It SpS SF IB100 1�10S 4140F 0200F 0200F BsFt Fna t ISIS'x 40' Fbmrl 010.50.5 77' •SS I.S SF SOB YF C 25%TANDEM GARAGE/75%SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE TOWNHOMES 2 CAR GARAGE UNIT TYPE A:15,25'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT W(TANDEM GARAGE 4 UNIT TYPE B:23'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT W/SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE FRONT SETBACK:10' SIDE SETBACK:5' ALLEY WIDTH:32' YIELD: 22 UNITS OR 15.60 du/ACRE Given the relatively high value of land proximate to BART, some developers in the Downtown will opt to develop structured parking, which likely moderates the potential negative effects from allowing tandem-parked units. However, in general, increasing development densities Downtown and other areas of Dublin inevitably will necessitate increased attention to parking management policies within the City. If the City chooses to continue to allow tandem-parked projects in strategic locations where density is desired, EPS recommends that the City consider additional alternative parking policies, potentially including a parking in-lieu fee program, street parking permitting, and flexible parking ratios. Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. A-12 1 RESOLUTION NO. 13-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2012-00028 WHEREAS, the City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations; and WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to create a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family; and WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R-2 (Two-Family), R-M (Multi- Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said amendments on October 22, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of October 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2of2 ORDINANCE NO. xx— 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2012-00028 WHEREAS, the City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will amend Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to create a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will amend Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R-2 (Two-Family), R-M (Multi-Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will amend Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on November 12, 2013 and adopted Resolution 13-XX recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on XXX, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds that this Ordinance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include policies that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi-family housing and the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on-going enjoyment of residential properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations. EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 7 SECTION 2: Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council hereby finds this Ordinance to be exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of this Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. SECTION 3: The following definition is hereby added to Section 8.08.020 (Definitions) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows, with the other definitions contained in Section 8.84.020 (Definitions) to be re-lettered accordingly: Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects. Accessory Storage — Multi-Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage-Multi-Family Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space. SECTION 4: In order to add a new row for Accessory Storage — Multi-Family and a new footnote relating to multi-family accessory storage, Section 8.36.020.A of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows in its entirety: A. Development regulations are minimums unless stated as maximums. All areas are given in net square feet. STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M LOT AREA Interior lot 100 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Corner lot 100 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE NA 4,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. and larger PER DU larger as consistent larger as consistent as consistent with with General Plan with General Plan General Plan LOT WIDTH &FRONTAGE 2of6 Interior lot 300 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet Corner lot 300 feet 60 feet 90 feet 60 feet LOT DEPTH NA 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet RESIDENTIAL USE 1 du. 1 Second 1 du 1 Second Unit 2 du's 1 du per full 750 sq. ft. (maximum per lot) Unit (and larger as consistent with General Plan) SETBACKS Front 50 feet 20 ft. avg. 18 ft 20 ft. avg. 18 ft. 20 ft. minimum to garage minimum (1) Side 30 feet (2) 10 feet 10 feet(3) Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet (1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft.from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size. (2) Side Yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet. (3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R-M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side. STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M DISTANCE B ETWEEN 100 feet 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet RESIDENCES MAXIMUM LOT NA 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, COVERAGE 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories COMMON USEABLE NA NA NA 30 % of net site area OUTDOOR SPACE ACCESSORY STORAGE- NA NA 200 cubic feet 200 cubic feet MULTI-FAMILY(1) minimum per unit minimum per unit HEIGHT LIMITS (2) (2) (2) (3) (1) Multi-family accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable PD(Planned Development)Zoning Districts and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. See also Chapter 8.08(Definitions). (2) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories;may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories. (3) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du.and lot coverage does not exceed 35%. SECTION 5: In order to limit the use of tandem parking associated with residential uses, Section 8.76.060.E (Tandem Parking) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: L. Tandem Parking. 1. Commercial and Industrial Uses. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off- street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. Tandem parking is permitted within single-family dwelling unit attached garages. This may be accomplished by the use of tandem, wedge or other techniques approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. 3 of 6 2. Residential Uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. The Planning Commission may approve an off-street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing up to 25% of the required parking as tandem (front to back) parking for multi-family residential uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District if all of the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made and the following additional findings: a. The allowance of tandem parking will not be detrimental to the project or surrounding properties. b. There are adequate provisions for dedicated personal storage that exceed minimum requirements for accessory storage in multi-family residential projects. c. Alternative modes of transportation are available in close proximity to the project effectively reducing dependency on the automobile as the primary mode of travel. 3. Residential Uses outside of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Tandem (front to back) parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within a single-family dwelling unit attached garage or a multi-family dwelling unit attached garage. SECTION 6: In order to create consistency between the guest parking standards for apartments and condominiums, Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Types) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows in its entirety: B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows: RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Agricultural Housing 2 per dwelling Boarding House 2 per dwelling, plus .5 per sleeping room Caretaker Residence 2 per dwelling Community Care Facility/Small 2 per dwelling Emergency Shelter 1 parking space for every 20 beds plus 1 parking space for each employee on the largest shift plus 1 parking space for each company vehicle Farm Mobile Home 2 per dwelling Family Day Care Home/Large (up to 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling, plus 1 space for 14) every employee not residing in the home, plus one loading space for every 6 children in the facility; one loading space may occur on street if within 150 feet of the dwelling Family Day Care/Small (up to 8) Not regulated Mobile Home 2 per dwelling Mobile Home Park 2 per dwelling, plus 1 guest space for every 2 dwellings Residences 4of6 Apartments 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling Condominiums Studio and 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest parking space 2 or more Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest parking space Senior Citizen Apartments 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus one guest parking space for every three dwelling units. Residential Use Secondary to 2 per residence Commercial Use Second Unit 1 parking space, see Section 8.80.040.E relating to Second Units parking Single Family/Duplex Lots of 4,000 square feet or less 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling* plus one on-street parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that dwelling unit. Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling*. Single Room Occupancy Units 1 per unit plus 1 guest parking space for every 3 units Supportive Housing - Small 2 per dwelling Supportive Housing - Large 1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds Transitional Housing - Small 2 per dwelling Transitional Housing - Large 1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds "Except if two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces are provided elsewhere on a lot for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78. SECTION 7: Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this day of , 2013, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 5 of 6 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 6of6 DEFINTIONS Chapter 8.08 8.08.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide definitions of the terms and phrases used in this Title that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage. Section 8.04.060, Interpretation, determines how language used throughout the Title is interpreted and sets forth general rules of construction that apply to the textual provisions of this Title. Where any of the definitions in this Chapter may conflict with definitions in the other chapters of the Dublin Municipal Code,these definitions prevail for the purposes of this Title. 8.08.020 Definitions (A-Z) Accessory Storaze—Multi-Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage—Multi-Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects. Accessory Storage—Multi-Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom closets linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage-Multi-Family Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 8-1 October 2013 ATTACHMENT 8 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Chapter 8.36 8.36.020 Agricultural and Residential Development Regulations It is required that every building shall be built upon a site which conforms to the General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, and the following development regulations: A. Development Regulations are minimums unless stated as maximums. All areas are given in net square feet. STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M LOT AREA Interior lot 100 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Corner lot 100 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. LOT SQUARE NA 4,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. and FOOTAGE PER DU larger as larger as larger as consistent with consistent with consistent with General Plan General Plan General Plan LOT WIDTH& FRONTAGE Interior lot 300 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet Corner lot 300 feet 60 feet 90 feet 60 feet LOT DEPTH NA 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet RESIDENTIAL USE 1 du. 1 1 du 1 Second 2 du's 1 du per full 750 (maximum per lot) Second Unit Unit sq. ft. (and larger as consistent with General Plan) SETBACKS Front 50 feet 20 ft. avg. 18 ft 20 ft. avg. 18 ft. 20 ft. minimum to minimum garage (1) Side 30 feet (2) 10 feet 10 feet(3) Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet (1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft. from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size. (2) Side Yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet. (3)Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R-M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 36-1 October 2013 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Chapter 8.36 STANDARD A R-1 R-2 R-M DISTANCE 100 feet 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet BETWEEN MAXIMUM LOT NA 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, COVERAGE 35%2 stories 35%2 stories 35%2 stories COMMON NA NA NA 30 %of net site USEABLE area ACCESSORY NA NA 200 cubic feet 200 cubic feet STORAGE-MULTI- minimum per unit minimum ver unit HEIGHT LIMITS (2) (2) (2) (3) (1) Multi-family accessor s� torage shall also be provided in comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts. See also Chapter 8.08 (Definitions). West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories. 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du. and lot coverage does not exceed 35%. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 36-2 October 2013 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 8.76.060 Special Regulations L. Tandem Parking. 1. Commercial and Industrial Uses. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off- street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. Tandem parking is peR:ni a°cn-witrhi-irsingie family ily d eiii;b--unit attae ,� l garages. This may be aeeempiished by the use of tandem, wedge or- other teehniques appFaved by the Zoning ^dministra*^r. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. 2. Residential Uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. The Planning Commission may approve an off-street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing up to 25% of the required parking as tandem (front to back) parking for multi-family_residential uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District if all of the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made and the following additional findings: a. The allowance of tandem parking will not be detrimental to the project or surrounding properties. b. There are adequate provisions for dedicated personal storage that exceed minimum requirements for accessory torage in multi-family residential projects. c. Alternative modes of transportation are available in close proximity to the project effectively reducing dependency on the automobile as the primary mode of travel. 3. Residential Uses outside of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Tandem (front to back) parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within a single-family dwelling unit attached garage or a multi-family dwelling unit attached garage. 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type. The number of off-street parking spaces required for the Use Types in this Chapter shall be as provided in this Section. Square footage requirements are in terms of Gross Floor Area. B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows: RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Condominiums City of Duhlin Zoning Ordinance 76-1 October 2013 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 Studio and I Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest parkin space pace 2 or more Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest parkin space space Sttidk) - -aercicd rvs=guin cca-pc=d`d°rll cSpruo-g`est par] .. e ed oF gar-aged per dwelling pl guest parking (see 2* Bed.eems 7 eavered or gaFaged per dwelling plus guest par-king (see Guest Par-king D ets with i 0 dwellings shell pFavide mer-e additional gnuest par-king e a e f 2 d, ell: :r _ UllllJ h'e h shall l.e „nn Led n s a g ti e s t..n,-1 :. . City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-2 October 2013