HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Emerald Place Retail Ctr
CITY CLERK
File # D~[5J[{j-[3][Q]
/.fOO-2-0
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 2, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 07-019 Emerald Place Retail Center -
CEQA Addendum, Planned Development Rezone, and Stage 1
Development Plan for a 305,000 square foot retail shopping center
on approximately 27.55 acres in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area (formerly the site for the Hacienda Lifestyle Center and Ikea)
Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
Resolution approving a CEQA Addendum to both the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea
Project (certified 3/16/2004), and adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, with the Addendum and
Supplementary Traffic Analysis included as Exhibit A and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as
Exhibit B.
Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone and
related Stage 1 Development Plan for the Emerald Place
Retail Center with the Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan attached
as Exhibit A.
September 11, 2007 Draft Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes.
September 11, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda
Statement, without attachments.
Planning Commission Resolution 07-46 recommending that
the City Council adopt an Addendum to both the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea
Project (certified 3/16/2004), without attachments.
Planning Commission Resolution 07-47 recommending that
the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning 27.55 acres on
the southwest comer of Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive
to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: Applicant, Property Owner
File
ITEM NO. ". I
Page 1 of8
G:\PA#\2007\07-019 BHV Lifestyle CenterlCC 1O.2.07\CCSR Stage J PD and Addendum (2).doc
tJ
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
related Stage 1 Development Plan for the Emerald Place
Retail Center, without attachments.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open the public hearing;
Receive Staff presentation;
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
Close public hearing and deliberate;
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a CEQA
Addendum to both the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified
3/1612004), and adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, with the Addendum and Supplementary
Traffic Analysis included as Exhibit A and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B;
Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance (Attachment
2) approving a Planned Development Rezone and related
Stage 1 Development Plan for the Emerald Place Retail
Center with the Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan attached as
Exhibit A;
6)
None.
The proposed Project consists of a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning application to allow a 305,000
square foot retail shopping center on approximately 27.55 acres in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
A map of the project area is shown below:
o
<{
o
0-:
o
....J
o
Z
0-:
<{
SITE
~
Vicinity Map
rr
o
<{
o
z
w
U
<{
::r:
DUBLIN BLVD.
~
Page 2 of8
The project as proposed consists of eleven buildings designed for retail commercial uses. Five of the
buildings are "pad" buildings located closer to the perimeter of the site amongst the parking fields, and the
other six buildings are centered around a "Town Green" pedestrian core. A site plan is shown below:
The proposed gross square footage of the center is 305,000 square feet, which includes approximately
270,000 square feet devoted to retail uses and approximately 35,000 square feet for restaurant uses.
However, there is some flexibility proposed to be built into the Planned Development Zoning District that
would allow these numbers to vary within certain ranges related to the mixture of retail and restaurant
uses, as long as the overall vehicle trip generation rate for the project as a whole remains the same. The
details on square footage variation allowed are provided on page 8 of the Draft Ordinance (Attachment 2).
Background
In February 2001, the City Council approved the "Commerce One Project" that allowed for the
development of a four building, 780,000 square foot office complex on the subject site, which was then
designated for Campus Office uses in the General Plan. In August 2001, the Alameda County Surplus
Property Authority (property owner) informed the City that Commerce One was no longer in contract to
purchase the site. In 2003, a development application was submitted to the City of Dublin for a General
Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the property from Campus
Office to General Commercial, which was approved in 2004, for the IKEA project and the lifestyle center
on the subject site.
In 2004, the City Council approved the development of a 317 ,000 square foot Ikea retail store and a
137,000 square foot "lifestyle center" on approximately 27.55 acres at the northwest comer of Interstate
580 and Hacienda Drive. Blake Hunt Ventures acquired the parcel of land where the lifestyle center was
to be built, and they received Site Development Review approval for the construction of the Emerald
Place Lifestyle Center on 13.0 acres of the 27.55 acres. In late 2006, Ikea withdrew their plans to build a
Page 3 of8
store in Dublin, and Blake Hunt Ventures moved to acquire the Ikea parcel as well and to enlarge and
redesign their commercial shopping center on the entire 27.55 acres.
In an effort to deliver a successful lifestyle center project, Blake Hunt Ventures has committed to working
closely with the City of Dublin on the design of the new, expanded center, and sought early input on the
overall design of the center from Staff and the Planning Commission. On February 12,2007, the Planning
Commission went on a field trip with Staff and the Applicant to four different shopping areas in the Bay
Area. Subsequent to the field trip, the Planning Commission had a study session on February 27, 2007
and provided feedback to the Applicant's design team on their preferences for the look and feel of the
center.
Since the field trip and the study session, the Applicant has been finalizing the purchase of the property
and has been preparing the Stage 1 Development Plan. At this time, the Applicant is finalizing the
architectural drawings for the project and will be submitting their Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning
and Site Development Review application shortly. In the meantime, in an effort to meet various deadlines
for the purchase of subject property, the Applicants have chosen to move ahead with the Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezoning application for the property at this time. The Stage 2 PD and SDR application
should follow within the next several months and Staff anticipates a Design Review Study Session with
the Planning Commission in late Fall ofthis year.
ANALYSIS:
Planned Development Rezoning and Related Stage 1 Development Plan.
The Stage 1 Development Plan (See Conceptual Site Plan in Exhibit A to Attachment 2) provides greater
detail on the project proposal. According to Chapter 8.32 (Planned Development) of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, a Stage 1 Development Plan is intended to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and
applicable specific plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas ofthe City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments.
A Stage 1 Development Plan is required to contain the following items:
1. Statement of permitted, conditionally permitted, accessory uses
2. Stage 1 Site Plan (Conceptual only)
3. Site Details
4. Maximum development density permitted
5. Phasing Plan
6. Master Landscape Plan
7. Consistency with General Plan and any specific plans
8. Consistency with Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
9. Aerial Photo
Page40f8
The following section will briefly analyze each item ofthe Emerald Place Retail Center Stage 1
Development Plan.
1. Statement of Uses. The Project will provide a variety of commercial land uses including
retail, eating, drinking and entertainment establishments, office, personal service, and other
general commercial uses. These uses are permitted on the site assuming that the
development regulations of the Project's Planned Development Ordinance can be met.
2. Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan. The Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan is a general, schematic
depiction of the location of the proposed buildings and uses on the site. Adjustments to
internal vehicle circulation routes, pedestrian connections within and to the project, parking
requirements and layout, and a more precise site plan will be developed at the subsequent
PD Zoning District/Stage 2 Development Plan. Precise infrastructure improvements,
which have already been discussed preliminarily, will also be formalized in the Stage 2
Development Plan.
3. Site area, proposed densities, and develo{>ment regulations. The Conceptual Stage 1 Site
Plan shows a retail center with a total of 305,000 square feet. According to the plans
submitted by the Applicant, it is anticipated that 270,000 square feet will be devoted to
retail uses and 35,000 square feet could be devoted to restaurant uses. However, the Stage
1 Development Plan allows for some flexibility in this allocation. At the least, 293,800
square feet of building will be constructed on the subject property, including a minimum of
248,000 square feet of retail and maximum of 45,000 square feet of restaurant. At the high
end, a maximum of 327,400 square feet of building will be constructed on the site,
including a maximum of312,400 square feet of retail and a minimum of 15,000 square feet
restaurant. These variations are intended to provide some flexibility to the Applicant as
they recruit businesses and finalize their tenant mix, while still staying within the
acceptable range of traffic to be generated by the project based on the different uses. The
traffic analysis is fully explained as part of the CEQA Addendum for the project. The
Supplementary Traffic Analysis is included in Exhibit A to Attachment 1)
4. Phasing Plan. The project site will be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole, but
will be broken up into different building permit submittals.
5. Master Landscape Plan. The Conceptual Landscape Plan is part of the Project Application
and serves as the Stage 1 Development Plan Master Landscape Plan. It is being refined as
the Stage 2 Development Plan is being developed.
6. Consistency with General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations of
General Commercial.
7. Inclusionarv Zoning Regulations. The project contains only commercial uses. The
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations do not regulate non-residential projects.
8. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo has been submitted with the Project Application.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2007:
At the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented the project details to the
Commission and public. Although the Commission was in support of the project size, density, and use
type, they were concerned they did not have enough information about the project at the Stage 1 level to
Page 5 of8
recommend approval of the conceptual site plan. Staff clarified that the site plan is conceptual only, and
that it would be refined in greater detail as the developer prepares the Stage 2 Site Plan and full
architectural details for the Site Development Review submittal.
Specifically, the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the following Issues on the
Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan:
1. Ensuring adequate access and queuing space at the project's main entrance of Martinelli Way;
2. Ensuring that the orientation and architecture of the buildings would provide adequate screening of
delivery and loading areas;
3. Ensuring that the project would present an attractive face to all major frontages, including
Hacienda Drive, Interstate 580, Martinelli Way, as well as internally to the project's core "Town
Green" area; and
4. Ensuring that the windy conditions of Dublin are adequately taken into consideration in the design
of the center.
After discussion regarding the above issues, the Commission indicated that they would be supportive of
the Stage 1 PD rezoning if it was made clear that the Stage 1 Site Plan was approved in concept only, and
that it was possible substantial changes could be made to the site plan through the Stage 2 and Site
Development Review process. Additionally, the Planning Commission wanted to have a study session on
the project once more detail could be provided to the Commission, including pedestrian and vehicle
circulation, site landscaping, and building massing. Both Staff and the Applicant committed to bringing
more details to the Commission for their feedback before the Stage 2/SDR is finalized.
Following the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated, made revisions to the Draft
Resolution and Draft Ordinance clarifying the conceptual nature of the Stage 1 Site Plan,. and voted to
adopt the following Resolutions:
. Planning Commission Resolution 07-46 (Attachment 5) recommending that the City Council
adopt an Addendum to both the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified 3/1612004); and
. Planning Commission Resolution 07-47 (Attachment 6) recommending that the City Council
adopt an ordinance rezoning 27.55 acres on the southwest comer of Martinelli Way and Hacienda
Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1 Development
Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 53-93 approving the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 53-
91 certifying a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment, hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR (SCH 91103064). This
Environmental Impact Report evaluated the environmental impacts associated with developing the 6,920
acre Eastern Dublin planning area with a range of residential, commercial, light industrial, open space,
parks, schools, and other public uses.
In 2003, a development application was submitted to the City of Dublin for a General Plan and Specific
Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject property from Campus Office to
Page 6 of 8
General Commercial. The development proposal for the 27.55 acre subject property included a 317,000
square foot Ikea retail store and a 137,000 square foot "lifestyle" retail center on the southwest comer of
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
A Supplemental EIR was completed, which examined the potential impacts of the Ikea store and the
neighboring lifestyle center. On March 16,2004, the City Council certified the Supplemental EIR (SEIR)
via Resolution 44-04. The Council's approval included findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations related to supplemental Air Quality and Traffic Impacts identified in the SEIR.
The development that is now proposed to take place on the subject property revises the commercial
project that was analyzed in the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR. In order to determine if there were any
environmental impacts that were present with the revised project proposal that were not already addressed
(and mitigated if necessary) in the Supplemental EIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study,
dated August 3, 2007, determined that although the overall project size is smaller than the original
Ikea/Lifestyle Center project, an additional examination of potential impacts to the traffic and circulation
section of the SEIR should be completed to ensure that no new significant environmental impacts could be
identified and that no increase in the severity of the previously-identified impacts would be discovered.
An Addendum to the Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment has been prepared which compares the two projects, assesses
the traffic generation rates of the proposed project in relation to that which was analyzed in the SEIR. The
Addendum concludes that no new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. The Addendum
includes the Initial Study, and along with the Supplementary Traffic Analysis conducted, is included as
Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
The Applicant/Developer is required to comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation
measures ofthe Ikea Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the Final Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plans
(MMRP) of both documents.
PUBLIC NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to all property owners and
occupants/residents within three hundred feet of the Project site and to all parties requesting such notice.
The Public Hearing Notice provided a description of the Project including the location, approvals sought
and environmental review undertaken. The Public Hearing Notice was also published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City.
CONCLUSION:
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments
have been incorporated into the Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and represents an appropriate project for the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the public hearing; 2) Receive Staff presentation; 3)
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close public hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt
Page 7 of8
Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a CEQA Addendum to both the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified 3/16/2004), and adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, with the Addendum and Supplementary Traffic Analysis
included as Exhibit A and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B; 6) Waive the
reading and introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 2) approving a Planned Development Rezone and related
Stage 1 Development Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center with the Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan
attached as Exhibit A.
Page 8 of8
Iq)~
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC
PLAN (CERTIFIED 5/10/1993) AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT (CERTIFIED 3/1612004) AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRICT AND RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER
(APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003)
P A 07-019
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 53-93, approving the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. At the same time, the City Council adopted
Resolution 53-91 certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment (SCH 91103064, incorporated herein by reference). This Environmental
Impact Report evaluated the environmental impacts associated with developing the 6,920 acre Eastern
Dublin planning area with a range of residential, commercial, light industrial, open space, parks, schools,
and other public uses; and
WHEREAS, a Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2003 when a development application was
submitted to the City of Dublin for a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation on a 27.55-acre piece of property from Campus Office to General Commercial (SCH
2003092076, incorporated herein by reference). The development proposal for the subject property
included a 317,000 square foot Ikea retail store and a 137,000 square foot "lifestyle" retail center on the
southwest comer of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Ikea Project SEIR on March 16, 2004 and adopted
CEQA findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 44-04, incorporated herein
by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City received notification in 2006 that the Ikea project was no longer moving
forward, and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Wright on behalf of Blake Hunt Ventures., submitted an
application in 2007 requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1
Development Plan to construct a 305,000 square foot retail commercial shopping center (the "Project") on
the same 27.552= acres ofland, located at on the southwest comer of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the project is proposed to consist of 270,000 square feet of retail uses and 35,000
square feet of restaurant uses in a pedestrian-oriented outdoor center; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated August 3, 2007, incorporated herein by
reference, to determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
ATTACHMENT 1
10- 2--07 Co. I
a~D
Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially significant effects of
the project were adequately addressed in both the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR and the Environmental
Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for this project, 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 EIRs. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts have been discovered. The project
remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated August 3, 2007,
incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, was prepared which notes
the project changes and their relation to the analysis in the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR and the
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum was considered by the Planning Commission together with the Ikea
Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment at a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 11, 2007. The
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-46 recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on October 2, 2007, at which
time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 2, 2007 was submitted to the City Council analyzing
the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the project applications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum with the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR
and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment
before making a decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of Appeals
decision Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th
98, 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did use its independent judgment and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the CEQA Addendum
and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164
for the Emerald Place Retail Center project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2007 by the following vote:
20f3
:;If{) 5D
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2007\07-0J9 BHV Lifestyle CenterlCC lO.2.07\CC Reso Addendum Final.doc
30f3
LfVb ;:1)
CEQA Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified 3/16/2004)
For the Emerald Place Retail Center Project, P A 07-019
August 3, 2007
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PRIOR CEQA ANALYSIS:
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 53-93 approving the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 53-
91 certifying a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment, hereinafter referred to . as the Eastern Dublin EIR (SCH 91103064). This
Environmental Impact Report evaluated the environmental impacts associated with developing the 6,920
acre Eastern Dublin planning area with a range of residential, commercial, light industrial, open space,
parks, schools, and other public uses.
In 2003, a development application was submitted to the City of Dublin for a General Plan and Specific
Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on a 27.55-acre piece of property located within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area from Campus Office to General Commercial. The development
proposal for the subject property included a 317,000 square foot Ikea retail store and a 137,000 square
foot "lifestyle" retail center on the southwest comer of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
An Initial Study was completed to determine if the proposed Ikea store and neighboring retail center
would require additional environmental review beyond that already analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Initial Study determined that although many of the impacts of the proposed project were already
addressed, there were changed circumstances and/or new information that could result in new or
intensified impacts. These included:
1. The potential for new or newly-designated special status biological species to be present on
the subject site;
2. A change in traffic and commuting patterns since 1993 which could have substantially
increased regional traffic and congestion; and
3. The potential for new regional air quality impacts due to the traffic impacts and congestion.
A Supplemental EIR was completed, which examined these potential impacts (SCH 2003092076). On
March 16, 2004, the Dublin City Council reviewed and approved a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development
Rezoning, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, and related applications for the subject site. The
City Council certified the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the Ikea Project, including the neighboring retail
center (Resolution 44-04), approved the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (Resolution 47-
04), and on April 6, 2004, adopted Ordinance 10-04 approving the rezoning and related PD
Development Plan (collectively, the "Prior Approvals"). The Prior Approvals included findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations related to supplemental Air Quality and Traffic Impacts
identified in the SEIR. At the end of 2006, the City of Dublin received notice that Ikea did not intend to
move forward with the construction of their retail store, and that another developer intended to propose a
modified retail commercial use on the property.
Exhibit A
66b~
In April 2007, Blake Hunt Ventures submitted a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning application to
the City, seeking entitlements for a revised project consisting of a 305,000 square foot retail commercial
shopping center on the same 27.55-acre site studied in the Ikea Project SEIR, hereafter referred to as "the
Project".
The Prior Approvals (including the two certified EIRs) referenced 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 IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROJECT:
In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present with the
revised project proposal that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the both the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial
Study, dated August 3, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference, determined that the potentially
significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the both of the above documents, and that
no substantial changes have been proposed to the Project or the conditions under which the Project will
be undertaken which require revisions of the previous EIRs. This Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR has been prepared, which notes the difference in the current and
previously analyzed projects and their relation to the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and the Ikea Project
Supplemental EIR.
The 2007 Project varies from the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the IKEA Project SEIR
as follows:
Table 1
Project Comparison
IKEA Project described in 2004 Emerald .Place Town Center Difference
SEIR DroDosal
Total Pro.iect size 454,000 SF 305,000 SF -149,000 SF
Retail 329,000 SF 270,000 SF! -59,000 SF
217 KSF Ikea store
112 KSF adiacent retail ctr.
Restaurant 46,000 SF 35,000 SF ! -11,000 SF
21 KSF inside Ikea store
25 KSF at adiacent retail ctr.
Warehouse 62,000 SF None -62,000 SF
Office 17,000 SF Ancillary to retail use and -17,000 SF
included in retail square
footage above
ParkinS!: spaces 1,405 parking spaces 1,423 parking spaces + 18 spaces
Sources: Ikea Project SEIR (certified 3/16/2004) and Current Stage 1 Site Plan (dated 8/21/07)
! Additional retail use may be substituted for restaurant uses or additional restaurant use may be substituted for retail use at
exchange ratios described further in this document. For the purposes of this table, the square footage comparison is based on
the project as currently proposed.
t.o Vb 9)
Although the overall project size is smaller under the revised proposal, 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 no new significant environmental impacts could be identified and that no
increase in the severity ofthe previously-identified impacts would be discovered.
SUPPLEMENTARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
The City completed a supplementary traffic analysis to analyze how the traffic impacts of the revised
project (305,000 square foot retail center with 35,000 square feet devoted to restaurant uses) compared
to the project studied in the certified Ikea Project Supplemental EIR (454,000 square feet retail,
warehouse, office uses with a maximum of 46,000 square feet of restaurant uses). The analysis
concluded that the traffic impacts would not be substantially different. The traffic analysis and the
accompanying level of service analysis completed by the City Traffic Engineer is attached to this
Addendum as Exhibit A-I, and incorporated herein by reference. The highlights of the traffic analysis
are included in the sections below.
In assessing whether the revised retail center project creates significant impacts that were not present or
that were substantially more severe than the Ikea project, the traffic analysis examined three main
measurements:
1. Overall trip generation rates ofthe revised Project;
2. Impacts to levels of service at key intersections as a result ofthe revised project; and
3. Consistency of the Project with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
requirements.
Proiect Trip Generation Rates. The traffic analysis examined the Project trip generation rates of the
proposed land uses at the highest daily peak hour, as follows:
Land Use
Table 2
Project Trip Generation
PM Peak Hour
Net New Trips
Out
Total
Size
(ksf)
New Blake Hunt 305 KSF retail center
ShoDoina Center1 270 381 413 794
Restaurant2 35 133 85 218
TOTAL 305 514 498 1,012
Source: Supplementary Traffic Analysis for the Revised Project (conducted by the City Traffic Engineer and dated
1/8/07)
Notes: ksf = thousand square feet
In
1. Trip rate based on regression equation (and not average value) from ITE's Trip Generation (7th Edition),
according to the guiding principles stated in the Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998). Shopping Center
rate based on ITE Land Use Code 820.
2. Trip rate based on average rate from ITE's Trip Generation (ih Edition), according to the guiding principles
stated in the Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998). Restaurant rate based on ITE Land Use Code 932.
'Ub5V
Level of Service Analvsis. Since the trip generation rate and the PM peak hour trip rate for a quality
restaurant are higher than the trip generation rate for a retail space of the same size, the traffic analysis
assumed that the project would contain 35,000 square feet of gross building area for restaurant purposes
and 270,000 square feet of gross building area for retail purposes.
However, in an effort to analyze a variety of possible scenarios for the actual use of the center, and based
on the ITE standards for restaurant and retail uses, it was determined by the City Traffic Engineer that
for each square foot of space more than 270,000 that is used for retail instead of restaurant, the traffic
impacts of the proposed project are reduced compared to the project with a higher amount of restaurant
uses. Conversely, for each square foot of space more than 35,000 that is used for restaurant instead of
retail, the traffic impacts of the proposed project area increased. The PD-Development Plan includes the
flexibility to substitute retail space for restaurant space and vice versa at the exchange ratios indicated
below:
. For each square foot of restaurant space above 35,000 square feet, 2.12 square feet of retail
square footage shall be removed from the 270,000 square foot retail area and, conversely,
. For each square foot of retail space above 270,000 square feet, 0.47 square feet of restaurant
square footage shall be removed from the 35,000 square foot restaurant area.
The traffic analysis conducted assumes that the project will contain 270,000 square feet of retail square
footage and 35,000 square feet of restaurant. Any variation from these numbers will need to incorporate
the above-stated exchange ratios to determine the maximum allowable square footage permitted that will
keep the overall project trip generation rate under the 1,012 net new P.M. Peak Hour trip threshold noted
in Table 2.
The results of the supplementary traffic analysis comparing the two projects and their impacts to
intersection levels of service are as follows:
Table 3
Intersection Levels of Service - Buildout Conditions
PM Peak Hour
With With
Signalized Intersections IKEA Project Emerald Place Retail Center
(As approved) Project
(270 ksf retail + 35 ksf
restaurant)
vlc LOS vlc LOS
Dublin Boulevard/DouQhertv Road 0.93 E 0.93 E
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive 0.84 D 0.84 D
1-580 EB Ramp/Santa Rita Road/Pimlico 0.84 D 0.84 D
Drive (Mitigated per Fallon Village SEIR)
Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way/Hacienda 0.75 C 0.77 C
CrossinQs
1-580 EB Ramp/Hopyard Road 0.87 D 0.87 D
Notes: ksf = thousand square feet
Source: Supplementary Traffic Analysis for the Revised Project (conducted by the City Traffic Engineer and dated
1/8/07)
1;Ub ~
As shown above, the levels of service at critical intersections are not increased as a result of the revised
Project. The volume to capacity ratio is slightly increased at the Hacienda Drive intersection, however,
the level of service remains unchanged and at a less than significant level.
The traffic analysis concludes that no new or substantially more severe significant impacts on levels of
service at nearby critical intersections will result from the Project, and no additional mitigation measures
are required.
Consistency with the Congestion Management Agency requirements. The Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (ACCMA) may require additional traffic impact analysis on Routes of Regional
Significance if specific project trip generation thresholds are exceeded. The threshold for analysis is met
if the project generates 100+ net new vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The ACCMA
assumptions for potential vehicle trips are based on local General Plans.
Under the Campus Office land use category that was studied in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, 922 PM
peak hour trips would have been generated by a project on this 27.55-acre site. Under the midpoint
range of the General Commercial land use category that was adopted for the Ikea Project, 962 PM peak
hour trips would have been generated. The revised Project would generate 1,012 PM peak hour trips
(assuming 35,000 square feet of restaurant uses within the Project). As noted above, exchange ratios
have been established which allow some flexibility in ''trading'' retail square footage for restaurant
square footage (and vice versa) without increasing the overall trip generation rate for the project.
As shown in Table 3 of the traffic analysis, the Project would generate approximately 50 more PM peak
hour trips than assumed under the General Commercial designation. Thus, the net new PM peak hour
trips generated by the revised Project would generate fewer trips than ACCMA's lOO-trip threshold, as
compared to mid-point density General Commercial development (or previous General Plan/Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan designation of Campus Office). Therefore, no additional traffic impact analysis on
Routes of Regional Significance is required to satisfy the Land Use Analysis Program of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program.
It was determined by the City Traffic Engineer that there was not a substantial difference in the impacts
to levels of service at the City's key intersections, as detailed in Exhibit A-I to this Addendum.
Additionally, the increase in PM peak hour trips resulted in only 50 PM peak additional trips, which is
below the threshold triggering ACCMA review. After reviewing the prior EIRs and the Supplementary
Traffic Analysis and assessing the minor increase in PM peak hour trips, the City Traffic Engineer
concluded that the traffic mitigation measures that were approved in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Ikea
Project SEIR would also be sufficient to mitigate the traffic-related impacts of the revised Project and
that no new or additional mitigation measures are required for the Project.
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 this Project, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the
Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken which require revisions of the
previous EIRs. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered.
q'b r;;D
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and clarifications as
outlined in this Addendum, the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment and the Supplemental EIR for the Ikea Project will continue to
adequately address the significant environmental impacts of the revised Project.
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 prior EIR and SEIR before making a decision on the proposed project. The Initial
Study, the supplementary traffic analysis and its updated Level of Service analysis conducted by the City
Traffic Engineer, the Eastern Dublin EIR, and the Ikea Project SEIR are available for review in the
Community Development Department at the City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
lOwn
Exhibit A-I:
Supplementary Traffic Analysis for the Revised Emerald Place Retail Center Project and
Level of Service Calculations/Results
P A 07-019
January 8, 2007
Backe:round
The City of Dublin Traffic Engineer conducted a threshold analysis to determine the maximum
square footage of General Commercial development that can be supported on the Project site
without creating additional traffic impacts at study area intersections beyond those projected
under buildout conditions of the City's General Plan including the currently approved IKEA
Project. Based on this review, it was concluded that up to 305,000 square feet (SF) of General
Commercial use can be supported on this site, including 270,000 SF shopping center retail and
35,000 SF restaurant use. The traffic analysis associated with this finding is summarized below,
and the detailed level of service analysis conducted follows this document.
Proiect Trio Generation and Assie:nment
Trip generation during the weekday PM peak hour was calculated for a 305,000 SF shopping
center, including 270,000 SF retail and 35,000 SF restaurant use. Table 1 below summarizes trip
generation calculations. The analysis was specifically conducted during the weekday PM peak
hour because peak demand for retail/restaurant uses typically coincides with peak traffic demand
on adjacent streets occurring during the evening commute period.
Table 1
Project Trip Generation
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Trip Rates Total Trips % Net New Trips
(kst) In Out In Out Pass-By In Out Total
Shopping Center1 270 2.14 2.32 578 626 34 381 413 794
Restauranr 35 6.66 4.26 233 149 43 133 85 218
TOTAL 305 811 775 514 498 1,012
Notes:
ksf = thousand square feet
1. Trip rate based on regression equation (and not average value) from ITE's Trip Generation (7th Edition),
according to the guiding principles stated in the Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998). Shopping Center
rate based on ITE Land Use Code 820.
2. Trip rate based on average rate from ITE's Trip Generation (7th Edition), according to the guiding principles
stated in the Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998). Restaurant rate based on ITE Land Use Code 932.
\ \~ 50
The above Project trips were then assigned to individual turning movements at adjacent
intersections using the same trip distribution and assignment assumptions used in the traffic
analysis for the IKEA Project SEIR. This information was utilized to update PM peak hour
turning moyement volume forecasts at critical intersections in the vicinity of the Project under
buildout conditions, assuming that the above 305,000 SF shopping center is developed in place
ofthe IKEA Project.
Level of Service Analvsis
Levels of service (LOS) at five adjacent intersections were calculated during the PM peak hour
under buildout conditions with the 305,000 SF shopping center occupying the study site (see
attached analysis sheets). The LOS calculations were then compared to previously calculated
levels of service from the City's traffic demand model which includes IKEA Project trips. The
results of this comparative analysis are summarized in Table 2 below. The five intersections
listed in Table 2 were selected for the analysis because they are currently projected to operate at
or below level of service D during the PM peak hour at buildout, and/or are in proximity to the
Project site.
Table 2
Intersection Levels of Service - Buildout Conditions
Signalized Intersections
PM Peak Hour
With With
IKEA Project Emerald Place Retail Center
(As approved) Project
270 ksf retail + 35 ksf restaurant
vlc LOS vlc LOS
0.93 E 0.93 E
0.84 D 0.84 D
0.84 D 0.84 D
0.75 C 0.77 C
0.87 D 0.87 D
Dublin BoulevardIDou h Road
Dublin BoulevardlHacienda Drive
Hacienda DrivelMartinelli Wayl
Hacienda Crossin s
1-580 EB Ram tHo yard Road
Notes:
ksf = thousand s uare feet
121fb5D
As shown in Table 2, the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios are not expected to change at the study
intersections as a result of the 305,000 SF shopping center Project, except for the Hacienda
DriveIMartinelli WayIHacienda Crossings intersection where the v/c ratio is expected to increase
insignificantly from 0.75 to 0.77 - still within an acceptable LOS standard. This increase would
not affect the intersection LOS and the intersection is projected to operate at level of service "C",
which is an acceptable level. Levels of service would remain unchanged at all five intersections,
as indicated in Table 2.
The Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection is projected to operate at level of service
"E" during the PM peak hour under buildout conditions. As a result, this intersection was
identified as the most critical intersection in determining an upper threshold for the size of
General Commercial development that can be supported by the adjacent street system. Based on
this LOS analysis, it was concluded that 305,000 SF of shopping center (including 270,000 SF
retail and 35,000 SF restaurant use) would represent the maximum size of development that can
be supported without causing the v/c ratio at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection
to further increase where operations already exceed the City's target performance of LOS "D".
For example, if development size exceeded the 305,000 SF threshold, the PM peak hour v/c ratio
at this intersection would then increase beyond current projections of 0.93 at buildout, and
intersection operations could deteriorate into a more unstable LOS "E."
Based on this analysis, there would be no additional supplemental cumulative impacts at study
area intersections beyond those described in the IKEA SEIR as a result of implementing the
above 305,000 SF shopping center Project. Therefore, the supplemental mitigations listed in the
IKEA SEIR remain adequate and no additional mitigations are required.
Consistency with Alameda County Cone:estion Manae:ement Ae:encv Requirements
The above 305,000 SF shopping center Project would be consistent with current "General
Commercial" designation for this site under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) may require additional traffic
impact analysis on Routes of Regional Significance if specific project trip generation thresholds
are exceeded. The threshold for analysis is met if the project generates 100+ net new vehicle
trips during the weekday PM peak hour.
To assess whether additional traffic impact analysis is necessary on Routes of Regional
Significance in the Project area, the 305,000 SF Project trip generation during the PM peak hour
was compared to the following site development scenarios, as shown in Table 3:
1. General Commercial development at mid-point density, as specified in the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2. Previous General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation of Campus Office for the
site (e.g., previous Commerce One approvals).
f~ 1:JJ5D
Table 3
Congestion Management Agency Trip Generation Assessment
Site Development
Scenarios
305 ksf Shopping Center
Mid-Point Density GC
Campus Office
Trip Difference
PM Peak Hour Trips
Notes:
ksf = thousand square feet
I. See Project Trip Generation discussed above.
2. Mid-point density equivalent to 359,893 SF. Shopping Center assumed for trip generation (with 34% pass-by) based on
ITE Land Use Code 820. Trip rate based on regression equation (and not average value) from ITE's Trip Generation (7th
Edition), according to the guiding principles stated in the Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998).
3. See IKEA Pro'ect SEIR, Table 4.3.10.
As noted in Table 3, the net new PM peak hour trips generated by the 305,000 SF shopping
center scenario would generate fewer trips than ACCMA's 100-trip threshold, as compared to
mid-point density General Commercial development or previous General Plan/Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan designation of Campus Office. Therefore, no additional traffic impact analysis on
Routes of Regional Significance is required to satisfy the Land Use Analysis Program of the
Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
Exchan2e Ratio: Retail square foota2e to restaurant and vice-versa
At the Applicant's request, the City Traffic Engineer reviewed trip generation comparisons
between shopping center retail and restaurant uses, considering PM peak hour trip generation
rates as well as percent pass-by traffic for each type of use in the analysis. Based on this review,
the City Traffic Engineer determined that for each square foot of space more than 270,000 that is
used for retail instead of restaurant, the traffic impacts of the proposed project are reduced
compared to the project with a higher amount of restaurant uses. Conversely, for each square
foot of space more than 35,000 that is used for restaurant instead of retail, the traffic impacts of
the proposed project are increased. Based on the trip generation rates of the two use types, the
City Traffic Engineer determined that square footage can be ''traded'' at the exchange ratios
indicated below:
. For each square foot of restaurant space above 35,000 square feet developed in the
project, 2.12 square feet of retail square footage shall be removed from the 270,000
square foot retail area and, conversely,
. For each square foot of retail space above 270,000 square feet developed in the project,
0.47 square feet of restaurant square footage shall be removed from the 35,000 square
foot restaurant area.
LOS Results
LOS software by TJK M Transportati on consul tants
I ~~?[)
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
con di ti on: Bui 1 dout +prj
12/20/06
INTERSECTION
Count Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
CCT A METHOD.
LEFT 263
1 Dougherty/Dublin
Time
^
I
RIGHT THRU
134 1315
I I
I I
<--- v
1.1 4.1
LEFT
44
I
I
--->
2.0
2.0
RIG HT
566
THRU 1456 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
2.0
3.0 3.0
<--- ^
I I
I I
1015 1922
LEFT THRU
2.0
--->
I
I
544
RIGHT split? N
N
W + E
S
I
v
STRE ET NAME: Doughe r ty
city of Dublin
peak Hour PM
^
I split? N
1. 0 --- 18 RIGHT
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET N AME :
3.0<--- 1719 THRU Dublin
3 .0 - -- 798
I
v
LEFT
SIG WARR ANTS:
U rb=Y, RU r=Y
MOVEMENT
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
CRITICAL
v/c
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
T + R
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
WB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
ORIG INAL ADJUSTED
VOL UME VOLUME* CAPACITY
544
1922
1015
238 *
1922
1015
3000
4950
4304
1650
6600
3000
6600
3000
4950
3000
1650
4950
4304
V/C
RATIO
O. 0793
O. 3883
0.2358
O. 0812
O. 1992
0.0147
O. 2195
O. 0590
0.2941
O. 0877
O. 0000
O. 3473
O. 1854
0.2358
0.2195
0.2941
0.1854
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
134
1315
44
134
1315
44
1449
566
1456
263
177 *
1456
263
18
1719
798
o *
1719
798
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.93
E
========================================================================
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BLDPRJ.INT,VOL=BLDPRJPM.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
page 1
LOS Results
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation consultants
con di ti on: Bui 1 dout +prj
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
12/20106
INTERSECTION
Count Date
4 Hac; enda/Dubl i n
Time
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dubli n
peak Hour PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT A METHOD
RIGHT THRU
275 547
I I
I I
<--- v
1.0 3.0
^
I
2.0
LEFT 346
THRU 1446 ---> 3.0 (NO. OF LANES)
RIG HT
320
2.5
3.0 3.0
<--- ^
I I
I I
295 902
LEFT THRU
I
v
N
W + E
S
8-PHASE SIGNAL
LEFT
253
I
I
--- >
2.0
^
I split? N
1.0 --- 52 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
3.0<--- 901 THRU Dublin
2.0 u_ 768
I
v
LEFT
1.0
--- >
I
I
763
RIGHT Split? N
SIG WARRANTS:
urb=Y, Rur=Y
STRE ET NAME: Hac; end a
MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL
vlC
ORIG INAL ADJ USTED
VOL UME VOLUME* CAPACITY
vlc
RATIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB RIGHT (R) 763 341 * 1650 O. 2067 0.2067
THRU (T) 902 902 4950 O. 1822
LEFT (L) 2 95 295 4304 O. 0685
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
SB RIGHT (R) 275 85 * 1650 O. 0515
THRU (T) 547 547 4950 O. 1105
LEFT (L) 253 253 3000 0.0843 0.0843
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R) 320 114 * 3000 O. 0380
THRU (T) 1446 1446 4950 0.2921 0.2921
LEFT (L) 346 346 3000 0.1153
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB RIGHT (R) 52 0 * 1650 O. 0000
THRU (T) 901 901 4950 O. 1820
LEFT (L) 768 768 3000 O. 2560 0.2560
=================== ================ ============== ================ ======
0.84
o
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BLDPRJ.INT,VOL=BLDPRJPM.PMV,CAP=...LOSCAP.TAB
page 2
IGOOGD
1l.P -00 ~()
lOS Results
lOS Software by TJK M Transportati on consul tants
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
12/20/06
condition: Buildout+prj
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
INT ERSECTION
count Date
7 Santa Ri ta Rd. /1 - 580 EB Ramps ci ty of Dub 1 i n
Time peak Hour PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lEFT 1057
RIGHT THRU lEFT 7-PHASE SIGNAL
927 1791 270
I I I
^ I I I ^
I <--- v --- > I split? N
3.0 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5 515 RIGHT
CCT A METHOD
STREET NAME:
THRU 79 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF lANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB Ramps
RIGHT 65 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1 2.0 --- 126 lEFT
I <--- ^ ---> I
v I I I v
N I I I SIG WARR ANTS:
W + E o 2596 203 urb=Y, Rur=Y
S lEFT THRU RIGHT split? N
STRE ET NAME: Santa R ita Rd.
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
MOVEMENT
ORIG INAl ADJ USTED
VOLUME VOlUME* CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
CRITICAL
v/c
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
NB RIGHT (R) 203 203 1650 O. 1230
THRU (T) 2596 2596 6600 O. 3933
T + R 2799 6600 O. 4241 0.4241
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
SB RIGHT (R) 927 927 1650 O. 5618
THRU (T) 1791 1791 3300 O. 5427
lEFT (l) 270 270 1650 O. 1636 0.1636
------------~-----------------------------------------------------------
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
lEFT (l)
65
79
1057
65
79
1057
1650
1650
4304
0.0394
O. 0479
0.2456
0.2456
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB RIGHT (R)
lEFT (l)
515
126
24 *
126
3000
3000
O. 0080
O. 0420
0.0080
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
TOTAL VOlUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION lEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.84
o
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGH T TURN ON RED
INT=BlDPRJ.INT,VOl=BlDPRJPM.PMV,CAP=...lOSCAP.TAB
page 3
LOS Results
LOS Software by TJKM Transportation consultants
========================================================================
con di ti on: Bui 1 dout +prj
12/20/06
INTERSECTION
count Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD
18 Hacienda Dr/Hacienda xing
Time
RIGHT THRU LEFT
260 1376 10
I I I
^ I I I ^
I <--- v --- > I split?
1.0 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.1 --- 10
city of Dubli n
peak Hour PM
6-PHASE SIGNAL
LEFT 458
THRU 42 ---> 1.1 (NO. OF LANES)
N
RIGHT
STREET NAME:
1.1<--- 40 THRU Haci enda xi ng
LEFT
RIG HT 1173
N
W + E
S
3.1
3.0 3.0
<--- ^
I I
I I
753 1502
LEFT THRU
2.0 --- 409
I
v
SIG WARR ANTS:
urb=Y, Rur=Y
MOVEMENT
========================================================================
CRITICAL
v/c
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
T + R
EB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
T + R
WB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
LEFT (L)
T + R
I
v
1.5
--- >
I
I
331
RIGHT split? N
V/C
RATIO
o. 0642
O. 3034
O. 1750
o. 1576
O. 2085
0.0033
0.2479
O. 2054
O. 0255
O. 2776
O. 2151
O. 0061
O. 0242
o. 1363
0.0303
0.1750
0.2479
0.2151
0.1363
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
STRE ET NAME: Haci end a Dr
ORIG INAL ADJ USTED
VOL UME VOLUME* CAPACITY
331
1502
753
106 *
1502
753
1650
4950
4304
260
13 76
10
260
1376
10
1636
1650
6600
3000
6600
1173
42
458
4304
1650
1650
4304
884 *
42
458
926
10
40
409
10
40
409
50
1650
1650
3000
1650
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.77
C
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BLDPRJ . INT, VOL= BLDPRJ PM. PMV, CAP =. . . LOSCAP. TAB
page 4
'tUb 50
LOS Results
LOS Software by TJK M Transportati on consultants
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
12/20/06
con di ti on: Bui 1 dout +prj
INTERSECTION
Count Date
26 Hopyard Rd ./I-58 0 EB Ramps
Time
========================================================================
City of Dubli n
peak Hour PM
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
RIGHT THRU LEFT 2-PHASE SIGNAL
529 1597 0
I I I
^ I I I ^
I <--- v ---> I split? N
2.0 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
CCT A METHOD
LEFT 852
THRU
o ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES)
0.0<---
RIGHT 1200
2.0
1.9 0.0 ---
--- > I
I v
I
337
RIGHT Split? N
I
v
0.0 3.0
<--- ^
I I
I I
o 2722
LEFT THRU
N
W + E
S
STRE ET NAME: Hopyard Rd.
STREET NAME:
o THRU I-580 EB Ramps
o
LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
urb=Y, Rur=Y
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
------------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
CRITICAL
vlc
MOVEMENT
ORIG INAL ADJUSTED
VOL UME VOLUME* CAPACITY
vlc
RATIO
NB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
337
2722
1800
5400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5041
337
2722
O. 1872
O. 5041
SB RIGHT (R)
THRU (T)
1800
5400
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
529
1597
529
1597
O. 2939
0.2957
EB RIGHT (R)
LEFT (L)
12QO
852
3273
3273
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
0.3666
1200
852
O. 3666
O. 2603
--- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ------
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
=== ================ ================ =============== ================ ======
0.87
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=BLDPRJ . INT ,VOL= BLDPRJ PM. PMV ,CAP =. . . LOSCAP. TAB
page 5
lea q.}D
l'1~
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. GENERAL. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan (the "Eastern Dublin GPA/SP") planning area which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR,
certified by Resolution 53-93 on May 10, 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of future
urban development planned for a largely undeveloped area east of the then-existing City. Numerous
environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigation measures adopted upon approval of
the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP. The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to
approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP project. For
identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the Dublin City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
While the Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated traffic impacts throughout the plan area, it concluded that
cumulative traffic impacts at the DublinIDougherty intersection could be mitigated to a less than
significant level. Later environmental reviews, including the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR,
certified by City Council Resolution 44-04 on March 16, 2004, identified cumulative traffic impacts
at the DublinIDougherty intersection as being significant and unayoidable. The Dublin City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.
Pursuant to a 2002 California Court of Appeals decision, the City Council hereby adopts specific
overriding considerations for the Emerald Place Retail Center project.1 The City Council believes
that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Ikea
Project SEIR that are applicable to the project site will be substantially lessened by mitigation
measures adopted with the original approval. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that
the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Ikea Project SEIR. The City Council specifically finds that
to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other
considerations that support approval of the project.
2. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS. The following unavoidable,
significant environmental impact(s) identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Ikea Project SEIR for
future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Emerald Place Retail Center project. The
impact(s) cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the project.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts:
While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements,
transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other siniilar
measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on the Emerald Place Retail Center site will still
incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts.
1 "... public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite
its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources
Agency_(2002)103 Cal.App. 4th 98, 125.
lof3
Exhibit B
2D1Jr;;D
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.31]. 331M Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin
Boulevard Impacts: The Emerald Place Retail Center project will be required to implement all
applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIP
program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable,
as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5IF, H, u. hlcreases in Energy
Usage through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution
System: Future development of the Emerald Place Retail Center project will contribute to
increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects:
Even with seismic design, future development of the Emerald Place Retail Center project could
be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning
area.
Air Quality Impacts 3.ll/A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Emerald Place Retail Center
project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, and
mobile and stationary source emissions.
Supplemental Impacts SM-AQ-2. Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels: Even with
implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures and the additional mitigation
measures in the Supplemental EIR, project and cumulative precursor emissions will exceed
BAAQMD thresholds.
Supplemental Impacts SM-AQ-4. Project would change traffic volumes and congestion levels,
changing carbon monoxide concentrations: Even with implementation of the previously adopted
mitigation measures and the additional mitigation measures in the Supplemental EIR, project
traffic volumes and congestion levels wi1llikely change carbon monoxide concentrations.
Supplemental Impact SM-TRA-3. Impacts to study intersections under Buildout conditions
(Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road): Even with implementation of the previously adopted
mitigation measures, including contribution to intersection improvements through the TIP
program, the Emerald Place Retail Center project will contribute to significant and unavoidable
impacts at this intersection under buildout conditions.
3. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of
the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Ikea Project SEIR. The City Council now balances
those unavoidable impacts that apply to development of the Emerald Place Retail Center project
against the benefits of the project as set forth below. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that unavoidable impacts of the project are outweighed
by the substantial benefits of developing a regional retail shopping center.
2of3
2(~5D
The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive
framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. Development of the project will
provide a 305,000 square foot retail center which is located in close proximity to existing and future
dwelling units and will provide shopping and dining opportunities to all residents of Dublin and the
Tri-Valley region. The project is also located in close proximity to the 1-580 freeway, which will
promote regional and community access to the site. In addition, the project will result in the
following economic benefits: 1) a significant number of new jobs, including part-time and full-time
employment for local residents; 2) opportunities for Dublin and Tri Valley residents to shop and dine
closer to home, thereby reducing the need to travel greater distances to do so; and 3) an increase in
revenues from property and sales taxes.
Finally, the project serves as a continuation of the architectural and landscape themes, materials,
forms and elements as established by surrounding development, thereby promoting the aesthetic
development of the area. The design theme of the Emerald Place Retail Center, as it is further
developed, will serve as a gateway to the community.
3of3
22db ~()
ORDINANCE NO. xx-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY TO THE
PD -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND
APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER PROJECT
PA 07-019
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Duplin Municipal Code, the City Council fmds as follows.
1. The Emerald Place Retail Center ("the Project") PD-Planned Development zoning meets the
purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that
creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and
design of the site plan, and uses creative design and a mix of complementary uses to establish the
project as a focal point for the area.
2. Development of the Emerald Place Retail Center under the PD-Planned Development zoning
will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area
in that the retail use ofthe site would utilize the close proximity of 1-580 freeway. The land uses
and site plan provide effective transitions to the surrounding development of campus office, retail
and the 1-580 freeway.
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Emerald Place Retail Center will be harmonious
and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the retail
use of the site would utilize the close proximity of 1-580 freeway. The land uses and site plan
provide effective transitions to the surrounding development including adjacent campus office
buildings, 1-580 freeway, and retail uses.
2. The project site is a relatively flat, infill site, with existing infrastructure (including roads,
sewer, storm drain, potable and recycled water, natural gas, and electricity) located immediately
adjacent to the site with no major or unusual physical or topographic constraints and thus is
physically suitable for the type and intensity ofthe PD-Planned Development district.
3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that
the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will
implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in that the retail center is consistent with the General Commercial land use
designation for the site.
1
ATTACHMENT 2
'23i1b5D
c. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR in Resolutionxx-07 on October 2,2007. The
Council reviewed and considered the Addendum and the previously-certified EIR and SEIR prior to
approving the Project.
SECTION 2:
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District:
27.55 acres generally located south of the future roadway know as Martinelli Way, east of Arnold
Road, north of 1-580, and west of Hacienda Drive, including APNs 986-0033-002 and 986-0033-
003.
("the Property"). A map ofthe rezoning area is shown below:
'"
<<
o
cc
g
o
ifc
<<
DUBLIN BLVD.
SITE
~
f?v
Vicinity Map
SECTION 3.
The regulations for the use, dev~lopment,improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in
the following Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any
amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin
Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 1 Development Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center
This is a Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This
Development Plan meets all the requirements for a Stage 1 Development Plan and is adopted as part of
the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Emerald Place Retail Center, PA 07-019. The Stage 1
Development Plan consists of the items and plans identified below, many of which are contained in the
application materials on file with the City in PA 07-019, incorporated herein by reference and available
for review at the Dublin City Hall.
2
*2~~51)
The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1 Development Plan provides flexibility to
encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are
satisfied.
1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-Planned Development (PA 07-019).
2. Permitted, Conditional, Prohibited Uses. Uses permitted and conditionally permitted
as provided under Commercial Use Types C-2 (General Commercial Zoning District) in
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Land Use Matrix in Section 8.12.050. Drive-through
facilities are prohibited.
3. Stage 1 Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8121/07, prepared by BCV
Architects (Attached as Exhibit At Subject to substantial change, refinement, and
additional detail through the Stage 2 Development Plan process.
4. Site Densities/Development Regulations.
Maximum Building Area 305,000 square feet (may be increased to 327,400 square feet as
provided below)
(305,000 square feet includes 270,000 square feet retail with
ancillary office uses, up to 35,000 square feet restaurant, except as
provided below)
Note: For each one square foot of restaurant square footage that is used for
retail instead, 2.12 square feet ofretail square footage is permitted, which would
increase the maximum building area to 327,400 square feet. The project shall
contain no less than 15,000 square feet of restaurant area.
Conversely, for each square foot of restaurant space above 35,000 square feet
that is developed, 2.12 square feet of retail square footage shall be removed
from the 270,000 square foot retail area. The project shall contain no more than
45,000 square feet of restaurant area.
Floor Area Ratio .25 FAR (maybe increased to .27 FAR or reduced to .24 FAR as
provided below)
Note: .25 FAR permitted with 305,000 square foot project, however for each
one square foot of restaurant square footage that is used forretail instead, 2.12
square feet of retail square footage is permitted, which would increase the FAR
to a maximum of .27. Conversely, for each square foot of retail square footage
that is used for restaurant instead, 0.47 square feet of restaurant square footage
is permitted, which would reduce the FAR to .24
Minimum Building- Property 20' at 1-580, Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road.
Line Access Easement Setback 0' on Martinelli Way.
Parking Spaces Required: 1,250 spaces minimum
(with 270,000 square feet retail and 35,000 square feet restaurant,
office as ancillary use to retail and restaurant establishments) If a
financial service use is established in the Project, additional
parking shall be provided at the rate noted below: If additional
restaurant square footage is permitted beyond 35,000 square feet,
3
2G1J q)
parking shall be provided accordingly.
Retail I space per 300 square feet
Restaurant 1 space per 100 square feet
Office 1 space per 250 square feet
Bank or Financial Services I space per 150 square feet [note: see related note above]
Minimum Parking- Property 5' from property line at public streets and Cal Trans right of way
Line Setback (1-580)
Parking Stall Dimensions Per Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulatipns of
Standards the Dublin Municipal Code, unless otherwise noted below.
Maximum Building Heights: Two-story buildings, to top of roof parapet: 50'
One-story buildings, to top of roof: 35'
Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program
5. Phasing Plan. The project site will be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole, but
will be broken up into different building permit submittals.
6. Master Landscape Plan. Conceptual Landscape Plan on file.
7. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Emerald Place Retail Center is
consistent with both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations of General Commercial.
8. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project contains only commercial uses. The
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations do not regulate non-residential projects.
9. Aerial Photo. Aerial photo on file.
10. Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically
provided in this Stage 1 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and
maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the C-2 (General Commercial Zoning
District) provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.32.060.C. No
development shall occur on this property until a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site
Development Review permit have been approved for the property.
11. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply
with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR and the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR.
4
2b fj~
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
SECTION 5.
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 6th day of November
2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2007\07-0J9 BHV Lifestyle CenterlCC 1O.2.07\CC PD Ord (2).doc
5
'"
,,~
.'.
,I'
;2"tJ
:,g:O
q!l
f
Z
>
:0
-<
en
=i
m
"tI
r-
>
Z
:0
m,
0:
ml
-'
<!
m'
C
Q
\'Jl
~
~
EBz
, )>
I r-
II~~
~~
mz
I 0
Im+;
Z
-I
m
;0
(J)
~
-I
m
(J1
00
o
-=-.+
,
. ......*..-~
.9H
.OE~
~ .:!:.tD .:t'eD
. r- . r-
"'0 ~o
9Gl _ Gl
8"-' 8"-'
00 00
en'? en'?
-n'" -no:.>
, '\.-r-~-
(:" ,
'~
<,
"'~:>--
'<:-::::::::'>......
""....::"':::--::...
" ~j--
" '" n "'<
~q~ cH ;0" n
0;0 CI)
2S 0 ~ z" 000
:""t5 ~ ~ ~~ C"l 0000 ~ ~ HACIENDADRJ\lE.
0 0>00
~;g ~ ~ ~~ ;: 8~ n
~~ ~~ 1= j!!!
",,,, ." ~~ ~
b~ CI) ~~ ;. ~
80 ~~ ;:0 ~~ )>'
Y> II II II II ::!
.,,~ ~ ~~ a
":""j). ~;t Ill" c.n g s: ~
t:i coc;n
~ ~~ i~ 0> ~
OOC"l
~~ ~ r> ~.
!O
m
lQJ
D
c=8.
~
/l-ll
/:T'
-.
C'"
_.
.....
>
.~I
ll~
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
i
~~
i ~;s!i
:( >~
z21
-<
EMERALD
PLACE
~
0:\
~
DRAFT
DRAFT 2<'l Jb57)
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 11, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called
the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Planning
Consultant; Kristi Bascom, Planning Consultant and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - August 28, 2007 minutes were approved with Vice
Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. King abstaining due to their absence during that meeting. August
14,2007 minutes were approved as submitted. Cm. Tomlinson abstained from the vote due to
his absence during that meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -
5.1 Karen Ko, Stopwaste.org,Green Building presentation as stated in the handout. Ms.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager introduced Karen Ko as the presenter. Ms. Ko gave
an overview of the policies on green building and landscaping practices supported by
her organization, Stopwaste.org through Alameda County. Teresa Eade of the Bay
Friendly Landscaping Program was also present. Ms. Ko, talked about the resources and
grants that are also available through the organization.
There was a discussion between the Commission and Ms. Ko regarding the grants that are
available to the developers and how those developers' projects are certified as a IS green
building" projects. Chair Schaub was concerned about the cost of implementing the green
building standards. Ms. Ko mentioned that the cost studies found there to be between 0% and
3% additional costs for green building standards. Chair Schaub asked if the grants are
available to residential, for-profit developers. Ms. Ko answered that the grant would not be
available to for-profit developers.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission required all affordable housing projects here to be
certified would the developer be eligible for a grant through their organization. Ms. Ko
answered that if there were affordable units then the developer would be eligible.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about green building products and how they would be incorporated
into the program. Ms. Ko answered that there is a database of green building products at
builditgreen.org called the IS Access Green Directory" .
97
SeptemfJtW 1.1:
ATTACHMENT 3
~IT ~~~
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the City could use incentives to encourage citizens who are doing
remodeling to use green building standards. Ms. Wilson answered that the City Council would
have to include the subject in their Goals and Objectives.
Chair Schaub stated that the Commission should spend more time talking about Green Building
and how it affects the City of Dublin. Chair Schaub requested more information on the Green
Building Conference that Ms. Ko mentioned is coming up. Ms. Wilson agreed to obtain the
information from Ms. Ko and pass it on to the Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR ~ NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 P A 07-005: Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for a 72-acre portion
of Fallon Village known as Phase 1 of Cantara at Positano (portion of Neighborhood 1)
and Salerno at Positano (portion of Neighborhoods 2 and 4) for 247 single-family
detached units.
Mike Porto, Planning Consultant presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. He stated that
the project had been scheduled for the 6-26-07 Planning Commission meeting but before that
meeting the Applicant requested a continuance to allow them to enhance their submittal. He
stated that the only modification was in the presentation of the Project plans and the addition of
a Condition of Approval related to fees in the Staff Report.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the street trees in landscape strip areas will be maintained by the
homeowner or the HOA. Mr. Porto answered that he would allow the developer to answer
during the public hearing time.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the inclusionary units in the project. Mr. Porto answered that the
housing specialist reviewed the project and agreed that the plan was appropriate for this phase
of the development. Mr. Porto added that there will be other affordable units integrated into
the project in subsequent phases.
Cm. Biddle asked about the GreenPoint Checklist (Attachment 4) and how the points are
assigned to each item. Ms. Wilson answered that the City does not require the checklist and it
would be up to the Applicant who would indicate that they met the criteria.
Cm. Schaub stated that he had met with Staff and the Applicant 4 times since the project was
before the Commission and all meetings were held at the Civic Center.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Commission
98
Scptem6er .1.1j 2007
DRAFT
DRAFT
3rx;yo
Neal Pann, Braddock and Logan, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Pann answered the
Commission's questions regarding landscaping in the project. He stated that in the Cantara
project the HOA will maintain the front yard landscaping. The landscaping will be individually
metered and paid for by the homeowner, but the control of the meter will be by central
controllers that are monitored by the maintenance crew. He stated that this was a way of
conserving water for the green building standards.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if there would be a provision in the CC&R's regarding removing trees,
etc. and what enforcement language is in place to ensure that the trees that are planted cannot
be removed. Mr. Pann answered that Braddock and Logan designed the front yards for the
Cantara site with a minimal amount of flexibility that will only allow the homeowner to make
some additions or subtractions from the program and there will be language in CC&R's that
govern the maintenance of the front yards.
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the tree lined streets look nice and if the homeowners are
allowed to remove the trees and/ or plant different trees it would deter from the planned look of
the development. Mr. Porto stated that everything in the Eastern Dublin Property Owners area
has separated sidewalks so that the trees are in the public right-of-way and are considered to be
a City owned tree. Therefore, if the homeowner removes the tree the City has the authority to
require that the tree be replaced. Mr. Porto indicated that the reason the landscaping was
designed with the separated sidewalks was because of the new AD A requirements.
Cm. Biddle asked if the developer created a GreenPoint checklist for each home or one for the
entire development. Mr. Pann answered that the checklist is required on all the construction
documents. He referred to Cm. Biddle's earlier question regarding how the points were
assigned. Mr. Pann stated that builditgreen.org assigns a point system to the document. The
Applicant would check-off the items that they comply with and then those points are
automatically totaled and cannot be changed. He added that Braddock and Logan is actively
working on green building items. He mentioned a memo regarding the green building items
that are incorporated into the project that they receive points for. He stated that once the items
are inspected that would guarantee the level of performance that the house was designed for.
He stated that they met all the requirements of the checklist by doing the things that they would
normally do. Cm. Biddle asked if the checklist is passed along to the buyer. Mr. Pann answered
that energy efficient items are mentioned in the marketing materials and passed on to the buyer
in that way.
Mr. Porto clarified that not every developer will present the Commission with the green
building checklist. Mr. Porto stated that when the project went before the City Council for their
inclusionary zoning requirements the Council indicated that they would like to see green
building items from the checklist incorporated into the project with a minimum score of 50. He
added that Braddock and Logan complied with the Council's directive and submitted it with
the plan. He added that this was directed by the Council to Braddock and Logan and that the
Commission should not expect this of all developers unless the requirements of the City change.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that is was easy to reach 50 points and asked how they could get
developers to go beyond the checklist and beyond the 50 points.
99
September! I,
DRAFT
DRA;'I'6b'5D
Cm. Schaub stated that he and Mr. Pann had discussed the checklist and solar power as an
option for buyers and if they could sub in with the plumbing and electrical in the walls. Mr.
Pann answered that he had not met with anyone regarding solar panels but the markets for
these companies have been for existing homes not for new construction.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that for an existing homeowner to retrofit a home with solar is very
expensive and it would be better to start from the beginning as opposed to retrofitting it 10 or 20
years later.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff encourages the developers to incorporate green building standards
but that the City cannot require the developer to do so.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that a developer in Pleasanton offered an energy efficient package
that included many items that could be purchased as an option. He stated he would like to
know how successful that was for the developer.
Mr. Porto stated that he worked on a project that offered a similar package and only one person
took advantage of it because of the cost. Chair Schaub stated that it would be interesting to see
how well it worked in Pleasanton.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Ramoncito Firmeza, 7749 Crossridge Road, was concerned about where the water will come
from for all the new developments and that water for Dublin came from the Delta pumps.
Chair Schaub answered that Dublin water came from Zone 7 and that there are studies done
prior to this public hearing and other infrastructure items are included in the ElR. Chair
Schaub asked Mr. Firmeza to call DSRSD for clarification and if he still has a concern he could
return to the Commission at a later date.
Hearing no further comment, Chair Schaub Closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about an issue of shading and lot coverage with the additional
backyard area and if that is noted in the drawings when the homeowner purchases the home.
Mr. Porto answered that when the developer submits for building permits the submittal
includes the plot plans. At that time, all calculations are included on the plot plans at the
bottom of the sheet for each plot plan. He mentioned that in front of the Applicant's packet
there is site plan that shows which houses are on which lots and what the lot coverage is. He
stated that when the plot plans are submitted they should match the site plan or building
permitswill not be issued. The plot plan then becomes part of the permanent record and is
given to the buyer and a copy is kept for future owners.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
100
Septem6er .11;
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DRAFT :ru;::;{).
3Z"fJ-
DRAFT
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE EXISTING STAGE 2 PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ORDINANCE 33-05) TO EXCEED LOT COVERAGE FOR SALERNO
AT POSITANO AND FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF CANTARA
AT POSITANO AND SALERNO AT POSITANO FOR 247 UNITS ON 72 ACRES
(PORTIONS OF TRACT 7586) IN FALLON VILLAGE
PA 07-005
Chair Schaub called for a 5 minute recess at 7:30 p.m.
Chair Schaub reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and asked for the Staff Report. ,
8.2 PA 07-019 - Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning for a 305,000 square foot
retail shopping center on approximately 27 acres in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan area (formerly the site for the Emerald Place "Lifestyle Center" and Ikea)
Kristi Bascom, Planning Consultant, presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about entrances to the site and mentioned that it was similar to
Hacienda Crossings where there is only one entrance and causes a traffic problem. Ms. Bascom
answered that there are many entrances from different areas and gave options for each. Cm.
Wehrenberg was concerned about signage that would point out other entrances besides the one
main, decorative entrance and how that would impact traffic.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that this project has many similarities to Santana Rowand that he would
like to know the dimensions of the Santana Row green area and how it compares to this project.
Ms. Bascom answered that the green is larger than the Santana Row green.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the Commission is being asked to approve the Stage 1 planned
development and felt that there was not enough information to proceed. Ms. Bascom answered
that the Applicant is definitely looking for feedback from the Commission but the Stage 1
submittal is a general conceptual layout and design, overall building square footage, building
intensities and setbacks. She stated that the Applicant will submit the Stage 2 site plan and the
Site Development Review with exact site plans. Cm. Schaub stated that the confusion is
because the Commission normally sees Stage 1 submittals with more information, and stated
that he would like to spend some time talking about the Commission's concerns because they
would not be able to change it after this meeting.
Ms. Bascom stated that she understood that it was challenging to look at a site plan without
details and that most of the site plans that the Commission looks at are for master developments
of residential projects and that they would typically have more detail. She stated that the
Commission will have the opportunity to look at the more refined issues of the Stage 2 PD,
rezoning at a later time. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought that this is the Commission's
101
Septem6er 11, ZOO?
DRAFT DRAFT
opportunity to refine the site plan and that this was the most important meeting as far as ~ iJffD
conceptual layout.
Ms. Bascom continued with the presentation.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked for a definition of the various level-of-service indicators that were
mentioned in the traffic study comparing the IKEA and Emerald Place projects. Ms. Bascom
answered that the level-of-service indicators are a volume-to-capacity ratio that address the
capacity of the street with the volume of cars. The levels of service volume capacity for EDSP
mandated that the intersection and streets not go below level-of-service E.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Jim Wright, Blake Hunt Ventures, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he wanted to
respond to the question regarding the curb cuts or entrance points shown on the site plan and
the fact that they have not changed from the IKEA/ Emerald Place project. Cm. Wehrenberg
mentioned that most of the members of the Commission were not on the Commission at that
time.
Cm. Schaub asked if the curb cuts are there now. Mr. Wright answered yes.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the IKEA building was one, very large building with one primary
entrance and this project is a shopping center which will have multiple destinations therefore,
circulation is different.
Mr. Wright pointed out that it is not their intention to have the Planning Commission approve
the project as it is today. He stated that they intend to submit plans with landscaping, path of
travel, fully detailed town green, architecture, storefronts, access from parking, etc. He stated
that the purpose of the Stage 1 PD application is to ensure that they can develop a 305,000
square foot retail shopping center on land that is zoned for the single Ikea retail store and a
140,000 square foot lifestyle center. He stated that this is the purpose of submitting the stage 1
and 2 separately and they would be available for study sessions.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked when they expect to be ready for study sessions. Mr. Wright answered
that they were approximately 2 months away from the first study session. He continued that
they have met with staff weekly since May and feel they will have a good plan and a statement
for the community. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she was looking forward to seeing how they
would incorporate the Commission's comments from the field trip.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he is in support of the concept of 305,000 square foot shopping
center. He stated that he liked the Stage 1 site plan for it's similarity to Santana Row. He was
concerned with the difference between stage 1 and stage 2, and not becoming locked into the
plan as it looks now. His other concern is the orientation of the stores. Mr. Wright answered
that the stores will be oriented towards the green, with a few entrances on the corners of the
buildings on Emerald Place Way and the service areas will be screened.
Commissiun
102
S''f!tem5er 11,
DRAF~~tb50
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that if the project was oriented towards the inside, as Blackhawk
is, it presents a barrier to people in their cars and felt it was very uninviting and could become a
problem in keeping the center full. He was also concerned with the distance between the town
green area and the parking lot. He asked if they could eliminate the service areas and have
double sided stores so customers could enter from the parking lot and not have to walk all the
way around. Mr. Wright stated that he understood the concern but answered that they want
the emphasis to be on the town green. He continued that they envision a "magical" place at the
town green and that one of the ways to activate an area is by forcing people into them. He
mentioned the parking in downtown Walnut Creek and that it is configured so that people
come out of the parking structure at particular areas and then are spread out from there. He
also stated that if doors are on the rear of the building that would encourage curbside shopping
and that was not what they envision for this project.
DRAFT
Cm. Tomlinson stated that stair-stepping and layering of the buildings would be an option with
the smaller building on the northern portion and then stair-stepped up to a much larger
building which would then be the center showcase store. He stated that one of the other
benefits of the larger building being centered on the town green portion is that it would serve as
a wind barrier. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that consideration be given to the prevailing
winds. Mr. Wright answered that they will commission a wind consultant to do a study and
thought that they could mitigate those problems by taking the study into consideration.
Chair Schaub stated that this Commission never saw the prior project and it doesn't help to
refer to the other project and that he did not like the previous project to begin with. Mr. Wright
stated that they are considering all the things that the Planning Commission is concerned about.
He also stated that he intends to do a more detailed.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would like to see food users inside the town green area. He was
also concerned about the parking plan which shows all the compact spaces closer to the
buildings and the larger spaces farther out. He would like to have the compact spaces further
out and move the larger spaces closer in to the buildings due to the fact that there are many
SUV's in the Dublin area.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she appreciated that Mr. Wright has acknowledged their concerns
and reiterated that she was concerned about parking flow.
Cm. King was concerned about approving the site plan and felt that there was a lot of work to
do. He stated that he could support the shopping center and liked the town square concept but
he did not want to approve the plan now and talk about the other issues later.
Cm. Biddle stated that he would like to have the study sessions before going further.
Chair Schaub felt that the site plan looked like a mall and that they have a lot of work to do. He
stated that he thought that Blake-Hunt would be able to create a good project.
Cm. Biddle stated that the way the resolution is worded for environmental impact and general
plan amendments he felt it was early in the process and that the second resolution only talks
Commission
103
September 1 1, 2007
DRAFT DRAFT
3t;~d/)57)
about Stage 1. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that Staff had outlined exactly what they would be
approving in the Staff Report, that the plan is all conceptual and the Applicant is not required to
submit anything more. She stated that she was in agreement that the Commission could
approve this tonight but that she will be anxious to see how the project looks in a few months.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he disagreed with the other Commissioners and was concerned with
the notation on the Stage 1 site plan regarding "minor" adjustments. He stated that he agreed
with Cm. King in that he is sensitive to what the Applicant needs to move this forward with the
financing aspect of the project and stated that he supports the concept of the retail center and
square footage but there are too many things to consider and potential items that need
adjustment. He was concerned that if the Commission approves the Stage 1 site plan and the
plan states that it is a conceptual layout of the buildings and ordinance states there will be
"minor" changes, he felt that there could be some minor changes that could be perceived as
more than minor.
Cm. Schaub stated that the Staff Report and the resolution is the most important. He stated that
he wanted to make sure that the Commissioners all know exactly what they are approving and
that the project is still completely open to change.
Ms. Bascom stated that there are two items for consideration; the first is the resolution for the
Addendum which she thought did not need to be discussed. The second is a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance which amends the zoning map and
applies the Planned Development Zoning district to the project site and a related Stage 1
development plan. Ms. Bascom continued to explain what the Commission would be
recommending to the City Council to adopt the draft ordinance which sets out the development
plan for the Emerald Place retail center. She stated that in the Zoning Ordinance there is a
Stage 1 and Stage 2 process. She continued that one of the requirements for Stage 2 is that they
need to provide a statement of compatibility with the Stage 1 development plan and a Stage 2
site plan. Chair Schaub asked if the Stage 1 site plan (Exhibit A-1) would be attached to the
ordinance that the Commission would recommend to the City Council. Ms. Bascom answered
that the site plan would be attached to the ordinance as the conceptual site plan. She stated
that if the Applicant came back with a plan that had significant changes those would be address
at the request of the Commission.
Cm. King felt that Ms. Bascom stated that the Commission would be locked into the Stage 1 site
plan and stated that he didn't want to approve what was submitted.
Ms. Bascom stated that the intent of the language is to allow the Staff, the Commission and City
Council some recourse if the Commission recommended approval to the City Council who
approved it, then when the developer submitted the Stage 2 development plan that looks totally
different. She stated that she thought the Commission would want the Applicant to come back
with substantial changes.
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the option is on the Applicant to come back with something
different but the Commission would be sending what was submitted at this time to the Council.
104
Scpti:m6er Ii,
DRAFT DRAFT
Ms. Bascom answered that what the Commission would be sending on to the City Council 3U 'f;6D
would be the conceptual site plan which is attached to the ordinance.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission has the right to say to the Applicant that this is not what
they want and that they feel that the project is not ready to go forward as a Stage 1. Cm. King
stated that the Commission feels that there is not enough information to approve it or
recommend it to the Council. Ms. Wilson suggested that they could make notations in the
ordinance language that the Stage 1 site plan is conceptual only. She continued to say that Staff
has been pleased with the Applicant and how they have worked with the City. Ms. Wilson
suggested that if the Commission wants to move forward tonight they can add language to or
change the wording in the resolution. Chair Schaub stated that he was willing to trust that the
Applicant would submit a plan that the Commission will want to approve.
Chair Schaub suggested a study session as the next step. Mr. Wright agreed and stated that
study sessions have already been discussed with Staff. Ms. Bascom stated that the study
session can be schedule soon but they would like to get the project to a certain point before they
bring it back to the Commission. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to talk about the Stage
1 site plan that was submitted with this Staff Report. He made suggestions regarding some of
the areas that were seen on the field trip and how they could be incorporated into the plan.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission would like to find a way to approve the resolution
recommending the Addendum to the EIR and EDSP and the only part that the Commission
would be locked into is that the plan is for 305,000 square feet of retail space and the final
version would have the same square footage.
Chair Schaub stated that square footage and number of parking spaces could be approved but
the rest is open for discussion. Ms. Wilson responded that the Stage 1 PD includes the building
area, the floor area, building setbacks and the parking spaces. The site plan would be an overall
view of what the Applicant is proposing as the project. Ms. Wilson suggested that they add a
note in the PD that this is a conceptual site plan. Ms. Wilson asked the Commissioners to
articulate to the Applicant their concerns regarding the site plan.
Jerry Hunt, Blake Hunt Ventures, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Hunt asked the
Commission to give them direction. He stated that the site plan was to protect the Applicant as
well as the Commission to ensure that they are able to build 305,000 square feet of retail space.
Mr. Hunt stated that they would like to work with the Commission to refine the plan in study
seSSIOns.
Cm. King asked Mr. Hunt if he was comfortable with a study session as the next step. Mr. Hunt
answered yes.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Ms. Bascom suggested that in the Planned Development Ordinance recommending to the City
Council, on page 3, #3 which states:
105
Septemfier 11
DRAFT DRAF~1 60
3. Stage I Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8/21/07, prepared by BCV "D
Architects (Attached as Exhibit A-I)
Change to:
3. Stage 1 Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8/21/07, prepared by BCV
Architects (Attached as Exhibit A-I). Subject to change.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would make it clear in the Staff Report to City Council that the
changes came from the Planning Commission.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they were proposing two study sessions; one to review the conceptual
site plan and the second prior to stage 2. Chair Schaub stated that they should focus on the
next step and thought that there will be two study sessions, the first on the layout of the project
and the other on the specifics of architecture. Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission has
concerns about the site plan that this would be the opportunity to share them with the
Applicant. Ms. Wilson stated that she expected that the Applicant will bring more than just the
site plan to the study session and that there would be a more comprehensive package at that
time. Chair Schaub asked what would be the next step if the Commission did not like the way
the buildings were laid out. Ms. Wilson stated that now would be the opportunity to discuss
the layout on the site plan. Chair Schaub asked if they wanted to have a building oriented a
different way would they have to decide that before this site plan went to the Council. Ms.
Wilson answered that specific design of the buildings would be done during the design phase
of the Stage 2 and SDR; however, the general overall layout would not be substantially
modified.
Cm. King stated that he felt that the phrase" study session" would include significant changes.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with the study session and with what the Applicant is trying to
accomplish. He mentioned that the developer is in synch with the Commission in that they
want a very special project that is a positive addition to the City.
Ms. Wilson stated that the comments and concerns expressed by the Commission could be
addressed and would not lock the Commission into the Stage 1 conceptual site plan. She felt
confident that with adding language to the PD the Commission could move forward with the
approval. Cm. King asked where the language would be added. Ms. Wilson answered that it
would be added to the Ordinance on page 3, #3 Stage 1 site plan, Site Area.
Ms. Wilson went on to say that the site plan could be called" conceptual" in the ordinance and
also the plan (Exhibit A-I) and noting on the plan that" the commission reserves the right for
modifications or changes in the future, including study sessions".
Chair Schaub asked to add" and theses changes could be considered substantial". Cm. King
agreed with those changes as long as the keywords" conceptual" and" study session" were
added. Ms. Bascom mentioned that the site plan says "Preliminary Site Plan". Chair Schaub
stated he would like there be a study session prior to Stage 2 PD. Ms. Bascom stated that there
is a study session planned prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Stage
106 Scptemver If,
DRAFT DRAFT /J1.1::/).
3~ "'if"
2jSDR and asked if the Commission would like a study session before that. Chair Schaub
stated that if the Applicant submits for Stage 2 approvals without comments about basic layout
from the Study Session with the Commission, that would be a risk to the Applicant completing
substantial work on the plans without a Study Session of the project layout before the Planning
Commision.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that it would be more productive if the site plan is submitted with traffic
circulation, pedestrian travel, etc. so that the Commission can envision types of uses anticipated
on the site plan and what kind of anchor stores are anticipated. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that
the Commission is being asked to approve land use and it doesn't make a difference what
anchor store is there, since we don't see specific businesses only final land use categories.
Chair Schaub suggested that the next step is a study session where the Commission will finalize
the site plan and have a more substantial site plan. Ms. Wilson stated that the Applicants have
enough information to give the Commission more detail which would help them in their
decision.
Cm. King stated that he agreed with Chair Schaub thatthe Stage 1 site plan (Exhibit A-I) is a
starting point. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff can ensure that the terminology for the site plan is
"conceptual" and that the Commission reserves the right to make changes at the anticipated
study session.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, and voted on 5-0-0, the Planning
Commission, with the following changes and additions, unanimously adopted:
Note the following WHEREAS statement of Resolution 07-47 reads as follows:
Change:
WHEREAS, the location of the eleven buildings, which collectively comprise the project, shall be
generally as shown on the Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan, which is attached as Exhibit A-1 to the Planned
Development Zoning District/Stage 1 Development Plan (Exhibit A to this Resolution). Significant
modifications to the plan may be made and will be formalized at the Planned Development Zoning
District/Stage 2 Planned Development/Site Development Review phase of the project, which is anticipated
to be submitted by the Applicant in Fall 2007; and
Note the following WHEREAS statement is added to Resolution 07-47 reads as follows:
Addition:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Stage 1 Development Plan
and anticipates further study sessions for the application; and
Addition to the Ordinance, page 3, #3 to read:
3. Stage 1 Site Plan, Site Area. Conceptual Site Plan, dated 8/21/07, prepared by BCV
Architects (Attached as Exhibit A-1). Subject to substantial change, refinement, and
additional detail through the Stage 2 Development Plan process.
107
September .i1,
DRAFT DRAFT. 60
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH ~t'1j
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN (CERTIFIED 5/10/1993) AND THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT
CERTIFIED 3/1612004)
FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER
(APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003) P A 07-019
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING 27.55
ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARTINELLI WAY AND HACIENDA DRIVE
TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVE THE RELATED
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER PROJECT
(APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003) PA 07-019
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report
8.3 PA 04-041A -Site Development Review for a Hummer Test Track at the GM Auto
Mall.
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. King asked about condition 5, "Revocation of Permit, shall be revocable for cause", what is
the definition of cause. Ms. Fraser answered that Staff could submit a recommendation to
revoke the CUP if they didn't follow the Conditions of Approval. Cm. King asked what kind of
air quality control Hummers have and wondered if the CUP could be revoked because of a
complaint that the track caused a 10% increase in emissions in the Tri-Valley. Ms. Fraser
indicated that that would be difficult to prove and would be a function of the dealership and
not just the test track. She continued that revocation would have to be for a problem that can
be documented.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they followed all conditions and the track was still a problem, can
Staff revoke the CUP. Ms. Fraser answered that it would be better to work with the Applicant
and find a solution before the City would act to revoke the CUP.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the cars are already meeting the emission standards or they would
not be allowed to be sold to the public.
Cm. King asked about noise. Ms. Fraser answered that it would be as loud as a car driving
down the street and not as loud as 1-580. Furthermore, there is landscaping that provides a
noise buffer.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
108
Septtm5er I!,
DRAFT DRAFfIoyt>
Philip Breck, General Manager of Hummer stated that they would block off the entrance and
exit every night to ensure that there is no public use and stated that the noise is no louder than
any other SUV. He also stated that all sales people have been trained on a similar test track and
it will only be the sales people who would be demonstrating the track.
Hearing no further comment, Chair Schaub closed public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and voted on 5-0-0, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TEST TRACK FOR THE HUMMER
DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4200 JOHN MONEGO COURT IN THE GM AUTO MALL
PA 04-041A
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Chair Schaub stated he would like to discuss the minimum items from developers, both
commercial and residential. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff is aware of the condition of submittals
and that the Commission has helped to convey that to the developers. Chair Schaub indicated
that the Commission would like to see actual paint chips. Ms. Wilson stated that they could
obtain full material boards with samples and colors. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the binder of
samples on meeting night is fine but on larger commercial projects the Commissioners will need
more time to review the samples and would like real paint chips in the Commissioners packets.
Ms. Wilson stated that the material samples are more difficult to provide in small form but the
large boards would be kept at city hall and the Commissioners would be welcome to review
them there.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would make it a requirement that developers provide full material
boards to be kept at city hall and brought to the meetings. Additionally a copy of the paint
chips will be included in the packets for the Planning Commissioners review.
ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: IMINUTES\20071Planning Commission \9.1 1.07. doc
109
September .il,
4 \"b ~
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 11, 2007
SUBJECT:
PA 07-019 - Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning for a
305,000 square foot retail shopping center (Emerald Place Retail
Center) on approximately 27.55 acres in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area (formerly the site for the Hacienda Lifestyle
Center and Ikea)
Report Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an
Addendum to both the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(certified 5/10/1993) and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified 3/1612004), with the
Addendum and Supplementary Traffic Analysis included as
Exhibit A and the Initial Study for the Addendum included as
Exhibit B.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance rezoning 27.55 acres on the southwest comer of
Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive to a Planned Development
Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1 Development
Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center with the Draft
Ordinance that includes the Stage 1 Development Plan and Stage
1 Site Plan included as Exhibit A.
3) Supplemental EIR for the Ikea Project (certified by the Dublin
City Council on March 16, 2004) - on file and available at the
Community Development Department.
4) Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan - on file and available at the
Community Development Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Open public hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
3) Close the public hearing and deliberate;
4) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City
Council adopt an Addendum to both the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan (certified 5/10/1993) and the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified
3/1612004), with the Addendum and Supplementary Traffic
Analysis included as Exhibit A and the Initial Study for the
Addendum included as Exhibit B; and
COPIES TO: Applicant/Property Owner
File
Page lof6
ITEM NO.
G:\PA#\2007\07-019 SHY Lifestyle Center\PCSR Stage I and Addendwn FINAL.doc
Attachment 4
5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending iliat the ~~t>;;V
Council adopt an ordinance rezoning 27.55 acres on the
southwest comer of Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive to a
Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related
Stage 1 Development Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center
with the Draft Ordinance that includes the Stage 1 Development
Plan and Stage 1 Site Plan included as Exhibit A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Project consists of a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning application to allow a 305,000
square foot retail shopping center on approximately 27.55 acres in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
A map of the project area is shown below:
/....,,,
'~/
Vicinity Map
The project as proposed consists of eleven buildings designed for retail commercial uses. Five of the
buildings are "pad" buildings located closer to the perimeter of the site amongst the parking fields, and the
other six buildings are centered around a "Town Green" pedestrian core. A site plan is shown below:
20f6
t1.?;1[) fiO
The proposed gross square footage of the center is 305,000 square feet, which includes approximately
270,000 square feet devoted to retail uses and approximately 35,000 square feet for restaurant uses.
However, there is some flexibility proposed to be built into the Planned Development Zoning District that
would allow these numbers to vary within certain ranges related to the mixture of retail and restaurant
uses, as long as the overall vehicle trip generation rate for the project as a whole remains the same. The
details on squar.e footage variation allowed are provided on page 8 of the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A to
Attachment 2).
Background
In February 2001, the City Council approved the "Commerce One Project" that allowed for the
development of a four building, 780,000 square foot office complex on the subject site, which was then
designated for Campus Office uses in the General Plan. In August 2001, the Alameda County Surplus
Property Authority (property owner) informed the City that Commerce One was no longer in contract to
purchase the site. In 2003, a development application was submitted to the City of Dublin for a General
Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the property from Campus
Office to General Commercial, which was approved in 2004, for the IKEA project and the lifestyle center
on the subject site.
In 2004, the City Council approved the development of a 317,000 square foot Ikea retail store and a
137,000 square foot "lifestyle center" on approximately 27.55 acres at the northwest comer ofInterstate
580 and Hacienda Drive. Blake Hunt Ventures acquired the parcel ofland where the lifestyle center was
to be built, and they received Site Development Review approval for the construction of the Emerald
Place Lifestyle Center on 13.0 acres of the 27.55 acres. In late 2006, Ikea withdrew their plans to build a
store in Dublin, and Blake Hunt Ventures moved to acquire the Ikea parcel as well and to enlarge and
redesign their commercial shopping center on the entire 27.55 acres.
In an effort to deliver a successful lifestyle center project, Blake Hunt Ventures has committed to working
closely with the City of Dublin on the design of the new, expanded center, and sought early input on the
overall design of the center from Staff and the Planning Commission. On February 12, 2007, the
Planning Commission went on a field trip with Staff and the Applicant to four different shopping areas in
the Bay Area. Subsequent to the field trip, the Planning Commission had a study session on February 27,
2007 and provided feedback to the Applicant's design team on their preferences for the look and feel of
the center.
Since the field trip and the study session, the Applicant has been finalizing the purchase of the property
and has been preparing the Stage 1 Development Plan. At this time, the Applicant is finalizing the
architectural drawings for the project and will be submitting their Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning
and Site Development Review application shortly. In the meantime, in an effort to meet various deadlines
for the purchase of subject property, the Applicants have chosen to move ahead with the Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezoning application for the property at this time. The Stage 2 PD and SDR application
should follow within the next several months and Staff anticipates a Design Review Study Session with
the Planning Commission in late Fall of this year.
Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan.
The Stage 1 Development Plan (Exhibit A to Attachment 2) provides greater detail on the project
proposal. According to Chapter 8.32 (Planned Development) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a Stage 1
Development Plan is intended to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
30f6
B.
e.
P'd . fl .b.l. d d. .fi . . th d I f ~ ~ 00 t?D
roVI e maXImum eXl I Ity an Iversl catIon III e eve opment 0 property.
Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and
applicable specific plans.
Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the City.
Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the area.
Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
A Stage 1 Development Plan is required to contain the following items:
1. Zoning
2. Statement of proposed uses
3. Stage 1 Site Plan (Conceptual only)
4. Site Details
5. Maximum development density permitted
6. Phasing Plan
7. Conceptual Landscape Plan
8. Consistency with General Plan and any specific plans
9. Consistency with Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
10. Aerial Photo
The following section will briefly analyze each item of the Emerald Place Retail Center Stage 1
Development Plan.
1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-P1anned Development (P A 07-019).
2. Statement of Proposed Uses. The Project will provide a variety of commercial land uses
including retail, eating, drinking and entertainment establishments, office, personal service,
and other general commercial uses. These uses are permitted on the site assuming that the
development regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be met.
3. Stage 1 Site Plan. The Stage 1 Site Plan is a general, schematic depiction ofthe location of
the proposed buildings and uses on the site. Minor adjustments to internal vehicle
circulation routes, pedestrian connections within and to the project, parking requirements
and layout, and a more precise site plan will be developed at the subsequent PD Zoning
District/Stage 2 Development Plan. Precise infrastructure improvements, which have
already been discussed preliminarily, will also be formalized in the Stage 2 Development
Plan.
4. Site area, proposed densities. and development regulations. The Stage I Site Plan shows a
retail center with a total of 305,000 square feet. According to the plans submitted by the
Applicant, it is anticipated that 270,000 square feet will be devoted to retail uses and
35,000 square feet could be devoted to restaurant uses. However, the Stage 1
Development Plan allows for some flexibility in this allocation. At the least, 293,800
square feet of building will be constructed on the subject property, including a minimum of
248,000 square feet of retail and maximum of 45,000 square feet of restaurant. At the high
end, a maximum of 327,400 square feet of building will be constructed on the site,
including a maximum of312,400 square feet of retail and a minimum of 15,000 square feet
restaurant. These variations are intended to provide some flexibility to the Applicant as
they recruit businesses and finalize their tenant mix, while still staying within the
40f6
t.f~"ut> GD
acceptable range of traffic to be generated by the project based on the different uses. The
traffic analysis is fully explained as part of the CEQA Addendum for the project. The
Supplementary Traffic Analysis is included in Exhibit A to Attachment 1)
5. Phasing Plan. The project site will be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole, but
will be broken up into different building permit submittals.
6. Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Conceptual Landscape Plan is part of the Project
Application and is being refined as the Stage 2 Development Plan is being developed.
7. Consistency with General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations of
General Commercial.
8. Inclusionarv Zoning Regulations. The project contains only commercial uses. The
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations do not regulate non-residential projects.
9. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo has been submitted with the Project Application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 53-93 approving the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 53-
91 certifying a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment, hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR (SCH 91103064). This
Environmental Impact Report evaluated the environmental impacts associated with developing the 6,920
acre Eastern Dublin planning area with a range of residential, commercial, light industrial, open space,
parks, schools, and other public uses.
In 2003, a development application was submitted to the City of Dublin for a General Plan. and Specific
Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject property from Campus Office to
General Commercial. The development proposal for the 27.55 acre subject property included a 317,000
square foot Ikea retail store and a 137,000 square foot "lifestyle" retail center on the southwest comer of
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
A Supplemental EIR was completed, which examined the potential impacts of the Ikea store and the
neighboring lifestyle center. On March 16,2004, the City Council certified the Supplemental EIR (SEIR)
via Resolution 44-04. The Council's approval included findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations related to supplemental Air Quality and Traffic Impacts identified in the SEIR.
The development that is now proposed to take place on the subject property is different than the project
that was analyzed in the Ikea Project Supplemental EIR. In order to determine if there were any
environmental impacts that were present with the revised project proposal that were not already addressed
(and mitigated if necessary) in the Supplemental EIR, an Initial Study was completed (Exhibit B to
Attachment 1). The Initial Study, dated August 3,2007, determined that although the overall project size
is smaller than the original Ikea/Lifestyle Center project, an additional examination of potential impacts to
the traffic and circulation section of the SEIR should be completed to ensure that no new significant
environmental impacts could be identified and that no increase in the severity of the previously-identified
impacts would be discovered.
An Addendum to the Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment has been prepared which compares the two projects, assesses
the traffic generation rates of the proposed project in relation to that which was analyzed in the SEIR, and
concludes that no new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase
50f6
in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. The Addendum, along ~thrp &5 D
Supplementary Traffic Analysis conducted, is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
The Applicant/Developer is required to comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation
measures of the Ikea Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the Final Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plans (MMRP) of both documents.
CONCLUSION:
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments
have been incorporated into the Stage I Development Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and represents an appropriate project for the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: I) Open public hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 3) Close the public hearing and deliberate; 4)
Adopt Resolution (Attachment I) recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to both the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(certified 5/10/1993) and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ikea Project (certified
3/16/2004), with the Addendum and Supplementary Traffic Analysis included as Exhibit A and the Initial
Study for the Addendum included as Exhibit B; and 5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending
that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning 27.55 acres on the southwest corner of Martinelli Way
and Hacienda Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1
Development Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center with the Draft Ordinance that includes the Stage 1
Development Plan and Stage 1 Site Plan included as Exhibit A.
60f6
4r1 rfb GD
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN (CERTIFIED 5/10/1993) AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT CERTIFIED 3/16/2004)
FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER
(APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003) PA 07-019
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 53-93 approving the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. At the same time, the City Council adopted
Resolution 53-91 certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment (SCH91103064, incorporated herein by reference). This Environmental Impact Report
evaluated the environmental impacts associated with developing the 6,920 acre Eastern Dublin planning area
with a range of residential, commercial, light industrial, open space, parks, schools, and other public uses; and
WHEREAS, a Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2003 when a development application was submitted
to the City of Dublin for a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on a
27.55-acre piece of property from Campus Office to General Commercial (SCH 2003092076, incorporated
herein by reference). The development proposal for the subject property included a 317,000 square foot Ikea
retail store and a 137,000 square foot "lifestyle" retail center on the southwest comer of Hacienda Drive and
Martinelli Way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Certified the Ikea Project SEIR on March 16, 2004 via Resolution 44-04
and adopted CEQA findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 44-04, incorporated
herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City received notification that the Ikea project was no longer moving forward, and
shortly thereafter Blake Hunt Ventures submitted a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage I Planned
Development application for a 305,000 square foot commercial retail center to be located on the 27.55-acre
subject site. The project is proposed to consist of 270,000 square feet of retail uses and 35,000 square feet of
restaurant uses in a pedestrian-oriented outdoor center; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated August 3, 2007, incorporated herein by reference
and attached to this resolution as Exhibit B to determine if additional environmental review was required
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the
potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in both the Ikea Project Supplemental
EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for this project, 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 EIRs. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in
Attachment 5
Q'6 U/)G D
the severity of previously identified impacts have been discovered. The project remains subject to all previously
mitigation measures, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated August 3, 2007,
incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, was prepared which notes the
project changes and their relation to the analysis in the Ikea Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact
Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum was considered by the Planning Commission together with the Ikea
Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment prior to making a decision on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
Addendum and Initial Study, both dated August 3, 2007, together with the Ikea Supplemental EIR and the
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment (both
available and on file in the Community Development Department).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt the Addendum, including the related Initial Study, attached as Exhibits A and B, to both the Ikea
Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment for the 305,000 square foot commercial retail center on 27.55 acres at the southwest comer of
Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive (Emerald Place Retail Center).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September 2007.
AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and King
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2007\07-019 BHV Lifestyle Center\PC Reso Addendum.DOC
~t1b6D
RESOLUTION NO. 07-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING 27.55
ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARTINELLI WAY AND HACIENDA DRIVE TO A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVE THE RELATED STAGE 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EMERALD PLACE RETAIL CENTER PROJECT
(APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-0033-003) P A 07-019
WHEREAS, Blake Hunt Ventures submitted a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage I
Planned Development application for a 305,000 square foot commercial retail center "(Emerald Place Retail
Center) located on the 27.55-acre subject site. The project is proposed to consist of 270,000 square feet of retail
uses and 35,000 square feet of restaurant uses in a pedestrian-oriented outdoor center; and
WHEREAS, the project area boundaries include Martinelli Way to the north, Hacienda Drive to the
east, Highway 580 to the south, and Arnold Road to the west; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development Ordinance, including the related Stage 1 Development Plan is
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the location of the eleven buildings, which collectively comprise the project, shall be
generally as shown on the Conceptual Stage 1 Site Plan, which is attached as Exhibit A-I to the Planned
Development Zoning District/Stage I Development Plan (Exhibit A to this Resolution). Significant
modifications to the plan may be made and will be formalized at the Planned Development Zoning
District/Stage 2 Planned Development/Site Development Review phase of the project, which is anticipated to be
submitted by the Applicant in Fall 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Stage 1 Development Plan and
anticipates further study sessions for the application; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated September II, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference, described
and.analyzed the proposed Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 1 Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study, dated August 3, 2007, was prepared to study the potential impacts of the
project as proposed and determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately
addressed in both the Ikea Supplemental EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. An Addendum, dated August 3, 2007, to both documents was
prepared and the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Addendum through Resolution 07-xx on
September 11, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report at a noticed public hearing on
September II, 2007, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
Attachment 6
SD"b efD
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the zoning map to rezone 27.55 acres of property on the
southwest comer of Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive to the PD -Planned Development Zoning District and
approving a related Stage I Development Plan for the Emerald Place Retail Center Project (PA 07-019), based
on findings that the PD zoning and project as a whole is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that
development of the Emerald Place Retail Center project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and
future development in the surrounding area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this II th day of September, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and King
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2007\07-019 BHY Lifestyle Center\PC Reso Ord.DOC