HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2014 - Agenda PacketPlanning Commission
Regular Meeting
City of Dublin March 11, 2014
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 – February 25, 2014
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-2014-00006 Development Agreement extension for the AMB/Prologis mixed-use
office/residential project at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Downtown Dublin.
8.2 PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review for a 1,186 square foot building
addition, a 10,282 square foot carport/canopy, a 1,760 square foot carport/canopy, facade
modifications, and related site improvements to the Dublin Toyota sales and service
buildings at 4321 Toyota Drive.
8.3 PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Addendum to increase the number of
residential units permitted and decrease the amount of non-residential square footage
permitted in Downtown Dublin.
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)
L~��OF DU��
i'i('4 sz STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
O�LIFOR���
DATE: March 11, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2014-00006 Development Agreement
extension for the AMB/Prologis mixed-use office/residential project at
6700 Golden Gate Drive in Downtown Dublin
Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting an extension to the existing Development Agreement that has
vested the Site Development Review and Tentative Map entitlements since their original
approval in 2004. The Development Agreement will expire on June 3, 2014 unless extended
before that time. The Developer has requested to extend the Development Agreement, and
Staff recommends an additional eighteen months. In order to remedy an error on the public
notice that was mailed out, Staff recommends that the item be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting on March 25, 2014. The Public Hearing will be re-noticed.
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) Continue the item to March 25, 2014.
s ��c .
Submitted By Revived By
Principal Planner Asst. Community Development Director
COPY TO: File I
ITEM NO.: c?*.
Page 1 of 1
G:1PA#120141PLPA-2014-00006 ProLogis DA extension103.11.14 PC hearinglPCSR 03.11.2014 Continuation.docx
Or Dp����
//A��ii✓� STAFF REPORT
'� c�'%82 PLANNING COMMISSION
,IFO�'�l�
DATE: March 11, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota Site
Development Review
Report prepared by Seth Adams, Assistant Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant has requested Site Development Review approval to make modifications to the
building and site at the existing Dublin Toyota Automotive Dealership. Modifications include a
1,186 square foot single-story addition and a new 10,282 square foot open carport/canopy to
the north elevation of the sales building; the addition of an entry portal feature on the south
elevation of the sales building; a 1,760 square foot open carport/canopy addition to the
southeast corner of the service building; facade modifications to the west elevation of the sales
building; and minor site modifications for automobile circulation.
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 Site Development Review for a 1,186
square foot building addition, a 10,282 square foot sales building carport/canopy, a 1,760
square foot service building carport/canopy, facade modifications, and related site
improvements at the Dublin Toyota auto dealership at 4321 Toyota Drive.
Submitted By Revievyed By
Assistant Planner Assistant Community Development Director
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
ITEM NO.:
Page 1 of 6
GAPA#120131PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota SDR-Phase/APC 3.11.141PCSR Toyota SDR 3 11 14.docx
DESCRIPTION: Figure 1: Project Site
The project site is located at 4321
Toyota Drive. Adjacent properties are
the Hacienda Crossings retail center to orini
the west, Tassajara Creek and the GM
� m
Auto Mall to the east, and the Dublin
Corners retail center to the north. The e d � *
southern edge of the property borders
Interstate 580. The site is 19.15- 3
acres. The project site has a General
a
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan , rle
Land Use Designation of General
VWW AIMI
Commercial and is zoned Planned .° ..
Development (PD). The site has two
existing buildings. the service building
on the northern portion of the site and ��
a sales building immediately to the
south. Access to the site is provided �{n5FV1OODoa
from driveways on Toyota Drive which
intersects with Dublin Boulevard to the
north. The project site is depicted in
Figure 1.
The project site is within the larger Santa Rita Commercial Center Planned Development Zoning
District, which was approved by the City Council in January 1995. Other properties within the
PD include the Hacienda Crossings and Dublin Corners shopping centers. Automobile Sales
are a conditionally permitted use in the PD, and in 1997 the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit for an automobile sales lot with ancillary service uses (Resolution 97-
05), with the City Council subsequently approving the Site Development Review (SDR) for the
sales and service buildings (Resolution 16-97). Photos of the existing sales and services
buildings are included as Attachment 1. In July 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Site
Development Review Permit application for a 3,724 square foot addition to the sales building,
along with facade modifications to both the sales and service buildings that included an
internally illuminated entry portal feature on the south elevation of the sales building.
Due to increased construction cost estimates and operational changes in the way the dealership
wishes to interact with its customers, the Applicant decided not to move forward with the plans
approved in 2012. The Applicant is now requesting approval of a new Site Development
Review Permit that includes some of the facade modifications approved in 2012, as well as new
additions and fagade modifications to the sales and service buildings. (See Attachment 2)
The current project includes the following modifications to the sales building: a 1,186 square foot
single-story addition on the north elevation; a new 10,282 square foot open carport/canopy
along the north elevation; the addition of an entry portal feature on the south elevation; and
fagade modifications to the west elevation. The application also includes a 1,760 square foot
open carport/canopy addition to the southeast corner of the service building, and minor site
modifications for automobile circulation. The Project Plans are included as Exhibit A to
Attachment 2.
2of6
ANALYSIS:
Sales Buildingq
South Elevation (Sheet A-201.0 of Project Plans)
The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing fabric canopy from the south elevation of the
sales building in order to build an approximately 63-foot wide, internally illuminated entrance
portal constructed with translucent glass (Attachment 2, Exhibit A). This is the same entry portal
feature that was approved in 2012. The entrance portal will extend to a height of approximately
42 feet, which is 10 feet above the existing building parapet. The glass portal wall will be built
approximately 23 feet out from the existing building facade, and is framed on both sides by
columns that support a new roof structure which connects to the existing building wall. These
new columns and roof will be clad in silver colored aluminum composite material (ACM)
paneling with a red ACM header panel, and the existing sections of the south elevation wall will
also be covered in silver ACM.
North Elevation (Sheet A-201.1 of Project Plans)
At the north end of the sales building the Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,186 square foot
addition to the building that will be the new write-up station for customers bringing their cars in
for service. Connected to this addition will be a new 10,282 square foot canopy under which the
customers bringing their cars in for service will park and then proceed into the write-up station to
complete their paperwork. The customers' cars will then be taken over to the service building
according to the dealership's work flow for repairs. The exterior wall of the write-up station
addition will be constructed of aluminum frame windows and concrete columns. The north
elevation of the canopy will be enclosed and will feature six evenly spaced bays of aluminum
frame tinted windows to match those on the existing building. Silver ACM paneling will wrap
around from the west elevation to cover the north westernmost corner of the canopy and
existing building, with the remainder of the canopy finished in plaster painted to match the
adjacent existing building wall.
West Elevation (Sheet A-201.1 of Project Plans)
The existing west elevation of the sales building will be covered in the ACM paneling used on
the south elevation and portions of the new north elevation. At the north end of the west
elevation will be the vehicle entrance side of the new service canopy, which will also be covered
with ACM.
East Elevation (Sheet A-201.2 of Project Plans)
The east elevation of the sales building will largely remain as-is with the exception of the new
canopy addition at its north end. The east elevation of the new canopy will be finished in plaster
that is painted to match the existing east elevation, and the existing fabric canopy will remain in
place.
Service Building (Sheet A-201.3 of Project Plans)
The Applicant is also proposing to add a 1,760 square foot open canopy at the southeast corner
of the service building, under which new cars will be parked for final delivery to customers. The
south elevation of the canopy will be covered in the same silver ACM paneling used on the
3of6
sales building, and its east elevation will be finished in plaster that is painted to match the
adjacent existing building wall. The west end of the canopy will connect to the rear of the
existing service building.
Site Improvements (Sheet A-001.1 of Project Plans)
In order to accommodate the new sales building and service building canopies and provide
vehicle access to them, the Applicant is proposing to remove portions of the existing
landscaping and walkways at the north end of the sales building and south end of the service
building, as well as remove 11 parking spaces at the south end of the service building. While 11
existing parking spaces will be removed from the site as part of the project, in constructing the
two new canopies the project will effectively provide new parking/staging areas for between 20-
30 vehicles.
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 when applicable, environmental documents prepared. The project site is a component of a
larger project ("the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project") that the City previously approved on
January 31, 1995. The Santa Rita Commercial Center Project was within the scope of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, for which a Program EIR was
previously certified (SCH No. 91103064). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No.
94113020) was previously approved for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project, which
together with the Program EIR adequately describes this project for the purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends that the project be found to be
within the scope of the Program EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration and therefore, no
further environmental analysis is necessary.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The project site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The project site is located in a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District. The
project is consistent with the Development Regulations for the PD and with the existing
Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Sales.
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.
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. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no
comments from surrounding property owners regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report
was provided to the Applicant.
4 of 6
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Photos of Existing Sales and Service buildings
2) Resolution approving Site Development Review for a 1,186 square
foot building addition, a 10,282 square foot sales building
carport/canopy, a 1,760 square foot service building carport/canopy,
facade modifications, and related site improvements at the Dublin
Toyota auto dealership at 4321 Toyota Drive, with the project plans
attached as Exhibit A.
5 of 6
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/: Jeremy Deng, AAI, 4301 Hacienda Drive, Suite 480,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
PROPERTY OWNER: HAMCOR, Inc., dba Dublin Toyota, 4321 Toyota Drive,
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 4321 Toyota Drive
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER: 986-0016-024-00
GENERALPLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial
SURROUNDING USES:
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
North PD Retail/Office Commercial/Shopping Center
& Hotel
South N/A N/A Interstate 580
East PD Retail/Office Tassajara Creek & GM Auto
Mall
West PD Retail/Office Commercial/Shopping Center
6of6
Photos of Existing Buildings
tom!'
Sales Building: North Elevation (facing Service Building) — location of proposed 1,186 s.f. building
addition and 10,282 s.f. canopy
Sales Buildin g: West Elevation
(facing Hacienda Crossings) — proposed to be covered with silver
ACM paneling
ATTACHMENT 1
.4
Sales Building: South Elevation (facing Interstate 580) — location of proposed new entry portal
PF' ..
Sales Building: East Elevation (facing Tassajara Creek) — proposed 10, 282 square foot canopy will
extend out from the north end of this elevation (right side of photo)
a
r
Service Building: Southeast corner— location of proposed 1,760 square foot new car delivery canopy
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 1,186 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
ADDITION, A 10,282 SQUARE FOOT SALES BUILDING CARPORT/CANOPY, A 1,760
SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BUILDING CARPORT/CANOPY, FACADE MODIFICATIONS,
AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DUBLIN TOYOTA AUTO DEALERSHIP AT
4321 TOYOTA DRIVE
(APN 986-0016-024-00)
PLPA-2013-00059
WHEREAS, Jeremy Deng of AAI Design (Applicant) and HAMCOR, Inc., DBA Dublin
Toyota (Property Owner), have requested Site Development Review approval of a 1,186 square
foot building addition and a 10,282 square foot sales building carport/canopy to the existing
sales building; a 1,760 square foot carport/canopy to the existing service building, fapade
modifications, and related site improvements to the property at 4321 Toyota Drive (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, which
has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of General
Commercial, and which conditionally permits automobile sales and service uses; and
WHEREAS, the Project has an existing Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales and
service that was approved by the Planning Commission in 1997 (Resolution 97-05) and a Site
Development Review Permit that was approved by the City Council (Resolution 16-97); 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 project site is a component of a larger project ("the Santa Rita
Commercial Center Project") that the City previously approved on January 31, 1995. The Santa
Rita Commercial Center Project was within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment, for which a Program EIR was previously certified (SCH No.
91103064). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 94113020) was previously approved for
the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project, which together with the Program EIR adequately
describes this project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
project is within the scope of the Program EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration and
therefore, no further environmental analysis is necessary; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending Site Development Review approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March
11, 2014; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
ATTACHMENT 2
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 Site Development
Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review), with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and Design
Guidelines in that: 1) automobile sales and service is a conditionally permitted use; 2)
there is an existing Conditional Use Permit for the dealership; 3) the proposed project will
modernize and enhance the architectural appearance of the buildings; 4) the proposed
project is well designed and compatible with the existing buildings and surrounding area;
and 5) automobile sales and service uses are consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the
zoning for the site is PD, Planned Development, and the proposed dealership is a
conditionally permitted use type; 2) a Conditional Use Permit has previously been
approved and remains in effect to allow an automobile dealership to operate at this
location; 3) the dealership, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding uses; 4) the
overall design of the Project is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located;
and 5) the project is consistent with 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 in that: 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 to the site is provided from Toyota Drive; 3) the site is currently
developed with an automobile dealership, which is compatible with the adjacent uses;
and 4) operation of the use is subject to compliance with the existing Conditional Use
Permit.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development in that: 1) the site has been designed for automobile sales and service
uses; 2) access to the site is provided from Toyota Drive, which is an existing roadway;
and 3) the proposed building addition, canopies, and facade and site modifications
constitute a negligible expansion of an existing use.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that. the project is
located on a fully developed site that is generally flat.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in
the vicinity in that: 1) the project has been well designed to complement the surrounding
area; 2) the materials used in the building addition and facade modifications are of a high
quality, including aluminum composite paneling and illuminated translucent glass; and 3)
2of13
the proposed architectural modifications enhance the site by introducing new materials to
the existing buildings.
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 in that: 1)
there is no new landscaping proposed for this project.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) access to the site is currently provided from two
driveways along Toyota Drive; and 2) the project consists of site improvements that
include accessible walkways and paths of travel along and between both the sales
building and the service building.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Site
Development Review for the Dublin Toyota project at 4321 Toyota Drive as shown on the Project
Plans date-stamped "Received by Dublin Planning on December 27, 2013", included as Exhibit A
to this Resolution, 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 Division 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; [PCS] Parks and
Community Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District;
[LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health,
[Zone 7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA]
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health
Services.
Agency When Source
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required,
Prior to:
GENERAL
1. Approval. This Site Development Review PL On-going Planning
approval is for the Dublin Toyota building
additions, fagade modifications, and related site
improvements at 4321 Toyota Drive (PLPA-2013-
00059). This approval shall be as generally
depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by
AAI Architects dated received by Dublin Planning
on December 27, 2013, and other plans, text, and
diagrams relating to this approval, stamped
approved and on file in the Community
Development Department, except as modified by
the following Conditions of Approval.
2. Effective Date. This Site Development Review PL On-going DMC
Permit approval becomes effective 10 days after 8.96.020.H
3of13
action by the Planning Commission (10 days after and 8.136
the date of this Resolution) unless appealed
before that time in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL 1 year from DMC
commence within one (1) year of Permit approval approval 8.96.020.D
or the Permit shall lapse and become null and
void.
4. Time Extension. The original approving PL 1 year from DMC
decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's written approval 8.96.020.E
request for an extension of approval prior to
expiration, and upon the determination that any
Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that applicable findings of approval will
continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as required by the particular Permit.
5. Modifications. The Community Development PL On-going DMC
Director may consider modifications or changes 8.104
to this Permit approval if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with applicable
sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Revocation of Permit. The Permit approval PL On-going DMC
shall be revocable for cause in accordance with 8.96.020.1
Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance of Various
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable building
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin permits or
Public Works Department, Dublin Building installation of
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda improvements
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.
4of13
8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all Various Issuance of Various
applicable fees in effect, including, but not limited building
to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact permits
Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services
District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified
School District School Impact fees (per
agreement between Developer and School
District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu
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.
9. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM On-going Admin/City
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin Attorney
and its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, 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.
10. Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. PL On-going Planning
In the event that there needs to be clarification to
the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director has the authority to clarify
the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the
Applicant without going to a public hearing. The
Community Development Director also has the
authority to make minor modifications to these
Conditions of Approval without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts to this project.
11. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer PL Through Planning
shall control all activities on the project site so as construction
not to create a nuisance to existing/surrounding and on-going
businesses and/or residences.
5of13
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Through Planning
responsible for clean-up and disposal of project construction
related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-
free site.
13. Property Maintenance. The PL On-going DMC
Applicant/Developer and property owner shall be 5.64.050
responsible for maintaining the site in a clean and
litter free condition during construction and
through completion. Per the City of Dublin Non-
Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance,
DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property
Owner shall maintain the building, site and all
signage in good condition and shall keep the site
clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a
regular and continuous basis.
14. Construction Trailers, Storage Containers and PL Through Planning
Equipment/Materials Storage Yard. Prior to the Completion
placement of any construction trailer, storage
container or equipment/ materials storage yard
related to construction activities, a Temporary
Use Permit shall be applied for and approved.
PLANNING DIVISION — GENERAL
15. Temporary Promotional Signs. Temporary PL On-going DMC
Promotional Signs, including but not limited to, 8.84
banner signs and balloons, are subject to
compliance with Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance and require a Zoning
Clearance from the Planning Division prior to
installation.
16. Prohibited Signage. The use of any A-Frame, PL Ongoing DMC
portable or sandwich board signs on-site or within 8.84
the publ ic right-of-way is prohibited.
17. Equipment Screening. All electrical and/or PL Issuance of Planning
mechanical equipment shall be screened from building
public view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall permits
be completely screened from view by materials
architecturally compatible with the 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 Community
Development Director.
PLANNING DIVISION — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
18. Exterior Maintenance and Repair. All buildings, PL On-going Planning
exterior furniture, and finishes on-site shall be
regularly maintained and any damages repaired
on an on-going basis. Buildings which have
faded, cracked, chipped or peeling exterior paint
shall be repainted and maintained in good
6of13
condition at all times. Exterior paint colors are
subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director in accordance with
Chapter 8.104.
19. Landscaping. All landscaping shall be PL On-going Planning
maintained in good condition at all times.
Irrigation shall be provided and utilized as needed
to maintain healthy and viable plant material.
Dead, decayed, diseased or other vegetation
constituting an unsightly appearance shall be
removed and replaced with viable plant material
of the same or comparable type.
20. Occupancy Permits. Final inspection or PL, B Occupancy Planning &
occupancy permits will not be granted until all Building
construction is complete in accordance with
approved plans and the conditions required by
the City.
21. Non-Residential Security Requirements. The PL On-going Planning
property owner and/or their designee shall
comply with the City of Dublin Non-Residential
Security Requirements.
BUILDING
22. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building
construction shall conform to all building codes Completion
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit.
23. 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 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 approvals of all participation non-
City agencies prior to the issuance of building
permits.
24. Construction Drawings. Construction plans B Issuance of Building
shall be fully dimensioned (including building Building
elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all Permits
existing and proposed 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. Provide a
complete building analysis that shows the new
7of13
addition is within the allowable area and all
occupancy separations per the CBC Section 508.
The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be
consistent with each other.
25. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record B Frame Building
shall be retained to provide observation services Inspection
for all components of the lateral and vertical
design of the building addition, including nailing,
holddowns, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. A written report shall
be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
scheduling the final frame inspection.
PUBLIC WORKS
26. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. PW Prior to Public
In the event that there needs to be clarification to Approval of Works
these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Improvement
Community Development and Public Works Plans
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.
27. Standard Public Works Conditions of PW Prior to Public
Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply Approval of Works
with all applicable City of Dublin Public Works Improvement
Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event Plans
of a conflict between the Public Works Standard
Conditions of Approval and these Conditions,
these Conditions shall prevail.
28. Improvement and Grading Plans. All PW Prior to Public
improvement and grading plans submitted to the Issuance of Works
Public Works Department for review/approval Grading/Site-
shall be prepared in accordance with the work Permit
approved preliminary plan, these Conditions of
Approval, and the City of Dublin Municipal Code
including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). All
printing and lettering shall be 1/8" minimum
height and such shape and weight as to be
readily legible on prints and microfilm
reproductions. For on-site improvements, the
Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the City's
On-site Checklist (eight 8-1/2" x 11" pages). All
of these reference documents are available from
8 of 13
the Public Works Department (call telephone
925-833-6630) for more information.
Pollution Control Plan shall be included with the
improvement plan approval. The plan shall
include detailed design, location, and
maintenance criteria of all erosion and
sedimentation control measures.
29. Grading/Demolition/Sitework Permit. The PW Prior to Public
Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Issuance of Works
Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Grading/Site-
Department for all site improvement or grading work Permit
work. The Grading/Sitework Permit will be based
on the final set of civil plans and will not be
issued until all of plan check comments 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.
30. Site Plan. On-site improvements shall be PW Prior to Public
designed in accordance with the site plan entitled Issuance of Works
"Preliminary Improvement Plan Phase II" Grading/Site-
prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated work Permit
December 26, 2013 and these Condition of
Approval.
31. Vehicle Parking. Prior to obtaining PW Prior to Public
grading/sitework permit, applicant shall submit a Occupancy Works
parking layout plan for the proposed parking lot
revisions.
Applicant should repair any distressed areas of
pavement within the proposed area of work. The
parking spaces striping that is in poor condition
shall be re-striped. All parking spaces shall be
double striped using 4" white lines set
approximately 2 feet apart according to City
standards and §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Dublin
Municipal Code. All compact-sized 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 abut a landscaped area or planter.
9of13
All customer and employee stalls shall be
clearly identified with signs and/or pavement
markings. The proposed parking shall not
impede required exit paths or encroach into
pedestrian pathways.
32. Parking Prohibitions/Restrictions. Vehicle PW On-going and Public
parking shall be prohibited or restricted at Addressed Works
locations deemed reasonably necessary by the Prior to Final
City Engineer during final design and/or
construction.
33. Site Accessibility Requirements. All parking PW Prior to Public
spaces for the disabled and other physical site Occupancy Works
improvements shall comply with current UBC
Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin
Standards for accessibility.
34. ADA Access. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to Public
upgrade facilities to comply with current ADA Issuance of Works
standards. Building Permit
a) Install Accessibility signs at Disabled
Access Parking spaces per CBC Section
1129B.4.
b) Upgrade curb ramps with ramps
conforming to current standards for grade
and tactile elements (truncated domes).
c) Upgrade accessible path of travel to
conform to the current standards for
grades — cross slope not exceeding 2%
and longitudinal slopes not exceeding
8.33% with hand rails or 5% without hand
rails.
d) Proposed improvements associated with
the new Car Delivery facility indicates
removal of existing accessible path from
the accessible van parking stall located
east of the Parts/Service building.
Provide accessible path from the
accessible van parking stall to the existing
Customer Lounge area within the
Parts/Service building.
e) Display vehicles shall not block required
paths of travel.
35. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to PW Prior to Public
issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the physical Occupancy Works
condition of the 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.
10 of 13
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 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.
36. Stormwater Runoff Calculations. PW Prior to Public
Applicant/Developer shall provide the stormwater Issuance of Works
runoff, conveyance and treatment details. The Grading/Site-
calculations shall demonstrate adequate capacity work Permit
in the existing or proposed storm drainage
system.
37. Stormwater Management. The preliminary PW Prior to Public
Stormwater Treatment Plan submitted with this Issuance of Works
SDR application is approved in concept only. Grading/Site-
The final Stormwater Management Plan is work Permit
subject to City Engineer's approval prior to the
issuance of Grading/Sitework Permit. Approval
is subject to the developer providing the
necessary plans, details, and calculations that
demonstrate the plan complies with the standards
established by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
The Applicant shall install "No Dumping Drains
To Creek" storm drain markers on all existing
catch basins on site per City Standard Plan CD-
704.
38. Storm Water Treatment Measures PW Final Public
Maintenance Agreement. Applicant/Developer Works
shall enter into an 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
11 of 13
verification and assurance that all treatment
devices will be properly operated and
maintained.
39. Erosion Control During Construction. PW Prior to Public
Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion Issuance of Works
and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and Grading/Site-
Improvement plans for review and approval by work Permit
the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said and During
plan shall be designed, implemented, and Construction
continually maintained pursuant to the City's
NPDES permit between October Vt and April
15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy
weather, or as otherwise directed by the City
En ineer/Public Works Director.
40. 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 5:00 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.
41. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction PW During Public
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all Construction Works
work under construction to separate the and
construction operation from the public. All Occupancy
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
Engine r/Public Works Director.
42. Construction Noise Management Plan. PW During Public
Developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Construction Works
Management Plan, to be approved by the City and Grading
Engineer and Community Development Director, Activities
that 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.
12 of 13
43. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to Public
be responsible for the repair of any damaged Occupancy Works
pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public
street facility resulting from construction activities
associated with the development of the project.
44. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to Public
prepare a photometric plan to the satisfaction of Occupancy Works
the City Engineer, Director of Community
Development, the City's Consulting Landscape
Architect and Dublin Police Services. 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 gla re.
45. Geotechnical Report & Recommendations. PW Prior to Public
The Applicant/Developer shall provide a site Issuance of Works
specific geotechnical report prepared by a Building
reputable geotechnical engineer. The Permit
Geotechnical Engineer 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPAM20131PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota SDR-Phase 11 PC 3.11.141PC Reso SDR 3.11.14.doc
13 of 13
N
� z
_ w z �a
■ _ z a- o o
° _ J z m w J 0 U aq L O m C*m C W CL ,4 E-
E O
o o U U zz z y LJJ J g!� 8* U
—O O �{ m z z¢p M iWty sJi Ilti C RJ Jill m LUamo. o�c°� 9 rw1 �l } z o a a3 M W J•'..��Y Sti~ 1HILHIR J LU
V
m " ° Q U O J iie ......• �� y g
" oY O > pNj o of B°s8ig w
V
a cy E +d E 3 O
w
w
x
m
W
m
�Z Z tlO VYNYSStll F
zU
z
,,z
N.
iwa �cs U _
z
mLL,Q 02.96 8Y
MH q a
z ,j�ac7 mini .��
f y -9�9 z9 G € o • O. a �9
ywNN $ tlanowi 0 �
wu� m ow 0000 & VY
��
g E an.o.a as 29Z z o J m L
? Q w 8808 $ 99999w
REM 3 Z tl v°rvai u m y
Z y�11 ♦0� w W � °�
Q C ANN U ~ �92
O �RQ°mi
0--
a
g 9 w Y -
s
LL u _ §
w $ gaY
m ew U €
a m
w F LLz y J saw'"`-g ggN
i w (L' Sa s flp
�<dR3 z ° 8&�a oAa� eg'�� 8 d sc- �g �� m gZ�z$
O w=s?� S' a s °� d< gw� s."< V H H81H, (� g � Haig
a 050 U & 1z �a 3& 8 cn C)
ow t
LLnLL LL gLL kl 9_do oR °9 S� m - HoR ;+g _ ;
H V! �a g 8 �. w° w mb 3 F 4 4
m mb _ °W p w-
¢K' H ° € � 4� H two 8 io.
zp i.1; MAP Rii
" . 2 H6 bE °
55 I
R > a� m
NMI— o� � ¢� �� 1�� '°Y �I a g a�y a8� ��' � R� R�� R�$ w; 71e m�w q w
�z wg »»> N x gg°'� w g �" g w g e ¢a bF �a �° e �Qb _ g�
a - w O was° go F"m F� a�qo
p gW 83 mg %w -6 5� Mw w � wa �g q g Y�8 8 n F ° ° -gw
a m $ z =�aR €$ �w° g � a x fig= °9
E— w a��asa � LL q ° �� ' X66 8 9 81
w a RN a kY` mx �a 3 4 3.w a
64 __ aw sa= �° aa of € _ 98a �€ w� �€ aw= T�- a _
W --zzz- w w c q � z $° $$ oa goa � � k=°g FmW a3 a4 a sue; a8mi �� £3 T. 3g
66 66 H s 8N o -R;, �a
d �8 RR$$$R8 ° 0 8 ee W
6W < z
HM M-
a LL
�
oz b o S ai � lao o d °b�s �° N
ao� RW° Pik
< ���u z
�' ° °
ue a$ ss'- yy y e�
o�
z d06.196"a UiF dr §2 R °, �
§ �� 'YBYs> ¢� 8'�a ROW, oLL
$ €1�ogo,.s � �Y, ¢° °$ 8 LS °aa� kSJ�$ aaasi €i '4€z oog5d dffG od�'�' c �kl�8�'�m G �k'k'c S'>si
�Y Yo
N bo °-g � s
9.2 Rj
w g= > # e z w
a
ff w � Q �2 o �e> aY � �Oz L 8
„a �y H� oq cn � g��;3° °.o �F 8 ° b ° gFF� °LLy
3 "� �F� g o_°��sg1•ga� 3 ° �_ Y;$ �6YgYYW =° ga$ Q
Q €6ik' `� a� -8 <z �€gowo �o$U J � �g9 �3iLL�°gam°ow�ck'¢k'msaw� FS�ac:a 'uSLS°�, owWW�c-s�>� $�
g � -w � a° O Q w �° a° ��w�a� g� oo wY��o YYY g�a=
�_ a ¢Y 3Y� r��5° �� j �� smmmo ° $ U= �' a wwwww� � LLLL� On �$a���°�_I__
w � � �3 H ?-Hpe Wk?a s s � $ m 1 m
W o �$ u 3 $ oE�o uaS3Y "o o�>34a $ 0
x
' U
Q a Q J o F
� W ti' t it a,
Y
>z I t;
pp ityyiE a Q
❑p t'of�s II�Pii j
Z
z J
�
o
Z Q J
a LLI.CC)
O w
� o Z o
I—z
C)
'
°
co a W O
° cN j13If� a a
4 12 a 4
qpw O- m g
�- � � L� w°as
CID
_ vii wP, C7 3w J
m3n" az �
° W I g
h o qqo¢ s N S � JllJl3H �gz Q I Y
Q
CL
o s "F 8w Fojo � W z wd ` u� W I I . W
3 mm goo o
ol
= n
U<o � �533�„3g�s ao� o z z �. ��' ISog u az x;< 2gw H �e1
o wz w ¢
d FFiV
0000a
a zM j u
i
Cy)
r
__________________
C7
O Z
U' Z
Q E\
a
E\E` \ \ a ---�
a w w
U >- f
O
O N
CL
N ///////////////� ❑ W (.1 0
H010VdW00 y
HS" ?
O
v z
O Z
LLI I ` 6
I '
I
1
I
I I
I I
� I
5
I 1 I
I �
I h
`._______I I______ Z tlr�
o �> Qa
am
a
o
i
r
I
I
I �
i U
1
I
i
1
i
1
I
I I
I
1\I
1
e
1
I
,111 I I
1 1 J I
111,
2AISO VJOAOl
I I
V
z
Q
� a
Q W
� o
N
.a C y U O O Lij
� w p� E w _m \ /p Lu
zz
` > o J �
z 4
CD
0.2 o o Q Z z
e Z 2
2
+ OU° O
O W �
C
C
y N n d o' U G I•— m w 4a�l�i;� c
L) p . p c \ dlp6i uJ
O /� o o a g8 o
u oo 3 O w
co E v
w a C/� a m
—.naE 3 !^
�J l
ED
ti
g
z
21H 8§85
V El 13
bgggg b — 0 El LLJ
w a € se a s. a s° e s as filC �t
Y o00o a o0 000a 0000a000
-------------------------------- xs�a'vrssvl $
ssavet un ----
63aYdS(e) ---
asovasm�)
s
a
C7 s 2 Z
d8 it — Y
C �
W W
ssa/ds BU O1ptldW0p; — W e Y
HStlNl 7
MT
a
b
W
u a
3
N,
. O .
0
0 0
0 be
El
Q Q < °JNIHaYd Atl IdS10 DNI)4dVd AtgdS10
11 '�
Z
4 ( Q
Macs
J
11
a
Z
W
2
W
0
EL
EL
W§
EN
za- o s z R � CD m' E J m 71 4y[
V�!o YN O Efi �F C
LLJ ED 00 0
w g
Ec° Nca o — � t+ li�a V ��
o
0 0— — p v a b� ,�s....._�,, a g�lij > z z
y 0 0 w 0 U- Q W U ¢ Z z ,;o p C f Bii w O
c o- ao (`fll U Z ZY d't .s 3 ! til U� J_
+ m o a o V° v O m 3 5¢¢ "'��/..',.'n�v �:��c° i{ $ �r \ f'—
L V 0c ei O O J '�r..w.•° � [�e w C12 O
o
0 /
m d O p O N O N p c N �' Ljj
co
U o
00 �°p O O ; O W w a :i{�iSit a
v J
it PH �°"�W" wx; s `� � >o a a H. �+ g o
� a' LL$ 8 8gw o� U a 4 sg
gh HQ Sit H,
IV€ o € $ $ a �$Yaa a Leo g Y " 5 z n 06 � Y
; F
H. gig ° �3mq ° ol
I .
$»�; �
u! s o G w
Z a� � LLw� " gas Ww -g 1. w �s H 'p",�
zg
w a she �a M4 ���g _
y z �� H ° e"", Sys g To H $ a _� €ffi� ° 3 °
w ° Z 8gg M °law ¢y.LLw° ° ° � °' � ° e� w � ° °R= i°�
~ € O g `�` 7 eg $' LL-k_1 9RI! 1a; 3 ��¢y X a °�� RY' S ya # Z 'F ¢ww digs e
Z � � m8 _°_ � d~ eog $ �" �° �' fr =o Am��
«� � S� g Aa 3 �i�3 H_ g sw gG
F b � ° B g ° 8� S goo �¢ �" Q
W O � 5°e � s'- g9"� 8� �3 ggg -�6 §.$" xp E " V a 8`c a 88>��$
Y W r1 bB ?g �5 �° & S3«~ �8$ Yx �s $ H W8 $ y z
U) ° 8 s� s; § ¢e P=� N 1. �m ° � 1� ° j��a ��_� $s��
w v F it 4mff� " ;W ¢; �� ¢= w° �e �� � � z -
i www '—` w w §21 >�� a8Ws � eY 4 a2 ° W 3 1,g H v V. ssaMin w
4 4 w 4 w � s �Y jz a �° € C BE � o �sa� fax F% d0. a tl �Jifi8 8 s d cs
CL . a LU
U
I�
0 p
'I
i,
�i
i
I
I
I o o
I
' I I
_ � ❑I I
I 1�1I I
1
l `/yJy�h—-_ --�I
/ I I
- CIS I
`~>E-------
- >`\
1 '
V
Z
Z � �
I
W
`cvJ m co U
w
� �
Z g
5
a
z a.
'FL ,
�� ZO O
O J
p D
II
� N
wgoreoco�r/wi eo,.�..+w
ea•.A.
aw nu se
:are/axr
z
E CL
N UNso v`^ O LU
O n m O MM ! L
Lij
H O cr Lo rr yU o O o x C .__O n m W U 1 I ' V i �D o ay
Y g E
m Q U O
o w < Z O co} r
cci m o 1 o j o �ij,;s,EE ee
O J 03 <U
c c O E o w ¢is '-E a 3
g w
a :ii'+iS4 i m
a ; 41 sal gs !11 lid s
F101 LL a a ocHEIR 0
C
I I
II II I
it I I I
it 'g
I I 1 I
--------1I----------------------=*---+—�
o o
co
----------------------------- ---
.♦`.11 2-S ALS 8s A< Ll[-.S I I
r°d
I
I I �
—
I I A
--
I/
I
I I I 17 I I
am®63pY1 arre+r°'�m
ors
I
y I
� I
I s I
-
I\
W
Ll PB ALLY1 1 LIOM .Ll<-Sti \
� 1 I
W
cc
/ d
o f W I w
Z
I z x x x I
--A
�
I ZI
— I
I a I m
I
w
I I CO
2 L7
I I LL3 3 3 I Z
3 °LL
I m
O
J
LL
r
OMO'83NlYli.IOtV-I1SL M1.PN11S<
O•pxp�gLY.t
OHf191EI
c o,e^ Vim+ E F6� yi
o J �' p I z
ypn dP u !
m L\U CMD = a c?m St lilt r
Eom vii Zvi c D / 7i i6etyj LO
� <° o 00 LL LQL �R ¢ U ' ]i��F�i m r�
+ *Um oUo v O t.J Q w g ``1�7v i:t�'� yflj{}j�a s O u O
N t v c — w c Q O z ° a a ..{y �6B°a . O W
y p O u L c) G J g r
.Ui o o o C. o f N s o � IiF�iy w
+ x°a 3 O
a
°y o , d o ; O w/� s Q aii3 � :
lC E +a E 3 � n
vJ
m
I
I
I �
I
f C
I I I
I
I I
I � I
1 '
I
I I
I
I
I
D oo I .
U
II
I o ,
ro-
a Ix
I
I ,
II I I
� I I
--------------- ----------------L
it� I
�a 'I
I � �
Z a
r
� I
I
I I
I
I
� I I
I
1 ,
O
W
V 7Fif z
W
cc
�Y� Z W
O
ca
Li
I
L------i
CL
g
cr
O
O
J
LL
r
I
4 O /�
LLI
` V
LLJ
m _ U m w > CZ Z �It > Z p
O o c a E o- ao 0 K n t a_ y +;p.N.4.....,, F w co C <O O Q O 1 1 C) I„U Q Q 4A ¢ _ W Iyrt•°j13eS O
LL C/)� — V N aG4 j1}$ cc
} OP OUon -° O W Z ¢p ':I�' 'N' 11��d pfd LL O �W r•
W/ Q
� O �d63:l�Fi fQ1 O V_
Q V H J W n n Z4FlA9�� U J > g
W
m° N ` � ,?��' LLJ a
cr
Y =E P 3 O (�"� O G N g ii``
` o y o Y v`0 3 O w m a �i1�i3i z U) ¢ i
N E o_E 3 ''^) ¢ a m
VJ
� s
W
ao `
c ae z
J
of
a
e
w oQ m Q
LL
O
3
0
I I .ffdi I ILL 1\"J/
O
Poo o Mod4
ae-
I
i
61
Z i ---=
I
-
\\\ rod- 0 CL
U>
cr
I I �
� I I '
M
• • • w
N
w
w
cr-
Q
Q
rZ
V
Z
0
J_
m
� W
U
cr
w
Z
g
cr
0
0
LL
oxa3oweffuerwn-list p•O�mlKt
B+a•e?"•�+roust
uu�nnt
Y, 07 4q
Z T
a } �F
O u
U Ewr .Nom w
:D o
°-
o`- v U ° z zx o;s g it} LU
+ °oa °Uo v O w Q �_ Z w S 5 �"'�h, �� 1if� g Q U O
Um y
y v .� ._ O o a a ..*S tit _
S C
o °°c.i ° T ~C\j 1 � LL
=°N w
a O w
M i
L o C C O C d' > �C'Ei•
W
_E —E 3 l^
VJ
UETAL
0
y
m FFFM Z
CD
Wpa
O
�of
6�
W
O O O
W O O
U
O
J
Z
O
w
.. ° z
w
cc
w
LL
w
cr
O
» w
0
Z
`1% W
C7
Z
J_
m
W
U
cc
w
Z
a
cr-
O
O
LL
C Ors �mY E LL Tm O a
co it 7
m m P P P d U '—• 1\\1 1 CO < U N �� � ` li /`/\I
>o x .— W Q
<o o _—° LL 0 E— U W 1 iillill��t Cc
+ m U m o U°n v O w Q O g i1�t� a3 m T�
y ,.'
m L a v Cc ` V G O m + - a'1 S �0111af�l+ie!j - Z
P S C Y O Q O O
N N NU C O Y O O N P y
>¢ a wd 1ili�1�ii ia (I J O 11m Q LU U LLJ
E E 3 V^
g w d
m
I—
¢ 0000aoo
i
O
4 T -
m
li I
I�j I
—————— T—————————————————————--
ro
I
¢o ,
I I I
I
I V\�
I
Wr �
ladnva ioaai
4
I
' a3nava � I
I I I
x I
I -- z
0
Z o
I �
� z
11" 13M11'/d r d01 I Q
J I
o W
� a----_= 6�
aid
is g
I I a
o
----- --------------------- ————
`N(83N8'JOOVLmIV'lKL e'W'9�IK!
�'V'Mw83W1051
Yl�a9afl
z z
■ __ _ °�^ °o�°° E m o o A o
�� z g N
_aK ° w c Q
m d u
CD a N w � � z a � t �
LO 0kmw /"�♦ pp6ici3 J_ l.L C\I
+U N Ll-N G d C°U«�a -0 U LLJ 1k"ll
Q O m i3Il IS
o j
C7 0 o g }, i a
U o °m o 3 LU 3 w W ali'si3 C/) w a m
w° a O !^
N E a E
W zw
z in
Ys � Sb o
LL 8
O
O 8a s8 'a €m a'
❑ REl P
_ 4
e
NO3dOE �NO3dOR
i
A l3 wz
13dYWd dw �s
i II
i
NO3dOB 'NO3dQN ICI 13dYHYd tlOd01
n
4 \
�1a Q
Z
O
Z
O
o
I �
w
z
O
0
Z
O
J
D
m
co
w
U
w
Z
CL
LL
O
O
cc
T
flN°3�1ntl3A-fOOtlYmlMlesl tlw0�iest
8vyveauesaesglbs(
S3W d3tlY
N E m uj m _ z Q
N g
ui E p o D > _ Lo p w yiiFb
N L.L.. � a i:'N� o q LL y Q OO 0O W Q �O V'30 p[(y 6
0 d CD.� LUNm n o oo i p Q O O WJv L
\
Z J ^\\1
Cl) o ad aa3366
W ��E aaE 3 O U) ¢
vJ
4
i
I
I
F �
i
i
i
--7
I
z
_ o
4_
a
J
W
2
O
81 j IIII I
j,jti`j !j 68'
co
AIM 4 m
J
a
j r
pp mNap �m� E J m o o1E Ll O
aNm
[� W � l� Z Z
m u LLJ c0
, _
m E - PY W Q Utz 2�
E m ct
CD
_o, O po m O U w z zg a '•,c.y b ;,, Bpsg�'� g m j
m tVm CU V O 'I ' (n W \ V
rLL�J O .._,,.�..,� b 5 J ou
U m o c,i O \ N a o �g Egq Q W
Att
LLJ
M
N E YaE 3
tR
LEI
e 5
� I
E � g
OTC®0®® ® ®(g®® ® ----- . -
3 \ \
1lnf,
Lo
LU
i
„
I w
n
I
— j F
C ti
LIJ
p
•c: :x
e: :x
p
a I F
p
p Z
� J
i I =
I � z
oI
�I E
$IH $IH�H �
Q
T
a-
w anm a P o J LU
PP
m w > � zz r
E o m
ci
w o m c Ur Lo o N m31a a1p4IIg
O O`°a ; w of d o �`1fS•"�T�* as O
N b � �i (( O
<22 0 o LL W Q Q z i ila N
U N O U U Z 2 Y O: 1.B i j -- Q
+ a um °oU° O w Q` >- Z w 5 5� �yi+�rO i� i � a U) �
F "N o+ o U G Q m W a a 3 J J
t =o O o i� aiFQ �
m w
am Ww
E E 3 O
V/
9'n
c
e '
i
41 -
6 �J
Q
I
II 1
II
II
II
■
1
■ —T—�I I — —7
■ 1 1 II�
® — 1
1 II
■ i_
® I
II
II � _
I
� I
i II
I
II
II
II
I
I ,
1
1
I I I I
O
I I Q
I I I w
I I I w
CD
I I I 0: w
I I z j it 1
1 �
I z
J '
rj �� yj j (I i m
� I m CD
CD
cn
o
b !
LL N
V^ED YN^ O M m ��p�•�� V
N 00 O C r <LSEo AC UOpN P M G oN x c. oN>cm m U P•Co•Y C�°."Y o 1•' O°O W _ J ~a W y a U�m a w IJ(2�/�+,yo`G�s*....�i�,C �Il.#e e�E li•jY(p'}��ciI�j�;4 F'�F`
VO^W ag\ LO p
O o
x Q z z0• O .L Z 21 e¢, I'g m N
OZ.
0.
U a w
`' U 1 O LJI CO Q
9
L _c o c V 2[6aa•a� 'p
Cl) - E Y a E 3 CO
,�•••-
9 I —!Zzu
I
o
i
— ; ,—r-- - C
f
\ H 0
- i
O
II �
ffl _
— r
II
I I I
- LI U-\
_ C J
I� g
r - -4 ;
r m__ I
� I
I 1 4---+— —
� II 1
I � Q
I
II
. � I
b §1 i HM—M
a s e ti
oa0000 - Z
z o❑a --
I
z
j I IL $ o
_ W �
I j uj £
' \ I w i W W
F- v
= g F- � H
a \� I — 1 CO
1.
,1 - Z i y
z
to
Lu
i � J
O 3 P � ii �IH m m
o s g
Z u g 3 0 i ig I 41Ipiti01p W
} H H 8 Y H B & 8i# H 8 �'N �'N N ,
W �� �. 8p 8' SR �e�a W I i
CO
LLB
C Oro^ �aoa L.L > o z
w
vP v
?} z o E N >
cr LO
¢ iI1€1!s F 8[
s p7i'l8=a+i i J m w
O `P CJ/)
LLI( 0
� 22
O 0 z O
w w Q a _
s m
r O I V
O J $9 W
co $
$ Q OLU
o c c w
E E 3 O UJ
zza
i $6� LL
II
l
I '
iI
I `
It
I I II a
I i �
I
II
I II
i
- II
t
` I i
■
■
■
■
I ■
■
II � ■ �
■
� I ■
711
I ■
z
0
_ c)
.................. w
U)
a.
_
LU
z0
. — a:
_ w I I III ui
J I I III 0
w
! F-
0
0
J
m
m U)
J Q
Q fn
N
T
LD
co LLJ 00 z
0 ad
d
N a U
U o
z �
°x a
1 O
<o o I Q Z
n O
+ O (�
w z}[= 111g�A J Q g
CID -C> M 0 ° ° EIS;{g' C� J w
N E a E 3
1 27
N
21 § -
IIJ
I, ii ill � G
I � �
I �
�e I .III
II '
Z II
0
i
I '
lo, ---- g
j
— c—
i I I
- Z
-1— p — - o
LU
gi
I
U
I
—{ — O ---
----
- w III W
O
- + -1- 4-1
D
m m
cn
_' --_ 11.....1.... c
r N
LLI
a
E ° °� _ > cr 'n 0 w =g`=6sy J Z r
O Czl
a m as
W o ?N ze°O
LL C) (.D Z.
�Q
O
O o U
+ o z W
N
30 ass
Q U 0 ` 8 J
LLI
L 0 3 Fy
W �E o n.E 3 O W a a :&➢'s .aE s m
Vi q
II
II �
II
II
II
II
II 1M
II _
_—
Vii~ �b
°I I LLI
I
l
I
a I
I � _
I
z
I
I
i .,
O
U
Z
W
9 W
LL
W
cr-
cc
O
LL
ci
W
I �
Z
H
Z
-- O
- j `'
_ o
i 3 Q
Z - W
o
� a
> W
--- — Z J J
O Q
W H
H
cr
U) CL
W Q Z
U)
0 W
U)
0 Z
VIII z
i mm 0 J J
gL ,q m
m
W
U
U W
w w cn
co cn
c+�
C— N
IN �Ml
ill .ON� YYn °
co Wa$ Y$3 Z
P P P f U
v w m
W > � z < �i �j�g 0 C/J
E oac w�vi > — CC Lo o K ad z
O V JW T* $
O o cY c N P a
x O ._ � _ 0 .ate u,:'ON v � �s O
a <OO ?•_o Q Q m z � �W p '':$ �jp' $i m C— ^OI
ms;+ mom OU°n m 0 0 w g g¢ ?��v . '� lFj�g$3= LJJ > ` V
,{ p `,.
d1 tUm 0 .�°.� •- W Q Q z o a a3 ...}S� �d)P3 ? U WI '
Q — — w w g
m W
co
H
t c'c o°5 3 >_ LL V i l..spgt a
N O E 'a.E 3 O W ¢ a aii:s$88 a m
H
Po� 4 IT
HI�I 4
ii
Iw_ I
n L LV_ -�
low
II '
- —.1 --
z
I� IR �IR
a
H H
nJ -- - .
i
I \ �
i
, —
Lr—
� II
I i h
O
w
Lu
LLI
LL
w
1-1 T;fl �' � u Q cc
0
Lu
Lu
_ o
Z)
a
F 4 � z
z
F_. O
H
Ia _- z
I _1 - z w
O
w
z ., Q
�—-- — O '
� I�' •— 'i ' ' I � W ' Y H
HW II- cr
o it r w
9
t4 1 0-
�_IF
o III I J o
r m 11° w
N a $ V V U
� w � II
7
ui
Z � :g � W W
€
Y �❑ !_. � co
cn
L- -- r N M
C p d d m< E
N W LLe
P P P U 00
n h ? Jr
Lo
Cn
O p y
a i �3 . ° EL �_
O
LLJ Q Q 1 �
LL C)
_?
O z¢ g� Cc
o� (r\"U° 'p O w Q 47 In Lj O H
fill J
x p w ; O M O °— — eH4�➢ W w w
�<< op� 3 > N sn'n o
oN p Y d p W W a zs° ig (/� ¢ m
N — E a E 3 O
F
$ 8
i
II
it
i
i
p '
kT
fp TE7 t.JF._
6
_b P4_ H
IL
2 Ifl
I
p
I
E
__.
w z T Z
€�—I O O
W - W
9 z z
LU W
w LU
w w
IF
0
z
O O
LL
O
sq w j D
f U
- - Z 7 j h h
Z - - z
FT W O O
—A ) � U
Li
— - -
W J J
-_ CC r
Q
z Z In
Z
O O O
F= _
I
W
� I �I � ems._ _ W
w
I H
- m
O P M W W
r Z _.4z - -{ . 3r
t
Q) 0 cD
N _.. Tr x
u w w
z z II z
m m m
cn
W
c
w
CO CIO
r N
c o'O- oma E Z 0—
° ry.� 9.
d _a a LJJ W > � Z Q ` °jF
° Eom yon � _ �
O o`°a Ec W Q F �w ,iFf1T*�� i�I 4 Q 1 1 1
_ _ : t i
0 O U (� (�NW ..
000 O N 2Z 23Y2 gI¢g2}121 0
LUW �Um W Q �-- Z WO dp ..��. Stiff 71�[�d
C C`1
V ~aN V OO O V L O m F
O > N Q c S �[, AEiI w
M CY
w
W _-E —E 3 OL !^ ¢ a➢i� � 2 a Ym
1 V)
LL P € J
cc $ W
Ly
=3 Z
CC
� i LL1
Q cc
W W
a a
3
w w
a Q
a a
U � U
T— N
EwaNOU�errw«aruu �nw
Of DUe��
X82 STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: March 11, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to increase the number of
residential units permitted and decrease the amount of non-residential
square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, and an Addendum to
the DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment for changes proposed to
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and an Addendum to the DDSP EIR. The proposed
changes include increasing the number of residential units permitted in the Downtown by 1,200
units and decreasing the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square
feet, creating minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, and
restricting residential development on the west side of San Ramon Road in the Retail District.
Other minor amendments are also included. No specific development is proposed as a part of
this project, and Site Development Review approval will be required before any new
construction could commence. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared that concludes that
all potential environmental effects were adequately addressed in the original EIR.
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 the following Resolutions: a) Resolution Recommending that the City Council
adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR related to increasing the number
of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-residential square footage permitted in
Downtown Dublin; and b) Resolution Recommending that the City Council amend the General
Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to allow an increase in the number of
residential units permitted in the DDSP by 1,200 units and to decrease the amount of non-
residential square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, create minimum density thresholds
for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, and restrict residential development west of San
Ramon Road in the Retail District.
Submitted By a iewed By
Principal Planner Asst. Community Development Director
COPY TO: File CIA
ITEM NO.: 0
Page 1 of 8
G:IPA#U0131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential IncreaselPC Mtg 03.11.20141PCSR 03.11.2014.doc
DESCRIPTION:
Background
On February 1, 2011, the City Council adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) (City
Council Resolution 9-11) and certified the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (City
Council Resolution 8-11). The Specific Plan was developed with the intent to incentivize
residential and commercial development in Downtown Dublin and represents a vision of the
future development for the Downtown area that provides flexibility to respond to market
conditions.
A map of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is shown in Figure 1 below and Attachment
1.
The DDSP established three distinct Figure 1: DDSP Districts
districts (shown in Figure 1), each
including its own set of development
standards tailored to the envisioned
uses. The Transit-Oriented District ,
embraces the recent opening of the
West Dublin BART station and is the `
district where a vast majority of the new
residential development in Downtown Village Parkway
Dublin is envisioned to take place. The District
Retail District includes much of the
existing retail core and aims to
stimulate infill development and
Retail District
revitalization of aging buildings and
large parking areas. The Village
Parkway District embraces the
existing successful service and retail
uses along a "Main Street" corridor with
an aim to reutilize and re-tenant existing Transit Oriented
buildings with more intense uses such District
as restaurants, service retail, and other
local-serving businesses.
Since the adoption of the DDSP in 2011, Downtown has seen several new development
projects come to fruition and more that have been approved, but not yet built. New businesses
have opened in existing buildings such as Sports Authority, Savers, Sprouts Farmer's Market,
new buildings have been constructed for new commercial tenants such as REI, Freebirds, Habit
Burger, new residential projects have opened (Connolly Station), and other residential projects
have been approved, although construction has not yet started (former Crown Chevy site,
Veteran's Housing project). Capital improvements have also been made (Golden Gate
Streetscape Enhancement Project) and Downtown Dublin continues to enjoy a successful
resurgence.
When the DDSP was written, the development potential envisioned was a maximum of 1,300
residential units in the three districts (in addition to the 53 units already existing at Wicklow
Square at the Dublin Senior Center) and over 3 million square feet of potential commercial
development that could include retail, office, and other non-residential uses. The development
potential currently allowed in the DDSP is as follows:
2of8
Table 1: Development Potential in the DDSP
Non-Residential (SF Residential (Units)
Retail District 737,100 100
Transit-Oriented District 2,202,710 1,100
(plus 150 hotel rooms)
Village Parkway District 20,730 100
3,035,540
Total (includes hotel room square footage) 1,300
Since the adoption of the DDSP, there has been continued interest in the development of
additional residential units in Downtown — particularly in the Transit-Oriented District, where
1,003 of the available 1,100 residential units are already entitled. These units are accounted for
in the completed Connolly Station apartment project (309 units), the AMB/Prologis/Corovan
warehouse site (308 units), the former Crown Chevrolet site (314 units), and the Veteran's
Housing site (72 units).
In 2011, the City engaged the Urban Land Institute Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to review
the DDSP and provide an assessment on priorities for implementation, which were contained in
a final report (Attachment 2). The report contained several suggestions on incentivizing
development in Downtown, one of which was to remove the residential unit cap to let the market
dictate how much housing in Downtown Dublin could be accommodated. Although City Staff is
not recommending to remove the cap altogether, given the high demand for residential units in
Downtown and, in particular, near the West Dublin BART station, the City is proposing to raise
the limit for residential development from the current 1,300 units to 2,500 units throughout the
three districts. To offset potential impacts resulting from an increase in residential development
Downtown, the proposal also includes reducing the non-residential (commercial) development
potential from 3,035,540 SF to 2,262,540 SF, also throughout the three districts.
The proposed amendment will allow the area to capture market demand for housing Downtown
(which is one of the guiding principles of the DDSP to create a vibrant downtown) and it will also
provide opportunities for the City to meet the obligations of the Housing Element and the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that have been assigned to Dublin by the
State of California.
There are two RHNA-related challenges that the City is facing: 1) Meeting the current Housing
Element RHNA obligation; and 2) Meeting the future Housing Element RHNA obligation for
2014-2022. Recently-initiated General Plan Amendment studies for the East Dublin Transit
Center Site A-1, SummerHill/DiManto Parcels 3 and 4, and the Frederich/Vargas properties
have the potential to impact the Housing Element and the City's ability to meet its current RHNA
obligation. All of these projects, in addition to other projects that are moving forward but do not
require General Plan Amendments, such as Wallis Ranch, are proposing to decrease the
development densities on each site. If these projects to reduce densities are to be considered,
the units that are being "lost" need to be accounted for elsewhere in the City to satisfy the
current Housing Element cycle.
3 of 8
After taking all of the City's potential development sites into account, the City is expecting to still
have a deficit of 1,075 below market rate housing units to meet the future Housing Element
RHNA obligation for 2014-2022. This issue was discussed by the City Council at the meeting
on July 16, 2013 and by consensus, the City Council directed Staff to study an increase in the
residential development capacity in the DDSP, which City Staff has identified as an area that
could accommodate residential development. The Planning Commission also discussed the
Housing Element and RHNA obligations at the meeting on February 25, 2014 where the
concept of increasing the development potential in the DDSP was considered.
ANALYSIS:
It would not be in the City's best long-term interests to convert future job-producing sites (such
as future office development properties in the Transit Center or the remaining commercially-
designated areas in Eastern Dublin) to residential uses. However, increasing the residential
development capacity within the DDSP area is considered a viable option. Interest in residential
development opportunities in Downtown has proven to be strong, and it is recognized that
having more residents in Downtown will create more opportunities for restaurant, entertainment,
and other commercial uses. Even with the potential increase in residential units in the DDSP
and the corresponding decrease in commercial square footage, there remains over 2 million
square feet of commercial development potential available for future non-residential projects.
Allowing additional residential development in Downtown could compensate for reducing the
development potential on several project sites in Eastern Dublin for the current Housing Element
cycle, could accommodate any future requests to reduce project densities on other project sites
for the next Housing Element cycle, and could provide opportunities for additional economic
development in Downtown.
In addition to increasing the overall number of units permitted in the DDSP, two other proposed
amendments focus on ensuring that future residential development is focused in the key areas
of Downtown and that future residential development enables the number of units hoped for to
the Downtown. These proposed changes are described in more detail in the following sections.
1. Increase residential development potential in the DDSP
In order to accommodate the additional residential growth without creating new impacts, the
proposal is to increase the residential development potential of the area while reducing the
commercial development potential. All other development standards and design guidelines
currently in the DDSP that affect development (such as maximum FAR, building height,
setbacks, etc.) are proposed to remain unchanged unless specifically noted.
The main impact of adding residential units to Downtown would be to the transportation and
circulation system. An analysis completed by RBF Consulting (the group that prepared the
original DDSP Environmental Impact Report) assessed how much commercial development
potential would need to be removed from the DDSP to ensure that the impacts of adding 1,200
residential units could be negated. The results of the analysis indicated that the equivalent
commercial reduction should be 773,000 square feet to ensure that the impacts to the
circulation system and traffic flow in Downtown (and throughout the City) would be no greater
than what was already anticipated in the DDSP EIR.
4of8
The proposed changes to the development potential in the DDSP are as follows:
Table 2: Net New Development Potential in the DDSP
Existing Difference
Non- Residential •
Residentia Residential
(SF) (Units)_ •
Retail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) +300
Transit- 2,202,710 1,622,960
(+150 hotel 1,100 (+150 hotel 1,900 +800
Oriented rooms) rooms)
Village 20,730 100 20,730 200 +100
Parkway
3,035,540 2,262,540
Total (includes150 1,300 (includes150 2,500 (773,000) +1,200
hotel rooms) hotel rooms)
Table 3-4 (Net New Development) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to increase the total
residential units to 2,500 and decrease the Non-Residential square footage by 773,000 square
feet and Table 6-1 (Development Pool) is proposed to be amended to make the same changes
as noted above.
2. Establish minimum residential densities in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts
Currently, the DDSP does not specifically indentify a minimum density for any of the districts,
although the DDSP notes that Medium to High Density development is appropriate. The
proposed amendment provides more specificity and certainty for future developers and will allow
the City to comply with our RHNA obligations by establishing a minimum density for residential
development in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts. Due to the urban nature of these two
districts and their close proximity to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, the ULI panel
recommended, and Staff concurs with, ensuring that development of a certain minimum
residential density occurs. The proposed minimum density in the Retail District is 22 units per
net acre and the proposed minimum density in the Transit-Oriented District is 30 units per net
acre.
Table 3-4 (Net New Development) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to identify minimum
residential densities in both districts.
3 Allow residential development in the Retail District core area only
Residential development is currently allowed throughout the Retail District. Staff is
recommending focusing future residential development and mixed use projects in those areas
that are closest to the BART station. The proposed amendment would allow residential
development in the Retail District only in the core area east of San Ramon Road. There are a
finite number of units allocated to the Retail District. The intent of this amendment is to focus
the limited residential development in the optimal location to achieve the goals of creating a
vibrant, walkable downtown that is accessible to the BART station and that preserves the
viability of existing commercial uses on the perimeter of the Retail District. Those properties in
5 of 8
the Retail District west of San Ramon Road would remain available for all types of non-
residential uses currently permitted in the DDSP, but new residential development would be
prohibited. Figure 2 illustrates those properties in the Retail District that will be affected by this
change.
Figure 2: Affected Retail District Properties
Table 3-1 (Land Uses) of the DDSP is
proposed to be amended to allow residential
units in the core of the Retail District only.
Additionally, Table 3-1 will be modified to 1'wv
allow Live/Work units in the Retail District of j
the DDSP. Currently, the DDSP allows
Live/Work in the Transit-Oriented District but
not the Retail District. This modification ^�
would allow them in both districts.
r 73 y`
The exact amendments to Table 3-1, Table
di
3-4, Table 6-1, and the text sections of the
DDSP are detailed in the Resolution 011
g '
recommending City Council adoption of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, J��Po
which is included as Attachment 3 to this
Staff Report.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS:
General Plan Table 2.1 (Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area) will need to
be updated to reflect the increase in allowable residential units and also the decrease in
maximum non-residential development potential.
The exact amendments to Table 2.1 in the General Plan are detailed in the Resolution
recommending City Council adoption of the General Plan Amendment, which is included as
Attachment 3 to this Staff Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address potential environmental
impacts of the DDSP. The DDSP EIR (SCH# 2010022005) was prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was certified by the City Council on
February 1, 2011.
An Initial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of allowing an
increase of 1,200 residential units in Downtown while decreasing the amount of commercial
square footage by 773,000 square feet. All of the environmental impact sections were
examined, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial
increases in the severity of previously-identified impacts were discovered. The Initial Study
included a detailed analysis of the traffic impacts of additional residential units and determined
that there would be no net impact if the amount of commercial development in the DDSP were
reduced by enough to offset the increase of residential units. The analysis determined that the
equivalent to 1,200 residential units is 773,000 square feet of non-residential (commercial)
development potential, and therefore the Initial Study concluded that there were no new impacts
to transportation and circulation in the DDSP area beyond those identified in the 2011 EIR.
6of8
To document the findings of the Initial Study, an Addendum was prepared, which concludes that
the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the prior EIR,
notes the project changes, and notes their relation to the analysis in the prior EIR.
The Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Addendum is included as
Attachment 4 to this Staff Report.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff met with representatives from the Dublin Unified School District in September and
December 2013 to review the proposed increase in residential units in the Downtown. Although
the District initially expressed concerns about the potential impacts resulting from an increase in
students generated by the additional units, the District did not provide any formal comments on
the proposed DDSP amendments.
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Valley Times and mailed to all property
owners and tenants in the Specific Plan area, those within 300 feet of the existing Specific Plan
boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings
related to this project.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) DDSP Boundary Map.
2) ULI Technical Advisory Panel report dated July 2011.
3) Resolution Recommending that the City Council amend the General
Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to allow an
increase in the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP by
1,200 units and to decrease the amount of non-residential square
footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, and restrict
residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail
District, with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A.
4) Resolution Recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum
to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR related to increasing the
number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-
residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, with the
City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A and the Initial
Study/Addendum included as Exhibit A-1.
7of8
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: City of Dublin
LOCATION: The DDSP (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern
portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size.
The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the
east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the
west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are
some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those
roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a
portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village
Parkway within the Specific Plan area.
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: Various
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Downtown Dublin — Retail District
Downtown Dublin — Transit-Oriented Dist.
Downtown Dublin —Village Parkway Dist.
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Various
8 of 8
t
'-
�[�pi
it�6 r �t a'ta r
r
t a
1r As
rA �
�y •�
s
d
4 6
ze
ofl4 ryp® !• l
MZ
R 'e�
�.
� f 9�,� ��*8�\r;� �1'^'errmrw"���aA J S ,.��,'$"��r�r�:��.-xR a�''2',[♦ �.ee,�
V �j i.. � r �.., ♦ a � 3� s. t
ATTACHMENT 2
About ULI's Technical Assistance Panels
ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel Program(known as"TAP")is an
extension of the national Urban Land Institute(ULI)Advisory Services Panel Program.
About ULI's Advisory Services Panels provide strategic advice to clients(public agencies
and nonprofit organizations)on complex land use and real estate development issues.
The program links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership.
About Established in 1947,the Advisory Services Program has completed over 500 panels
in 47 states,12 countries,and on 4 continents.The Advisory Services Program has
Team Assignment and Piocess been successful due to its comprehensive,pragmatic approach to solving land use
challenges.
Site Context Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their
time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and screened to
P�oposed New Development ensure their objectivity.ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at
development problems,A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience
Vision chairs each panel.
3
Local San Francisco Bay Area TAPS are held over the course of two days in the
Stakeholder Questions
client's community.A detailed briefing book is given to each TAP participant prior
to the day of the TAP.The TAP begins with a tour of the study area either by bus and
+ on foot,is followed by a briefing by the client and others,and then transitions into
+++ private interviews and panel discussion regarding the client's issues and questions.and Threats
At the end of the TAP,the panel provides a Power Point presentation to the client and
SWOT Analysis invited guests summarizing the panel's observations and recommendations.Within
ten weeks,a final written report is delivered to the client.The final report presents
highlights of the panel's independent review and contains a diverse set of ideas and
Recommendations suggestions that may or may not ultimately make sense for the community for which it
was prepared.
Relevant Case Studies
Participants About ULI
The Urban Land Institute's mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of
land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.Founded in 1936,
the ULI is a non-profit organization of land-use professionals with 27,000 members
in 95 countries(www.uli.org),including 1,800 in the greater San Francisco District
Council(www.ulisf.org).ULI San Francisco serves the greater Bay Area with pragmatic
land use expertise and education.
Team Assignment and Process
The City of Dublin,using their recently passed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(Specific Plan)as a guide,aims to improve the vitality of their downtown.The panel
was asked how to prioritize the execution of the Specific Plan.The TAP process
consisted of a day of site tours,stakeholder interviews,a panel discussion,and a
r r presentation the following morning.
bu institute
ULI San Francisco
Site Context
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is bounded generally by Village Parkway
on the east,Amador Valley Boulevard on the north,San Ramon Road on the west,
and Interstate 580 on the south.The Specific Plan is an aggregate of all or a major
portion of five existing plans:San Ramon Road Specific Plan,Dublin Downtown
Plan,Downtown Core Specific Plan,West Dublin BART Specific Plan,and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan.
Collectively,these plans are zoned for the additional development of nearly 3.2
million square feet of non-residential development,740 dwelling units,and 150
hotel rooms.Since 2000,when a majority of these plans were adopted,258,734
square feet of non-residential development and 54 residential units have been
constructed. In addition,617 multi-family residential units have been entitled and
309 of the units are currently under construction.
This Specific Plan focuses on strengthening the development standards and design
guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses,creating three
distinct districts in the Plan—Transit-Oriented District,Retail District and Village
Parkway District.Most of the attention has been directed to the Transit-Oriented
District south of Dublin Boulevard.Specifically,transit-oriented developments are
encouraged within walking distance of the recently opened West Dublin/Pleasanton
Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART)Station.
1
At present,Downtown Dublin largely functions as a regional retail area comprised
of a number of large-format"power centers"with ancillary smaller specialty
retail sales and services.These retailers(such as Target,Ross,and Marshalls)
represent a unique niche in the regional marketplace and attract patrons from the
entire Tri-Valley region which includes the cities of Dublin,Pleasanton,Livermore,
San Ramon,and Danville.The Specific Plan encourages new development
and improvements to existing developments to create a more walkable,urban
environment and to enhance the City's tax base.
Proposed New Development
Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the
Specific Plan Area.The most significant development is the opening of the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.The station is located within the median of
Interstate 580,with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the
freeway.By 2013,the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day.
Within the City of Dublin,a 713-space parking garage has been constructed at the
southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters.As part of the BART
I project,a joint development project with a 150-room hotel and 7.500 square feet
of retail space has been planned(Stage i Development Plan),in addition to the
309 multi-family residential units(Essex)which are under construction we st of
nt and west of the BART station project is an existing
Golden Gate Drive.Adjacent to P 1 9
i
225,500 square feet one-story warehouse facility(the Prologis site,formerly
AMB).This property has been entitled for development of 308 multi-family
residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square feet office building.Associated with
these developments,St.Patrick Way will be extended,providing a vehicular and
pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.
Other various residential,office and mixed-use developments have been
conceptually discussed with the City of Dublin,but no formal applications have
been submitted.
The Vision
The goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is:Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center
that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping,services.dining,working,living and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and
aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts bath local and regional residents.
+ LE(WND
n,
SwdAc Pion Bwmda
� (�~ t � GN limit line
She of Porrel(lures)
0.01.025
0.26-0,50
1,01
2.01•5,00
5.01-10.50
b
e,
City of
Pteosai�ton
Parcel Size and Building Footprint—Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Stakeholder Interviews
} 1 The immediate area has a number of institutional
stakeholders and individual property owners.Due
to the time constraints of this process,individual
resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP,
,> but local retail experts and property owners were
,. interviewed.Stakeholders engaged by the TAP:
• Councilmember Don Biddle
Mike Costa,Terranomics
• John Eudy,Essex Development
Mayor Tim Sbranti,City of Dublin
• Michael Schafer,Burlington Coat Factory
• Felicia Studstill,Mayfield Gentry,Dublin Place
• Sandra Weck,Colliers
TAP
Issues to Be Explored
The panel was asked a series of questions by the City of Dublin
,,.. during the process that helped to guide the analysis and final
recommendations.The City posed four specific issues for the
panel to address
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in-lieu
funds to attract business and customers.
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make
Downtown Dublin vibrant(attract business and retail)and
pedestrian friendly.
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and
provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the
t; vitality of the downtown.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether
the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown
n Dublin area(eg WiFi.apps.etc)
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benetit Program (CBP) in-lieu funds to
attract business and customers.
Currently,the CBP is structured to apply to development that is in excess of the permitted amount.The panel suggested the City
consider application of the program to all development,including development in East Dublin.The funds could be best invested on
catalytic projects preferably within the TOD subarea first.While a movie theater would be a good nighttime use,it is very expensive
to construct,and the panel suggested that the funds could help incentivize a theater or other entertainment venue perhaps through
the subsidy of development costs.Another good use of funds would be a downtown park or outdoor event space located on or
adjacent to Golden Gate Drive as it leads to BART.Funds could also be Used to subsidize small tenant improvement through grants
or loans.Lastly,CBP funds could help clean up store fronts and facade improvements
�;_4�6'
a
TAP on Site
� 1 1 • I t r 1 • ti / / 1 1 .
IM
� • f V
The panel felt that developing additional retail on pads
along Dublin Blvd .as well as other physical improvements - . •
such as parallel parking to slow traffic,streetscape = •
improvements and bicycle lanes are key to make Oublir.
Blvd.more pedestrian friendly.
The City should also undertake streetscape redesign c,
Golden Gate Drive to reinforce the pedestrian connect
between Dublin Blvd and BART
As a pilot project for streetscape improvements on
these mayor thoioughfares-the panel suggested partrir .
restriping and lane change improvement on tillage
Parkwa y,Further details on these physical impr
and others are highlighted in the recommend:
section that follo;^;s s 8-1'
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide
suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown.
The panel recognizes that the current big box retailers are valuable to the City.At the same time there are a lot of opportunities
to create variety with regards to the size of retailers.Similar to what was done with the REI,Sprouts and Elephant Bar parcels,
integration of large format and smaller scale retail would provide more variation.The panel recommends bringing in an economic
firm or retail broker to conduct a detailed gap analysis or,at minimum,explore potential entertainment and dining uses.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of
technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc).
The panel supports implementing free WiFi in the downtown.The panel also feels that the City should introduce a requirement
that developers of new projects implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan(TDMP)reducing minimum parking
requirements and traffic congestion.Aspects of the TDMP should include City Carshare or Zipcar(with development incentives
or reduced parking requirements granted to projects incorporating such car-sharing programs),electronic vehicle preferred
parking and charging stations,and potentially BART ticket and Clipper card validation at the point of sale at various local retailers.
Mobile smart phone applications similar to"DashMob"or"Punchd"could also help drive traffic to local retailers.These mobile
technologies will help supplement and could be synced with the existing upgraded electronic signage for Tri-Valley Transit bus and
BART services that shows real time transit information
Now
�I I
a
}i��Iliid�;l I,
tx. fir:
e
i
F
e°
West OubiinlPieasanton BART
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Strengths Weaknesses
The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific
implementation issues that need to be tackled.The panel was Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different
particularly encouraged by the fact that the City recognizes that motivations.Furthermore,the Specific Plan covers a large and
accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise.A more diverse area than a traditional downtown,meaning a single
willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area.The creation
the vision of a vibrant downtown. of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character
will be beneficial in the long run.
The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately
adjacent to the intersection of two major freeways,1-580 and While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the
1-680.The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly area,garnering city-wide buy-in to the notion of public investment
built West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. as a catalyst may be challenging.The challenge of the Community
Benefit Program is timing.If the program is relied on to fund
The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from some of the key improvements that need to take place it may
an income and education standpoint.Furthermore,the City's take too long or never happen because the money won't come
budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of in until development is well underway.The challenge remains:
existing tenants in the downtown area.The re-tenanting that has How can desired new development get underway without the
come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has required infrastructure?If there is a sincere city-wide desire to
retail strength.The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources
in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish. to get it going,including consideration of the appropriate use of
debt to finance up-front infrastructure.Lastly,this is an infill area
and how it is approached from a development standpoint is very
different from the greenfield development that has occurred on
the east side of Dublin.
Opportunities Threats
Opportunities abound in response to these challenges.The City The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self-sufficiency,requiring
benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners a different approach to public finance,specifically one that
and few buildings.While the abundance of parking is part of the includes upfront public investment and a closer look at some of
retail area's success,some of this"sea of parking"has the potential the available tools including debt financing,which the City has
for development into new structures(some of which may contain historically been averse too.The panel also believes that there is a
parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan),Several opportunities need for more collaborative engagement with developers.
for public-private partnerships with various principals are currently
at play.The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin City-wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic
BART Station has the most immediate potential for development,in given the perceived east and west division.Finally,real estate
contrast to the rest of downtown,such as the Village Parkway area, capital markets are currently fragile.While there is financing for
multifamily and other projects,that window of opportunity may
close soon so there is an impetus to act now.
Strengths Weaknesses
nit tic.
• iii_+ i, rill i'
Opportunities Threats
• Low density and surplus parking creates development uity's reluctance to issue debt for public Impi ovements
opportunity sites can inhibit redevelopment—a revision to this policy may
• Many public-private partnership opportunities be required to achieve the vision
• Accelerate the potential for TOO District as a near tee r i ty wide buy in and financial support#e g.feQsi
transit village with horizontal mixed-use :1.�required t,)ach i-lave do%'11nto;.r7:ision
BART-oriented residential development • D vision bet;jean Fast ind :test Luhi�r f-�;i�ctp"!
r,annang effort Interested oviners in district
• tile,', to captuie currant miaiiket oppc u,
• f agilit`r of COME-I ICTd•ti Or,S:'<zII EMV'<3ct
d ,ejripn}ent opp;.)r€?.i wies
,av
3'
Recommendations
After the consideration of the stakeholder questions,SWOT analysis,site tour and interviews,the team identified what they felt were the
most pressing issues and resulting recommendations.Many of the panel's ten recommendations focus on improvements needed in the
transit-oriented district and uniting the City's vision with the property owners'.
1. Focus on TOD District, especially F_ The 4-5 key parcels as a catalyst prioritizing development link the BART
The City should take a step further than specific planning and station to the Dublin Place shopping center located north
actually bring together the property owners and interested of Dublin Along '
parties to try and generate a coordinated plan for key BART gar age. entitled Essex housing project.
catalytic properties.These owners include Essex.BART, as potential for plazas ' Las P' ' on
Chabot-Las Positas and Safeway.The City should playa both ' ' ` `at the intersection of
proactive role in creating a unified design vision by funding ' `� Dublin
the design plans for these blocks and by helping address i r ` the Dublin Place
how financial implementation will occur.The City will need to +
development,At panel suggests looking
go beyond what is spelled out in the Specific Plan to create
reinforcing at tire development of St,Patrick Way. gild
successful projects that advance the vision for downtown.
r crossing north-south
The panel suggests the City sit down and have some design Drive becomes point
exercises with the owners of the key parcels to try and
TOD District
paint a shared vision.As part of that,the City may have to
think about public investment that goes along with private
investment,as well as flexibility from a regulatory standpoint
in order to stimulate the private sector's desire to invest. "�
2. Leverage current opportunities n r
for Public-Private Partnerships
The City should continue to work with BART to explore }
alternative near term uses for the BART hotel/restaurant "' '"" ' — M If
site as part of a shared vision.BART's focus on a hotel )
" for that site does not match near-term market potential;it P
would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be _.."...
developed sooner rather than later.The panel also suggests /
discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage =s ��,,*,;;� Me-
with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the .�,.
upgraded Golden Gate Drive/St.Patrick Way TOD,for
example a movie theater. TOD District Essentials
3. Simultaneously work on
redevelopment of Dublin Place ? �
The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and 1 i !
believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their 4---►�
property.The City should simultaneously be talking with �«x
them and offering the same type of collaborative planning �t
effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District(see
Recommendation#1).
GR�
TOD District Essentials
T,!';pEsb�.nz rt'tnVR'.�s fe�istAt arc.crtra�;A1'�recsr,�;',
�tra7nrrmri _`
i
4. Explore opportunities for
entertainment and civic center to
animate public realm and activate
night-time activity in TOD District
The City should investigate future opportunities to activate
the area with additional civic(City,County,other agencies,
etc.)and entertainment options. Evaluate partnership
W options with Chabot-Las Positas College District on the
Crown Chevrolet site to create a public plaza/gathering
space which could be jointly used.Additionally,it and when
the City needs to expand its own footprint,it should consider
a
the downtown first.
Downtown Dublin BART
5. Focus first on residential and
horizontal mixed-use developments,
then retail and office
The City should focus on residential and horizontal mixed
," ` `. ..• >° use on Golden Gate Drive and St.Patrick Way to provide
more residents to support diversified retail.Current limits
on the allowable number of housing units within the TOD
area should be removed.The Prologis(formerly AMB)site
` should be allowed to increase its residential count,with office
development,given the surplus of office space along the 680
corridor,being optional or driven by market needs.In the
panel's experience,vertical mixed use can be problematic,
particularly in the early phases of transforming an area
f ;R through TOD.Too often'A over 1"(4 levels of residential over
ilU
1 level of retail or commercial)scenarios maintain their for
lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years.
Downtown Dublin
r 6. Undertake streetscape redesign
for Golden Gate Drive to enhance
. ! the pedestrian experience and for
,J*4 calming traffic
On Golden Gate Drive allow for one 12'travel lane and bike
lanes in each direction,add on-street parallel parking and
increase the 4'sidewalks to a 10'minimum.Village Parkway
can serve as a pilot project by reducing travel lanes to one-way
Entrance to Dublin Place , in each direction and simply re-striping to allow for diagonal
parking.
PrR
ME
51 y
1. ..%[' .�
i
i
7. Assess downtown public 9. Dedicate staff to manage
improvement financing strategies Capital Improvement Plan
More public improvements and public investment are Redevelopment agencies often implement capital
needed on the front end.To do so the City needs to identify improvements in a very efficient way by identifying
and weave together a multiple range of funding sources. capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning
Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts a dedicated project manager to implement the various
or Infrastructure Financing Districts,which may evolve capital improvements(CI's)within their individual project
under California law to replace redevelopment project areas. area.Improvements include streetscape improvements,
The City has had discussions in the past about Business undergrounding of utilities,extending trolley lines,building
Improvement Districts but should also explore how to pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure,making
restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are way for future development.The panel recommends the City
more targeted into the downtown area,including potentially create a Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)for the Downtown
capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources,
into downtown. i.e.a project manager potentially housed within the Economic
Development Department,to implement the CIP.Once a CIP is
approved,this person would function independently from the
8. Further reduce fees for targeted uses, City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the
especially restaurants, in downtown capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area.
The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown
area as an incentive,however even at reduced levels they 10. Exempt residential development
can be too high and create an impediment for some uses from CBP payments
especially restaurants and dining uses.The City should
further reduce fees to attract restaurants. Exempting residential development downtown from the CBP
payments could help further incentivize housing where it is
needed most,thereby providing more retail customers within
walking distance.
4
i � S � — to�-��..�i r�,e•3
�eu�R��l�roa hTZ
{m t V 12' le E 4 ti Y t'a
q�fl,., (►`±? s�� � creak� .�„
f
. f X 12•-rw.�.�� Ew r„a�--tub
}'°tearE lJt���a i �A` 11ChLN�7c X34 6+ 25 4 64 4' b tr T4 T.v t2' L'
V ltt11,61,s, pkf•tYC,t�4Y
s�t bb t ve 4�k` e.s . 1 x c2-m�rett" leA
too' e.o-u. D emu.-.z,kffi-W�-vo,.s oE.
11c Y1 -v%ZINV-�.M 74 C'7+ to pC1W3 "�K3 t-3�1Y-.4 1s S*o�*tt M F.G3
• 1 X"t1'Fat;Lft"E e16-b�W,c1W
+ 4 -R'hl6 WGti.)..i t %,b! s-IrA't f*x eA s re
Relevant Case Studies
Milipitas Transit Area Specific Plan
The City of Milipitas,CA's Transit Area Specific Plan,adopted The Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation
in June 2008,is a 437-acre mixed-use plan area that calls for chapter that outlines every capital improvement,the department
up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1.4M square responsible,the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits
feet of commercial space built over four phases.Phasing will from the improvement.Studies were completed to identify all
depend on residential market factors.The City staff and their road and utility improvements and public services.Detailed
consultant worked extensively with property owners,public infrastructure plans for sewer,wastewater,storm-water,recycled
agencies,community members and other stakeholders in the area water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed
to develop a long-term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate
market reality. impact fees.This implementation strategy ensures funding for
capital improvements will be available and provides confidence
Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully
ascertain each owner's goals and constraints.Contentious issues, implemented.
about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines,
and the distribution of land uses and densities,were resolved Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even
through ongoing discussions. before it was adopted,suggesting that they had enough
confidence to submit project applications.Together,the City
and project sponsors were able to identify issues and propose
refinements to the Specific Plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
Transit-Oriented Development
• Property owner buy-in
t F t
I
Piper7Mont tgue Subrsre�i
mt
F
,
ac.c w,
AfrGiridless Drive
Before and After—Milpitas Transit Area Specific Nan
i
Station Park Green, San Mateo
Adjacent to the Hayward Park rail station,Station Park Green
is a 12-acre transit-oriented development with open space,590
units,10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of
commercial/retail.
A pedestrian-friendly street grid connects the different uses,
much the same way that the intersection of Golden Gate and St.
Patrick's could be at the Dublin TOD district.Stakeholders worked
closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through
I
public workshops and meetings,ensuring community consensus
and timely approvals of the master plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin -
• Similiar area to site
• Mixed-use"green"transit-oriented development
MIMT
HITT
I
I
� a
Panel Chair Ron Golem of SAE Urban Economics specializes in Patrick O'Keefe is the City Manager tot the City of Emeryville:and
project management for complex assignments.including real 11 Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency.He
estate transaction support_transit-oriented development,strategic is responsible for the oversight of eight departments including
business planning and program development for public purposes- Police.Fite.Public Works.C0111111(inity Services.Economic
Prior to joining BAE.Ron served as Real Estate Specialist tot the Development& Housing.Administrative Services.Planning&
National Park Service,formulating strategies forpublic/privale Building and City Clerk,Prior to the 2006 appointment as City
partnerships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden Manager.he served as the Director of the Emeryville Economic
Gate National Recreation Area,Ron has also worked for private real Development and Housing Department since 1995-Mr-O'Keeffe
estate development companies as an Asset Manager completing currently oversees a staff of 185 and a$64 4 million annual
successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases.He has operating budget,including a 534A million annual Redevelopment
managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital
totaling in excess of two million square feet, Improvement Programs
David Cropper Managing Director.joined TMG Partners in 2000, Gerry Tierney,Senior Associate with Perkins+Will, has 30 years
He has 25 years of direct feat estate experience in finance of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on
construction,and entitlements.He is responsible for TMG housing and other institutional projects that have requiied deep
Partners'finance arid development activities in the greater Ball expertise in and understanding of regulatory processes and
Atea and is a inetriber of the film's investment Committee, procedutes,as well as code and entitlement issues.His portfolio
He most tocently directed The Grossing I S-31)BI UrIQ,an feature,,a range of projects that demonstrate innovative.client-
award-winning$250 million dollar mixed-use transit-oriented focused solutions across varying project types.Gerry brings
development.is well as 650 Townsend,TMG,s mixed-use office flexibility and experience to each new project,creating individual
and retail project in San Francisco.He has financed over$1 designs tailored to the specific needs of the client user and site.
billion of real estate including construction loans,permanent
loans.CMBS facilities as well as tax-exempt bond and tax credit [man Novin.Assistant Project Manager/Sr.Project Analyst,
Structured financings. joined BRIDGEiBUILD in 2007 and works on both investment
and new construction projects conducting project due diligence
David Johnson formed Christiani Johnson Architects%,vith and providing ongoing support for than redevelopment of the
Richard D Christiani in 1994 and has been the lead designer for MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland,CA Prior to joining RURI)
many of the firm's residential and mixed-use projects,including Iman assisted the Real Estate and Planning Divisions or GCDC
Bridgeview.Oceanview Village,The Potrero.555 Bartlett.4th clovvritown San Diego's redevelopment aim.V�1111 M111101oll-
,ind U,Bryant Place and University Village for the University of redevelopment and atfordable housing protects_including
':alifornia,Berkeley.He has developed particular expertise in nianigement of CCOC s AicGIS operations. He also has pri vlotls
planning high-density urban infril development featuring housing vsark experience v:sth Keyset !Marston Associates`Son Plo,lIo
over I olail office.Iman holds a Bacheiot of SIcience degree in St!ucluial
Enginee,ing,and a Bachelor of Af is degree i'l 0!tlan Studies,and
Keri Lung.Senior Development Consultant iot klidpen Housing Planning tiom tine Unweislt% Captor nia Sin Plege
Got potation.has over 20 years of experience it',the fields of
affordable housing,economic development.and urban planning,
� L I 'S a ra'[I C, S
Keii has been responsible far strategic acquisitions and business
development at TIjidPen Housing Corporation over the past five Michael Jameson
:tears.initiating nine it ansit-or rented Lii ban infill ever Capita D r-, oa,-
800 units in construction in San Mateo Sunn,,,.�aie.San Jose
South San Francisco and Alameda Count;-Ken° as
in helping MidPen vain night.;competitive tax ci-eclots and rather U L al n a nic'I S C 0
scarce public funds resulting in record cno,,-,,th for klialper at i Xiomara Cisneros,Nectol
time v.hen most developers are struggling. Kate White i-ecutive Oil eclo'
RESOLUTION NO. 14-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY
773,000 SQUARE FEET, CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR THE TRANSIT-
ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS, AND RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WEST OF SAN RAMON ROAD IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT
PLPA-2013-00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated
with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional
residential and non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" 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; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February
24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP
Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
ATTACHMENT 3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx, dated March 11, 2014,
recommending City Council adoption of the CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum,
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 based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan
as so amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the
amended Specific Plan will continue to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 3-Reso SPA and GPA.DOC
2
RESOLUTION NO. xx - 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO
ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE
DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY 773,000 SQUARE FEET, CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY
THRESHOLDS FOR THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS, AND RESTRICT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WEST OF SAN RAMON ROAD IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT
PLPA-2013-00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated
with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional
residential and non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, In 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" 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; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February
24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP
Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx
recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-
1 EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 3
residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, which Resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx
recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and
decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create
minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential
development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor
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 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2014 DDSP
Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment , on at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, 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
amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest and that the General Plan as
amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following
amendments to the General Plan:
Table 2.1 shall be revised as follows: (Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is
shown here. All other sections of Table 2.1 remain the same):
Table 2.1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area
Downtown
Dublin Acres Dwelling Dwelling Persons/Dwelling population
Specific Plan Unitslacre Units Unit
Area
Downtown 230.2 6.1-25.1+ 2,500 2.7 6,750
Dublin
Downtown Maximum Maximum
Dublin Acres Floor Area Potential Square Jobs
Specific Plan Ratio (Gross) Square Feet4 Feet/employee
Area
Village
Parkway 32.9 .35 501,593 200-450 1,115-2,508
District
Retail District 113.1 .60 2,762,732 200-450 6,139-13,814
Transit- 84.2 1.2 3,821,552 200-450 8,492-19,108
2
Oriented
District
Total: 230.2 7,085,877 15,746-35,430
Maximum Development Potential in the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts were modified by the 2014 Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(City Council Resolution xx-xx)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following
amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan:
Table 3-1 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3-1: Land Uses
ORIENTED RETAIL TRANSIT- VILLAGE
BUILDING USES'
DISTRICT
DISTRICT DISTRICT
Regional Retail Allowed Prohibited 2 Prohibited
Community Allowed Allowed Allowed
Outdoor Dinin• Allowed a Allowed s Allowed s
. and/or Entertainm�l Allowed Allowed Allowed
• - Allowed Allowed Allowed
•.• .'__ Prohibited Allowed Prohibited
��� • Allowed 6 Allowed CUP/PC 4
Multi-FamilyI�i�ii Residential _ Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed
Mixed-Use Non-Residential Allowed Allowed Allowed
Mixed-Use siddrtial Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed
�•• Recreation ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA
A. Service/Sales CUP/ZA CUP/PC CUP/ZA
•I CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC
Businesses
Civic, Cultural, • Institutional CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC
Temporary TUP TUP TUP
Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director.
2 Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
3 Assuming accessibility (ADA) standards can be met.
4 May be permitted with a CUP/PC in a mixed-use development.
5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of 1-580 or 1-680.
6 Allowed throughout the Retail District except on those properties west of San Ramon
Road.
CUP—Conditional Use Permit PC— Planning Commission
TUP—Temporary Use Permit ZA—Zoning Administrator
ZC—Zoning Clearance MUP — Minor Use Permit
3
Table 3-4 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3-4: Net New Development
NON-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM
M� - I -
RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
- _ 543,850 400 22 units/net acre
Transit-
1,622,960 1,900 30 units/net acres
Oriented (+150 hotel rooms)
Village 20,730 200 No minimum
Parkway
2,262,540 2,500
(includes 150 hotel rooms)
Notes Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet
constructed
Table 6-1 shall be revised as follows:
Table 6-1: Development Pool
°
NON-RESIDENTIAL - OF
' SQUARE FOOTAGE
175,170 400
Transit-Oriented 1,145,050 1,900
(+150 hotel rooms)
Village Parkway 0 200
Page 44, Section 3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential, shall be amended to read as follows:
3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential development is generally in the form of stacked flats (apartments
or condominiums) and attached townhouses. Minimum residential density is 22 units per
net acre in the Retail District and 30 units per net acre in the Transit-Oriented District.
The Village Parkway District has no minimum density requirement. Higher density
residential uses are appropriate and strongly encouraged, especially in the Transit-
Oriented District near the BART station.
Page 47, second and third paragraphs after Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per
District shall be amended to read as follows:
This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 2.2 million square feet
of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units.
Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500
square feet per hotel room), this represents 5.26 million square feet under this Specific
Plan.
4
Page 57, Building Design Table (Retail District) Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be
amended to include the following (all other portions of Section 2 shall remain the same):
Not permitted west of San Ramon Road.
Residential Allowed at a minimum density of 22 units per net acre
P
Units ermitted within a residential development or mixed-use development if
designed based on the following standards.
Page 66, Building Design Table (Transit-Oriented District) Section 2, "Residential Uses"
shall be amended to include the following (all other portions of Section 2 shall remain the same):
Permitted within a residential development or a mixed-use development if
Residential designed based on the following standards:
Units The residential density shall be a minimum of 30 units per net acre
and shall not exceed 85 units per acre.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPAM20131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncrease�PC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 3-Ex A-CC Reso SPA and GPA.docx
5
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE
FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN
PLPA-2013-00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road
to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts
associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to
accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project"; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated
herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A-1, to determine if additional
environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially
significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been
proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require
major revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been
identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts were
discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated
February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
A-1, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis
in the DDSP EIR; and
ATTACHMENT 4
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum,
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 has reviewed and
considered the Addendum and Initial Study, both dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit A-1).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) adopting an Addendum to the DDSP EIR, including
the related Initial Study, for the 2014 DDSP Amendment project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 4-Reso Addendum.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. xx - 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED
TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE
AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN
DUBLIN
PLPA-2013-00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated
with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional
residential and non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project"; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated
herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, to determine if additional
environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially
significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR
shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been
proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require
major revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been
identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts were
discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February
24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, was
prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the
DDSP EIR; and
1 EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx
recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-
residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, which Resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution xx-xx
recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and
decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create
minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retails Districts, to restrict residential
development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor
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 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2014 DDSP
Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment , on at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, 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 has reviewed and considered the
Addendum and Initial Study, both dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit A-1).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council adopts a Resolution adopting an
Addendum to the DDSP EIR, including the related Initial Study, for the 2014 DDSP Amendment
project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
GAPA#120131PLPA-2013-00073 DDSP Amendment Residential IncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 4-Ex A-CC Reso Addendum.docx
3
Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment(2014)
Addendum and Initial Study
,
t
y rs i"S^ta e'�s $ e r .
�i ", steiiF N! 3' x,. a' iG ,` u.
nH,„
Amp
i i� P ;fir"�`�"'s� � :� a' ��� t�. ���a44, a � �'�'`.�' �'r'`� �'�t"•"4'p,Vi�ff MEµry�Pp(k�'
{ ,
i �N Ik�.�.t
I
i
r
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
to. a. !—
A z.- Company
February 24, 2014
w
E EXHIBIT A-1 TO
ATTACHMENT 4
i
Addendum and Initial Study
Table of Contents
Addendum 5
Initial Study »
Attachments
Attachment A: Source List
I
Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location
f
Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts
List of Tables
Table 1: DDSP Amended Net New Development
I
ICommunity Development Department 3
I
i
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
4 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Addendum
i
Community Development Department 15
i
E
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan (certified February 1, 2011, City Council Resolution o8-11)
February 24, 2014
PROJECT-DESCRIPTION AND PRIOR_CEQA ANALYSIS:
On February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09-11, adopting the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). At the same time, the City Council adopted
Resolution o8-11 certifying a Program Environmental Impact Report for the DDSP,
hereinafter referred to as the DDSP EIR (SCH 20100022005). This Environmental Impact
Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284
acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses.
The DDSP EIR identified the environmental impacts of implementing the DDSP and
concluded that even with feasible mitigation measures, impacts to transportation and
circulation were significant and unavoidable and could not be lessened to a level of less than
significant. On February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council certified the DDSP EIR via Resolution
o8-11. Certification of the DDSP EIR included the adoption of mitigation findings, findings
regarding alternatives, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was also approved.
In 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential
units permitted in Downtown by 1,2oo and decrease the amount of commercial square
footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the
Transit-Oriented and Retails Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon
Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as
the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or"the Project".
The Prior Approvals (including the approved DDSP and the certified DDSP EIR) noted above
are incorporated herein by reference and available for public review at Dublin City Hall
during normal business hours.
CURRENT CEQA_ANALYSIS_AND DETERMINATION THAT AN ADDENDUM I_S_APP_ROPRIAT_E
FOR THIS PROJECT:
In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present
with the Project that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the DDSP
EIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014 and
incorporated herein by reference, determined that the potentially significant effects of the
Project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR, and that no substantial changes have
been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be
6 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
undertaken which require revisions of the previous EIR. This Addendum to the DDSP EIR has
been prepared, which notes the difference in the 2014 DDSP Amendment and previously
analyzed DDSP and their relation to the certified DDSP EIR.
The 2014 DDSP Amendment varies from the original DDSP as follows:
�j
Proposed 2014 DDSP Difference
Amendment
•
Residential
Residential mom
Residential
737,100 100 543,850 400 093,250) 300
2,202,710 1,1o0 1,622,96o 1,900 (579,750) 800
20,730 100 20,730 200 - 100
3,035,540 1,300 2,187,540 21500 (773,000) i;2oon
The Initial Study determined that an additional examination of potential impacts to the
traffic and circulation section of the SEIR should be completed to ensure that with the
additional residential units (and corresponding decrease in commercial square footage),
increasing the minimum development density in the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts,
and restricting residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, no
new significant environmental impacts could be identified and no increase in the severity of
the previously-identified impacts would be discovered.
SUPPLEMENTARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
RBF Consulting completed a supplementary traffic analysis to analyze how the traffic
impacts of the 2014 DDSP Amendment (with the additional residential units but a lesser
amount of non-residential square footage) compared to the development potential of the
original DDSP. The analysis concluded that the traffic impacts would not be substantially
different. The traffic analysis is attached to this Addendum and Initial Study as Attachment
B, and incorporated herein by reference.
The highlights of the traffic analysis are included in the sections below.
In assessing whether the 2014 DDSP Amendment creates significant impacts that were not
present or that were substantially more severe than the original DDSP, the traffic analysis
examined three main measurements:
i
Community Development Department ( 7
E
F
i
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
1. Overall trip generation rates of the 2014 DDSP Amendment;
2. Revised trip assignments to the roadway network; and
3. A traffic queuing analysis for critical movements at the intersections of Amador
Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard , both of
which were operating at Level of Service E.
A new trip generation analysis was conducted to compare trip generation estimates for the
2014 DDSP Amendment to estimates for the original DDSP. As shown in Attachment B:
Traffic Generation & Distribution, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in
project trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. This analysis indicates that:
• The proposed project is projected to result in a net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and
1,232 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the DDSP, the proposed project would
generate six percent fewer daily trips, and 17 percent fewer PM peak hour trips. The
reason for this reduction is that commercial development generates a greater
number of trips than residential development when compared on a similar square
footage basis.
• The 2014 DDSP Amendment would generate a zero net increase in AM peak hour
trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP.
Based on the project trip distribution prepared for the DDSP EIR, the proposed project trips
were assigned to the roadway network and compared to the DDSP. The change in trip
assignment between the DDSP and the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours
are illustrated in Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution. No significant increases
resulted, and in many cases, the peak hour trips decreased.
Traffic queues were also analyzed under proposed project conditions for critical movements
at the intersections of Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin
Boulevard. These two intersections were analyzed because the City's threshold of
significance is greater than 50 trips if the intersection is already operating at LOS E or lower,
which applied only to these two intersections. The maximum left-turn queues for the
southbound and westbound approaches would remain unchanged with the proposed
project during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are shown in Attachment B: Traffic
Generation & Distribution.
Forecast AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project would be equal to or
less than the trip generation forecast for the DDSP and no additional traffic impacts were
identified. Therefore, the traffic analysis concludes that no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts will result from the 2014 DDSP Amendment, and no additional mitigation
measures are required.
8 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
NO SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162_
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes
have been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be
undertaken which require revisions of the DDSP EIR. No new significant environmental
impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts has been discovered.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and
clarifications as outlined in this Addendum, the DDSP EIR will continue to adequately
address the significant environmental impacts of the 2014 DDSP Amendment.
CONCLUSION:
The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the determination to adopt an
Addendum. As provided in Section 15164, the Addendum need not be circulated for public
review, but shall be considered with the DDSP EIR before making a decision on the proposed
project. The Initial Study (with the traffic analysis) is included below and the DDSP EIR is
available for review in the Community Development Department at the City of Dublin, loo
Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
Community Development Department 19
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
io ( City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY
Community Development Department I ii
i
pP
i
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
12 I City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
City of Dublin
Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(2014)
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
loo Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
(925) 833-6610
Project Location
The City of Dublin is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, approximately 27 miles east of
the City of San Francisco; approximately 26 miles north of the City of San Jose; and
approximately 15 miles south of the City of Walnut Creek. The Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is
approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to
the east, Interstate 58o to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley
Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those
roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley
Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specific Plan area. See Figure 1: Project
Location.
i
Community Development Department 113
4
fpP
f[
4
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Figure is Project Location
a
x .
LEGEND
n r v
E V� �„ �..,+�,5�.rk�, � 'gyp .t'• '"e �, .' ', � `
s s
� t
- € 4
Aft
zo
�*' .♦ �y.
M, pill �1
Project Applicant's/Sponsor's Name and Address
City of Dublin
loo Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designations
Downtown Dublin -Village Parkway District
Downtown Dublin -Transit-Oriented District
Downtown Dublin - Retail District
Zoning
DDZD - Downtown Dublin Zoning District
14 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Project Description
Background and Intent
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) was adopted by the Dublin City Council in
February of 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the Downtown area
that would be more conducive to a more walkable, mixed development, and vibrant
community. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village
Parkway Districts), with separate development standards for each.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the DDSP in September 2010 to
analyze environmental impacts of potential development associated with the DDSP in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
Subsequent to the adoption of the DDSP and certification of the DDSP EIR in February 2011,
the City decided to increase the total allowable net new residential dwelling units in the
DDSP area. To accommodate these units without causing any new significant impacts,
particularly as it relates to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, the total
allowable net new non-residential development potential was proposed to be reduced
commensurately.
Proposed Project
As shown in Figure z: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts, the DDSP is divided into
three districts: Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village Parkway. Table 3-4: Net New
Development of the DDSP defines specific land use development limits for each of these
districts for both residential and non-residential development.
The proposed project includes shifting some of the allowable development in each district
from non-residential to residential uses. For residential development, the total allowable
development in all three districts would increase from 1,30o dwelling units to 2,5oo dwelling
units; a net increase of 1,200 units. Conversely, total non-residential development (retail,
office, services, etc.) would decrease from 3,035,540 square feet (SF) to 2,262,540 SF, for a
net decrease of 773,000 SF. Amended development limits for each district is shown in Table
1: DDSP Amended Net New Development.
Community Development Department 115
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts
I------- A
LEGEND �I
I I
;txdYc Plun Boundmr �
} �ih GmB Line
Specific Plan Districts
R tail
_ r
'* k
t
I Y) r`
i�
I - I
i
r S
- k s
Al
,a
r
=ry c;f
i Plewanton
L
Table 1: DDSP Amended Net New Development
P ��
€- r T € �
EJC •TSi�g ll�$l�
Difference
- `- WT`u°, to � •
AN- Residential
�„Fetail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) 300
2 202 710 1,622,960
Transit- �� , ,
Oriented. (+1–motel 1,100 (±150-hotel 1,900 (579,750) 800
rooms) rooms)
„Village
Parkway 20,730 100 20,730 200 -- 100
3,035,540 2,262,540
Total" incL 1 o hotel 1,300 (Incl. hotel 2 500 (773 000) 1 200
(— 5- , , ,
ro ms room-5
16 City of Dublin
C
Addendum and Initial Study
The proposed net increase in residential DUs and decrease in non-residential development is
proposed to further enhance the City's on-going effort(and recent success) of encouraging
more transit-oriented residential development in the vicinity of the West Dublin-Pleasanton
BART station and to further incentivize a more vibrant and active downtown.
Apart from this change in allowable development limits, three other minor amendments are
proposed to the DDSP: allowing Live/Work units in the core of the Retail District(they are
currently only allowed in the Transit-Oriented District), restricting the development of
residential uses in the Retail District to the core area east of San Ramon Road, and
establishing minimum residential density requirements in the Retail and Transit-Oriented
Districts (none currently exist). All other existing development standards that regulate
building height, setback standards,floor area ratio, parking, etc. would remain unchanged.
Similarly, all design guidelines that regulate the urban design and preferred aesthetic
character would remain the same, as would mobility and infrastructure plans and
administration and implementation requirements.
The DDSP Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (SCH #2010022005)was certified by the Dublin
City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011. This modification of the DDSP
would require a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, both of which would have to be
reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Dublin City
Council.
Proposed General Plan Amendment:
The proposed text amendments to the General Plan consists of edits to Table 2-1 (Land Use
Development Potential: Primary Planning Area)with deletions shown in °+..�;t and
additions shown as underline. Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is
shown here:
Table 2-1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area
Downtown
Dwelling, , �
Dubin Speclflc Acres Dwelling Ur�t F# t
Units/acre Ulf.
Plan ATea
is
Mediurn Hig-h-,
OF High De" 230.2 6.1-25.1+ 1,3ae 22500 2.7 3-,5}�6.750
Downtown
Dublin
Downtown Maximum Maximum
Potent uarre
Dublin Specific Acres Floor Area 30 f
Square
Plan Area Ratio(Gross) Feet Feetiemployee
Wins)
Village Parkway 32.9 35 5 0-1 � 200-450 X11-�� .15
District
?.508
Community Development Department 117
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Retail District 113.1 .60 2,9&2,762,7324 200-450 6'579ee
6,139-13,814
Transit-
Oriented 84.2 1.2 4-.4-e 3,821,5524 200-450 9,779 22,eeo
District 8'492-19'1°8
Total: 230.2 X86 7,085,87 17P467 39000
1_%746%15A3_0
4 Maximum Development Potential in the Retail and Trans it-Oriented Districts were modified by the 2014
Downtown_Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(City Council Resolution xx-xx)
Proposed DDSP Amendments:
The proposed text amendments to the DDSP include the following proposed modifications
(with deletions shown in S+r�>keoui and additions shown as underline):
Table 3-1: Land Uses
I III
BUILDING USES' L DISTRICT ORIENTED
DISTRICT DISTRICT
• Allowed Prohibited z Prohibited
• Allowed Allowed Allowed
••; Allowed 3 Allowed 3 Allowed 3
e • • y Allowed Allowed Allowed
Allowed Allowed Allowed
*•• I I Prohibited Allowed Prohibited
• ' RF^" Allowed' Allowed CUP/PC4
•° Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed
• ® +° Allowed Allowed Allowed
• ®~ Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed
••• - • ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA
` • - III I CUP/ZA CUP/PC CUP/ZA
CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC
CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC
►• TUP TUP TUP
18 ( City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director.
z Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
3 Assuming accessibility(ADA)standards can be met.
4 May be permitted with a CUP/PC in a mixed-use development.
5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of I-58o or I-680.
6 Allowed as paFt of a mixed use deyelopFnent.—ARQwedibrQughQutAhe Retail District
except on those properties_west of San Ramon Road.
CUP—Conditional Use Permit PC—Planning Commission
TUP—Temporary Use Permit ZA—Zoning Administrator
ZC—Zoning Clearance MUP—Minor Use Permit
Table 3-4: Net New Development
MINIMUM
NON-RESIDENTIAL H
(S F) RESIDENTIAL (DU) RESIDENTIAL
1, 737,199-543,850 +e0-400 22 unitsinet acre
Transit-
' 8 iTaoo 30 units/net acres
Oriented (±15o hotel rooms)
Parkway Village
20,730 aee-= No minimum
du o hl ote ) �9- �
Notes Includes projects that have been approved,but not yet
constructed
Table 6-1: Development Pool
NON-RESIDENTIAL
SQUARE RESIDENTIAL
• •
DWELLINGS
�iiri ■ 34 -175,170 100 4QQ
Transit-
1',' 24;8@@ 1,145,050 1,10 -1•
Oriented (±s,5o hotel rooms)
0 400-M
Page 44, Section 3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential,shall be amended to read as follows:
3.4.8 Multi-Family Residential
Medium to high deRSity Fesiden Multi-Family Residential development is generally in the
form of stacked flats(apartments or condominiums)and attached townhouses. Minimum
residential density is 22 units per net acre.in the Retail District and 30 units per net acre in the
Community Development Department 119
I
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Transit-Oriented District. The Village Parkway_District has no minimum density requirement.
Residential densities in the General Plan are 6.i to 14.9 units per a e for Medium Density
Residential, 14.1 to 25.0 units per i%re for Medium High Density Residential, and 25.0 1 for
High density DesidentW
Residential uses above 25 „nits/-, rn Higher_density_residential_uses are appropriate and
strongly encouraged in the aewnt^,^en area, especially in the Transit-Oriented District near
the BART station.
Page 47, second and third paragraphs after Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District:
This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 32.2 million
square feet of non-residential development and 1,3ee 2,5oo residential dwelling units.
Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500
square feet per hotel room), this represents 459 5.26 million square feet under this
Specific Plan.
Page 57, Building Design Table (Retail District):
Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to add the following language:
ImNot ermitted west of San Ramon Road.
Allowed at a minimum_density_Of22_u_nit"er_net acre
Permitted within a residential development or mixed-use development if
designed based on the following standards:
Page 66, Building Design Table (Transit-Oriented District):
Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to add the following language
(Underlined text is new):
Permitted within a residential development or a mixed-use development if
- - designed based on the following standards:
The maximurn residential density shall be a minimum of 3o-units per net
acre and shall-not exceed a density e#85 units per acre.
The remaining language in the DDSP would remain unchanged.
Other public agencies whose approval is required
None.
20 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Ill. Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards&Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Materials
Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Instructions
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question (see Attachment A: Source List). A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially
Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies
where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact"to a "Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
5. Earlier Analysis maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other
Community Development Department 121
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, the checklist entry will
be "No New Impact" and a discussion should identify the following on attached
sheets:
a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
22 ( City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant /No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
t. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees,rock X
outcroppings,and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its X
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare,which would adversely affect day or X
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
(a)
As described in the DDSP EIR,there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area,
and therefore there would continue to be no impact.
(b)
The project area is fully developed and there are no natural or built features that are considered scenic
resources.
Portions of the project area are visible from Interstate-68o(an officially designated State Scenic
Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate-580(a highway eligible for designation as a
State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route),and San Ramon Road(a locally designated
scenic route).
As described in the DDSP EIR,all proposed projects visible from Interstate-68o and Interstate-580
would be subject to design review per polices of the General Plan. Furthermore,specific projects
would be required to comply with the development standards and be consistent with the design
guidelines as identified in the DDSP,which remain substantively unchanged. Therefore,no new
impacts have been identified.
(c)
The project area is located in an urban built-out area and is adjacent to two major interstate freeways.
The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts to the existing visual character would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not change the allowable building heights and all new development
projects would be requirement to comply with the existing development standards and be consistent
with the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP. Therefore,the proposed revisions would cause
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the existing visual character beyond those
Community Development Department 1 23
k
f
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant (No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
identified in the DDSP EIR.
(d)
The project area is located within an urban area that produces considerable light and glare. Newly
proposed development projects would be required to comply with the DDSP which includes a number
of specific design guidelines that address light and glare.
The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts from light and glare would be less than significant. The
proposed project would continue to require that all new projects comply with the design guidelines
regarding light and glare and therefore the proposed revisions would cause no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to light and glare and no additional review is required
beyond the DDSP EIR.
z. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including
timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's
inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared
X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X
use,or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forest land(as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section X
4526)or timberland zoned Timberland
Production(as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of
X
forest land to non-forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment,which due to their location or X
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
24 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Discussion
(a-e)
The project area is located in an urbanized setting where there are no agricultural or forestry
resources,and therefore there would be no new impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality X
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality X
standard(including releasing emissions,which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people?
Discussion
(a-c)
As described in the DDSP EIR, short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would be
anticipated with future development projects; however, all development within the project area
would be required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) control
measures identified in the DDSP EIR.
Additionally,the El R concluded that the DDSP is consistent with population growth assumptions in the
BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and it anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled due to the DDSP guiding
principles to create a walkable,transit-oriented,and mixed-use community.
As all future development projects under the proposed amendments would be required to comply
with the design standards in the DDSP and the mitigations identified in the DDSP EIR,the project
would not conflict with or obstruct the air quality plan,violate air quality standards,nor result in
cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. The proposed amendments were
designed to ensure that vehicle trips,and related emissions,would not exceed trips/emissions from
Community Development Department 1 25
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant /No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
the existing allowed land uses. As discussed in the transportation section, both total trips and peak
hour trips are considerably less under the proposed land uses than the existing allowed land uses.
Similarly,related emissions will be reduced compared to the project analyzed in the DDSP EIR. As
such,the proposed amendments will not cause any new or more severe significant air quality impacts
than identified in the DDSP EIR and no additional review is required.
(d)
As described in the DDSP EIR,future development project which generate toxic air contaminants
(TACs)are required to comply with BAAQMD rules, regulations and permitting requirements. All
projects are also required to comply with the California Air Resources Board(CARB)and implement
any applicable toxics control measures(ATCMs). As such,there is no new impact identified with
respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No additional review
is required beyond the DDSP EIR
(e)
As described in the DDSP EIR,odors to be expected within the project area include construction and
operational(e.g.odors from restaurants or waste receptacles). Construction odors would be
temporary and are not generally considered offensive. Future uses would be required to comply with
City regulations in the Municipal Code(Chapter 8.24: Commercial Zoning Districts,Chapter 8.64:
Home Occupations Regulations,and Chapter 8.2o: Residential Zoning Districts)which minimize
operational odors. Therefore,there is no new odor impact from the proposed amendments. No
additional review is required beyond the DDSP EIR.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either
directly or through habitat modifications,on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special-status species in local or X
regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act(including, but not X
limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological
interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of X
26 ( City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources,such as a tree X
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,or other X
approved local,regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
(a-f)
The project area is located in an urbanized setting and is fully built out. As described in the DDSP EIR,
biological resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an"effect found not to be
significant." Therefore,there would continue to be no impact on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined X
in CEQA Guidelines section 15o64.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource X
pursuant to section 15o64.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique X
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
(a-d)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is located in an urban setting and has been disturbed
through prior development. There are no identified historic resources within the project area and
therefore there would continue to be no impact.
While the likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low,measures identified within
the DDSP EIR with respect to the discovery of potential cultural resources during construction would
continue to apply,and therefore no new impacts have been identified. No additional review is
Community Development Department 1 27
I
I
I
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New
Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
required beyond the DDSP EIR.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other X
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction?
d) Landslides? X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil.
f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable,or that would become unstable as a
result of the project,and potentially result in X
on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers X
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater.
Discussion
(a-c)
As described in the DDSP EIR,there are three faults within six miles of the project area and future
development projects may be subject to liquefaction. Mitigation measures identified in the DDSP EIR
with respect to ground shaking and liquefaction would continue to apply,reducing these impacts to
less than significant levels. There are no new impacts identified.
(d)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is relatively flat,lacks steep slopes,and is not within a
seismic hazard zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake,and therefore there
28 1 City of Dublin
k
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
would continue to be no impact.
(e)
As described in the DDSP EIR,future development could result in soil erosion or loss of top soil during
construction. Mitigation measures identified within the DDSP EIR with respect to soil loss and erosion
during construction would continue to mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels and no
new impacts have been identified beyond those in the DDSP EIR.
(f)
As described in the DDSP EIR,soils within the project area do not exhibit characteristics of expansive
soils;however site-specific soil evaluations and adherence to City and State building codes would be
required as part of any proposed development. Thus,there are no new impacts identified.
(g-h)
As described in the DDSP EIR,soils within the project area do not exhibit characteristics of expansive
soils and wastewater sewers would be available to the entire project area,and therefore there would
be no impact.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either
directly or indirectly,that may have a X
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of X
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
(a-b)
As described in the DDSP EIR,California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases,
emitting over 400 million tons of CO,a year and that it is not anticipated that any single development
project would have a substantial effect on global climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would include emissions from area sources and
mobile sources associated with new projects. With the proposed increase in net new residential
development and the decrease in non-residential development,the projected daily traffic volumes
were analyzed and projected to decrease from volumes projected for DDSP buildout as analyzed in the
DDSP EIR.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, X
use,or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
Community Development Department 29
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances, or waste within X mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section X
65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?(V.13)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport X
or public use airport,would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip,would the project result in a safety X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency X
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent X
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
(a-b)
As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects could involve the transport, use,disposal, and release of
hazardous materials during construction and may result in the demolition and removal of structures
which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paints. Mitigation measures within the DDSP EIR would
continue to apply, requiring compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP). Additionally, prior to demolition of
structures constructed prior to 1980(when asbestos and lead based paints were commonly used), a
qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the buildings to determine presence of asbestos and/or
lead based paints. If found to be present,subsequent permits and approvals would be required along
with the appropriate disposal of the contaminated materials. With implementation of the mitigation
30 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant /No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
measures in the DDSP EIR,there will be no new impact.
(c)
As described in the DDSP EIR, Nielsen Elementary School(75oo Amarillo Drive, Dublin)is located
within a quarter mile of the project area and new businesses that locate near residential areas or
schools may expose these sensitive uses to greater risk of exposure to hazardous materials,wastes,or
emissions. However,as further described in the EIR,all new projects would be required to comply
with regulations established by federal,state and local regulatory agencies,and therefore there will no
new impacts to sensitive uses.
(d)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant
Government Code Section 65962.5;however,there are seven sites within the project area that are
currently being monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). Mitigation
measures described in the DDSP El R would continue to apply to new projects and would require the
preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and subsequent testing. There will be no new
impact.
(e-f)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within
the vicinity of a private airstrip,and therefore there would be no new impact.
(g)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,and therefore there would
be no new impact.
(h)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is located in an urbanized area and would not be subject
to potential wildfire hazards,and therefore there would be no new impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level(for example, X
the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X
pattern of the site or area,including through
I Community Development Department 31
s
i
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant /No New
Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner,which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or X
river,or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner,which
would result in flooding on-or off-site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality?
g) Place housing within a loo-year flood-hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a loo-yearflood-hazard area
structures,which would impede or redirect X
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X
Discussion
(a)
As described in the DDSP EIR, new project construction could violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. However, mitigation measures described in the DDSP El R would continue to
require compliance with the RWQCB and preparation of a SWPPP,and no new impacts would result.
(b-f)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is largely developed and served by existing stormwater
facilities. Per RWQCB requirements,new projects would include design features to increase
percolation(thereby decreasing stormwater flows,impact to drainage systems,and groundwater
degradation),and no new impacts would result.
(g-h)
As described in the DDSP EIR,several properties within the project area are within the Federal
32 I City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)1 oo-year floodplain;however,new projects would be
required to comply with FEMA floodplain regulations,and no new impacts would result.
(i-j)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or
other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche and is not within a designated dam
failure inundation area,and therefore there would be no impact.
to. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy,or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project(including,but not
limited to the general plan,specific plan,local X
coastal program,or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community X
Conservation Plan?
Discussion
(a)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the DDSP would help ensure greater land use compatibility and would
not physically divide a community,and therefore there would be no new impact.
(b)
The proposed project is a change in the allocation of residential and non-residential uses within the
DDSP planning area and other minor modifications to focus development in key areas at minimum
densities. For residential development,the total allowable development in all three districts would
increase from 1,3oo dwelling units(DUs)to 2,5oo DUs,for a net increase of 1,2oo DUs. Consistency of
the DDSP with applicable General Plan policies was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The proposed
amendments are likewise consistent with policy direction to intensify the downtown,increase
residential opportunities close to the BART station,and increase opportunities for alternative
transportation modes near existing transit corridors and facilities. No new impacts would therefore
result.
(c)
The project area is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan,and
therefore there would be no new impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known X
mineral resource that would be of value to the
Community Development Department 133
P
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site X
delineated on a local general plan,specific
plan,or other land use plan?
Discussion
(a-b)
As described in the DDSP EIR,there are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or
designated in the General Plan or other land use plan,and therefore there would be no new impact.
tz. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the X X
local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground X X
borne noise levels?
C) Substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X X
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X X
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport X
or public use airport,would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to X
excessive noise levels?
Discussion
(a-d)
As described in the DDSP EIR,compliance with DDSP design guidelines and development standards
would ensure that new projects do not exceed long-tern stationary noise thresholds. However,new
projects could result in short-term construction-related noise and vibrations that exceed noise
34 1 City of Dublin
k
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant I No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
standards for nearby sensitive uses and increased long-term mobile noise sources(vehicular traffic),
Mitigation measures described in the DDSP El R would continue to apply to new projects including the
preparation of construction noise management plans(when applicable)and noise from transporting
construction materials. Additionally,new projects located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways
would be required to prepare acoustical analyses and incorporate site-specific mitigations. Based on
these requirements,impacts would remain less than significant and no new impacts would result.
(e-f)
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
and therefore there would be no new impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area,either directly(for example,by
proposing new homes and businesses)or X
indirectly(for example,through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
P
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing,necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
(a-c)
The DDSP EIR determined that the existing land use designations would not induce substantial
growth. It also determined there was no potential for significant effect on population and housing.
Assuming an average of 2.7 persons per household(Dublin General Plan,2013),the additional 1,200
dwelling units would increase the City's population by 3,240 persons. This population increase is
relatively minor and is consistent with the DDSP policies to encourage residential development in the
downtown. Additionally,the proposed project would not displace existing housing nor require the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such,there would be no new impact on
population and housing.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or
physical altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
Community Development Department 135
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Discussion
(a-b)
As stated in the DDSP EIR,new projects would be required to comply with applicable building,safety,
and fire codes,fund on-and off-site improvements,and contribute to the City's public facilities fees,
and therefore there would be no new impact.
(c-e)
The proposed project would increase the demand for schools, parks,libraries and other public facilities
by increasing the allowable net new residential units(and therefore population). However,the
incremental increase in population of 3,27-640 persons is consideYed ^^! ,�n consistent with the
DDSP's policies to encourage residential development in the downtown. Dublin Unified School District
fees,City public facilities fees,and the DDSP provision for community benefits-ke ,g-at4e4Rg-spac_es-)
would continue to apply for new projects,and therefore impacts would remain less than significant.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities X
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational X
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Discussion
(a-b)
The DDSP EIR reviewed the impacts on recreational facilities of the project,which were found to be
less than significant. The proposed project would increase the demand for parks by increasing the
allowable net new residential units,and therefore population. However,the incremental increase in
population is consistent with DDSP's policies to encourage residential development in the Downtown.
Each new development project would pay public facilities impact fees that will fund the acquisition of
parkland and the development of future park facilities. Impacts to recreational facilities would remain
less than significant.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance,or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, X
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant components of
36 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant /No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
the circulation system,including but not
limited to intersections,streets,highways and
freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program,including,but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures,or other standards X
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or X
a change in location that result in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature(for example,sharp curves or
X
dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses
(for example,farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or
programs supporting regarding public transit,
bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise X
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion
(a-b)
The DDSP EIR identified the project's effects due to transportation and circulation as significant and
unavoidable impacts that could not be lessened to a level of less than significant. Therefore,approval
of the Project included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Additionally,as part of the DDSP
approval in 2011,the City amended the General Plan related to acceptable Levels of Service(LOS)
standards within the City to require a LOS of D or better for all intersections except for intersections
within the DDSP area. The objective of this action is to ensure a balance between vehicular and non-
vehicular circulation and create a more pedestrian-friendly downtown.
For the 2014 DDSP Amendment,a new trip generation analysis was conducted to compare trip
generation estimates for the proposed project to estimates for the DDSP. As shown in Attachment B:
Traffic Generation&Distribution,the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in project
trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. This analysis indicates that:
• The proposed project is projected to result in a net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and 1,232 PM
peak hour trips. Compared to the DDSP,the proposed project would generate six percent
Community Development Department 137
R
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant /No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
fewer daily,and 17 percent fewer PM peak hour trips. The reason for this reduction is due to
fact that commercial development generates a greater number of trips than residential
development when compared on a similar square footage basis.
• The 2014 DDSP Amendment would generate a zero net increase in AM peak hour trips at
buildout as compared to the existing DDSP.
Based on the project trip distribution prepared for the DDSP El R,the proposed project trips were
assigned to the roadway network and compared to the DDSP. The change in trip assignment between
the DDSP and the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Attachment B:
Traffic Generation&Distribution.
Traffic queues were also analyzed under proposed project conditions for critical movements at the
intersections of Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard. These
two intersections were analyzed because the City's threshold of significance is greater than 5o trips if
the intersection is already operating at LOS E or lower,which applied only to these two intersections.
The maximum left-turn queues for the southbound and westbound approaches would remain
unchanged with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are shown in
Attachment B: Traffic Generation&Distribution.
The DDSP EIR identified significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on three MTS roadway segments.
Forecast AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project would be equal to or less than
the trip generation forecast for the DDSP. Therefore,the proposed project will not cause new or more
severe impacts than were identified in the prior EIR and no new traffic impacts result.
(c)
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
and therefore there would be no new impact.
(d)
Similar to the level of detail contained in the existing DDSP,the proposed project does not include
specific development plans which would substantially increase hazards nor does it alter roadway
design such that implementation of the proposed project would create sharp curves or dangerous
intersections. This analysis is done at the site specific level and the DDSP El R contained mitigation
measures requiring that these issues be examined at that time. This condition,and therefore there
would be no new impact.
(e)
As described in the DDSP EIR,new projects would be required to comply with applicable building,
safety,and fire codes to ensure proper design and each future development project would fund on-
and off-site improvements and contribute to the City's public facilities fees to minimize impacts to fire
and police services. In addition,the projected daily traffic volumes would decrease with the proposed
project,and therefore there would be no new impact.
(f)
As described in the DDSP EIR,the DDSP includes several policies and design guidelines to support
alternative transportation and to create a mixed-use community that encourages use of alternative
38 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
transportation,including walking,bicycling,bus transit,and the nearby West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station. The project further enhances these objectives by increasing residential development
opportunities near the BART station. Therefore,there would be no new impact.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality X
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the X
construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X
existing facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements X
and resources,or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider,which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity X
to serve the project projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
(a-e)
As described in the DDSP EIR,no new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be
required and there would be adequate capacity with existing infrastructure. Additionally,new
projects would be required to pay impact fees to fund stormwater infrastructure. Because the
proposed project would offset an increase in allowable net new residential development by
decreasing the allowable net new non-residential development,there would be no appreciable
difference in water and wastewater servers,and therefore no new impact would result.
f-g)
I
Community Development Department 139
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New
Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
As described in the DDSP EIR,the project area is served by the Altamont Landfill,which has a total
estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards and a remaining estimated capacity of
45,720,000 cubic yards(74 percent capacity). Future development would occur over an extended
period of time and the Altamont Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional solid waste
until ultimate buildout of the project area.
The proposed project would increase the projected total solid waste generation by 6.37 tons/day(or
2,325 tons per year)which represented approximately o.o6 percent of the permitted maximum
disposal rate of 11,500 tons per day. This is not a significant increase and no new or more severe
significant impact would result.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant X
or animal community,reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when X
viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects,the effects of other current
projects,and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Have environmental effects,which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
(a)
The project area is located in an existing urban area. The project area contains buildings,parking lots,
and streets and as such,there is no natural habitat for fish or wildlife species. Because the site is
already developed,there would be no new impacts to sensitive plant and animal species,riparian
habitat,and federally protected wetlands,and/or archaeological resources. The City would conduct
site specific review of any individual future development projects to ensure that there would be no
impact to biological and/or historic resources. Implementation of this review process would ensure
that future development within the project area do not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment,substantially reduce habitat or eliminate habitat for fish and wildlife species below
40 1 City of Dublin
*,BRFryA - IMrt __
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources):
self-sustaining levels,and/or eliminate important examples of California history or pre-history.
(b)
The project area is largely built-out. Any additional development in the project area will primarily be
infill development that will occur incrementally over time. The City of Dublin General Plan,as well as
the DDSP,provide a framework for orderly future development consistent with goals and policies as
approved by the City Council.
The proposed project is to amend the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to change the allowable net new
development for residential and non-residential uses. No specific development project is proposed.
The additional potential residential development within the project area would not be considered
cumulatively considerable given the reductions in non-residential development and overall
development potential within the City. No new or more severe significant impact will result.
(c)
As described throughout this environmental checklist,the proposed project would not result in
substantial environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly and therefore there
would be no new impacts.
Community Development Department 141
Addendum and Initial Study
Attachment A: Source List
City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2010)
City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report(2010)
City of Dublin, Dublin General Plan (1984, as amended).
Community Development Department I A-1
i
r
I
I
C
Addendum and Initial Study
Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution
Community Development Department ( B-1
� [
/ & / b
-4 5 5 5�
. / / \ /�
\ 1 \ / /�\
■
E
�
o \ \ %
D m » w�
a
�
o ?
c 2
$ / / y.
m % %
0
M .
M
■
k
0
5-
§ 2 ® \ C
a y / / \ /.
{ �
E \ I \ /�
2 � � .
7 4-0
\ 0
< �
c
\ C ) «
� ■ } \
rn
co
\ § / \ f ) /
C 'k / & k \
/ E 75
/
o \
2U
/ \ L
\ U \ c E \
0
4 3 IV 0 § U
—
2 k # \ } \ ~
N e m &
In
00
a
n tt
n cu
LA
W 1 'a nr5 T.
1• �, Pd _
- tti9 6
`� a�1
as�e°
a a
C4 ro
� �
rn
� s
d '
w 'a eat
—+ cn
t.o
y . 1T1
. TT r
cr
,� pH 1,lia48noq � Z
N ,k
nBP�exdoH s z ' ro
ua�,onsn� �z a
y
— C
W "<
March 11 , 2014
/ft Gti�� Of DUe
4
19 —w—i 82
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been
received by the Community Development Department that relate to
an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the
Planning Commission be available to the public. This document is
also available in the Community Development Department, the Dublin
Library, and the City's Website.
The attached document was received in the Community Development
Department after distribution of the March 11 , 2014 Planning
Commission meeting agenda packet.
March 11, 2014
Item #8.3
Kristi Bascom
From: Mark Pilarczyk <mpilarczyk @roemcorp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Kristi Bascom; Jeff Baker; Linda Smith
Subject: Planning Commission - PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan (DDSP)
Good evening Kristi,Jeff, and Linda,
Due to a scheduling conflict I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight and therefore cannot
express my concerns in person. In an effort to provide my opinion, I wanted to submit to you this email in writing and
strongly urge you to reconsider a small portion of the language in the Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan
(DDSP). My concern is with the line that states: "and restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the
Retail District." As you may know, I am a strong supporter of increasing the residential unit allocation and think
redevelopment within the downtown area of Dublin is critical to longevity while reviving and improving the commercial
experience and lifestyle in the City of Dublin.
Below are items that indicate why this portion of the language should be removed, and why you should consider
including the properties west of San Ramon Road for receiving the residential unit allocation and potential residential
redevelopment in this specific area:
• There are many sites located west of San Ramon Road that abut existing residential uses. The potential
expansion of these residential uses makes additional residential development logical, while prohibiting it would
actually isolate the existing older retail and make it more dysfunctional.
• The potential for future redevelopment in the area west of San Ramon Road is more appropriately seen as its
highest and best use with multifamily residential and possibly office providing an adequate basis of population
(renters/owners/employees) to make the core retail in the area continue to thrive while also filling existing
vacant commercial space in the center of the downtown core area/Retail District. San Ramon Road creates a
natural barrier/buffer from the denser commercial uses and provides a transition from the downtown core retail
area to the multifamily and single family residences that currently exist on the west side of San Ramon Road.
I strongly urge staff, Planning Commission, and City Council to seriously reconsider including the language which restricts
the potential of redevelopment with residential uses west of San Ramon Road.
Sincerely,
Mark Pilarczyk
Acquisitions Manager
I..LED Green Atisoritrtt'
ROEM Development Corporation
1650 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara,CA 95050
T 408.984.5600 x 30
F 408.984.3111
www.ROEMcorp.com
Pit',Nt cee,tfit'r the e;tt'tr>>'tittti`rt i efi}f't*pi Ha Iltti muffl.
1
2
4) DUBLIN SCHOOL
, rp:i
n DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
T
7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599 • 925-828-2551 • www,dublin.k12.ca.us
All Dublin Students will RECEIVED
Become Lifelong Learners
MAR 0 6 2014
March 4, 2014
Luke Sims, AICP DUBLIN PLANNING
Community Development Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Re: Impact of Zone Changes
Dear Mr. Sims,
Thank you for your letter of February 7, 2014, and for seeking information from the Dublin Unified School
District concerning the foreseeable impacts of proposed land use/General Plan Amendments, including but not
limited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, on the District's ability to house students
generated by new residential development.
As we previously discussed, the District's facilities are severely impacted by the continuing,influx of additional
students to the District resulting in virtually every school in the District being at or over capacity. This has
required the addition of portable buildings each year to house the additional students. Last year, for instance,
the District enrolled an additional 1000 new students requiring an additional 12 portable classrooms
throughout the District.
Anticipated Student Generation
Overall, the project areas under consideration, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3,
Fredericsenk, The Green at Park Place, The Groves Lot 3, Heritage Park, Schaefer Ranch Unit 3, and the
Transit Center Site A-1, are proposed to generate a total of 975 students from 3,628 units, 400 more than the
current densities for those areas would generate, These are the "high" generation rates which District
enrollment has consistently exceeded.
The District anticipates that the Downtown Area General Plan Amendment alone will generate an
additional 442 students, 243 at the elementary level, 93 at the middle school level, and 106 at the high
school level. The District does not have the capacity to house these additional students, nor does it have the
resources to increase that capacity sufficiently to add enough classrooms to house these students.
Current Capacity
Looking just at the elementary level, Dublin Elementary School will be faced with 272 new students from
these project areas, and it is already short forty seats, well over a full classroom. The District plans to add six
portable and six permanent classrooms to this school to house growth anticipated WITHOUT these changes in
density. Frederiksen Elementary School anticipates growth of 10 new students from the Transit Center Site
A-1, Even without this growth, it has had to convert a computer laboratory to classroom space this year.
Dougherty Elementary School will be faced with 69 additional students from these zone changes, particularly
from The Green at Park Place. Dougherty has already needed six portables this year for additional growth
without these density changes. Kolb School will require space for an additional 181 students from Dublin
Ranch Sub Area 3 and The Groves, Lot 3. Even without this additional enrollment, it has no available space
with enrollment of over 1000 students.
District Lack of Resources to Meet Capacity Needs
The lack of a state bond for school construction has placed tremendous pressure on the District to meet the
challenges of continuing growth in residential population and resulting student enrollment. A major step in
addressing Dublin's current challenges for housing students and maintaining the quality of education provided
is a new state school bond.
Ironically, the District has also been unable to assess development impact fees that would fully mitigate the
cost of housing new students from these new projects. Under the Education Code provisions for development
impact fees, these fees were supposed to increase from meeting 50% of the cost of school facilities (Level 2)
to 100% of the cost of new school facilities (Level 3) when state bond funds were no longer available. That
change has been forestalled, leaving impacted districts throughout the state, including Dublin, struggling to
meet the cost of school facilities to house new students from new development without the state providing its
50% of the cost of those facilities. Another option would be to remove the artificial limits on development
impact fees all together, returning the District, and other districts throughout the state, to the option of
developers providing full mitigation of the impacts of new development on school capacity.
Other options for mitigation of these impacts include the formation of a Mello Roos Community Facility District
through which future residents can repay a bond measure issued by the CFD to pay for school facilities,
funding through mitigation agreements with developers, or further impacting the education of all students by
the District being forced to increase class sizes and decrease the learning resources at schools in order to
house more students. Facilities do impact learning, and having adequate facilities is critical to the quality of
learning in Dublin's schools.
We thank you again for the opportunity to address this issue before action by the Planning Commission or City
Council and look forward to working with the City on ways to maintain and improve the quality of education
provided in the District's schools while addressing the need for additional housing within the City.
Sincerely,
B v y Heironimus
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Dublin Unified School District
cc: Steve Henke
Kim McNeely