HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 WDubBART SPA CITY CLERK
File #410-55
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING - PA 01-024 West Dublin BART Specific Plan
Amendment for Crown Chevrolet and Enea/HHH Properties
Report Prepared By: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan with Exhibits A through H attached
2. Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) dated May
31, 2001
3. Initial Traffic Analysis prepared by Omni-Means dated April 19, 2001
4. Subsequent Traffic Calculations prepared by Omni-Means dated
September 5, 2001
5. Planning Commission Staff Report and adopted Resolution from June
26, 2001 and September 25, 2001
6. Planning Commission Staff Report and adopted Resolution from
September 25,200i
7. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Map)
RECOMMENDATION: 1
5.
6.
Receive Staff Presentation.
Open Public Hearing.
Question Staff and Public.
Close Public Hearing.
Deliberate. :
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving an amendment to the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan.
DESCRIPTION:
On December 19, 2000 the City Council directed staff to undertake a Specific Plan Study which would
potentially amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The Study would evaluate the appropriateness
of changing the intensity of development and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for certain properties in the
Specific Plan area.
BACKGROUND:
At the property owners' request, the City Council directed staff to analyze a change in the intensity of
development and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the property presently operating as Crown Chevrolet
located in the Specific Plan area at the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive.
Additionally, the City Council directed staff to analyze inclusion of approximately 20 acres of adjacent
property known as the Enea Plaza and adjacent office development within the Specific Plan area
boundaries, along with a request by the property owner to increase the FAR for that property (see Exhibit
G to Attachment 1).
· Copies To: Property owners
PA File
Senior Planner Item No.
Staff subsequently evaluated the request, and on June 26, 2001 the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Specific Plan Amendment to change the FAR to
1.00 for both properties, revise the Land Use Concept map in the Plan to reflect the projected uses, and
include the Enea and office properties at the end of Amador Plaza Road within the planning area
boundaries of the Specific Plan. (Note: A full analysis of the requested amendment is contained in the
Planning Commission agenda report for June 26, '2001 .) Following the Planning Commission's
consideration of the project, it was determined that the traffic analysis performed by Omni-Means for the
amendment should have included the traffic generation rates for the Schaefer Ranch development. As a
result of this revised analysis, an additional traffic mitigation measure to include a third northbound left-
turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road was suggested by the traffic
consultant for inclusion in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to reduce any potential traffic impacts of
the increased FAR, and this mitigation measure was added to the Planning Commission recommendation.
ANALYSIS:
In the development of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan last year, an extensive economic analysis of
existing and projected market demands was prepared by a consulting land use economics firm, EPS, to
assist in determining potential land uses and FAR's, or intensity of use, for properties within the Plan
area. Based on the information compiled in the economic study, a thorough traffic and circulation
analysis was prepared by Omni-Means, the City's traffic consultant, to determine the maximum intensity
of development which could be supported by the existing transportation system, programmed roadway
improvements, the introduction of the new BART station at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive in the
planning area, and additional traffic mitigation measures to ensure that major downtown intersections
continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service.
To analyze the requested changes for the Enea/I-IHH Properties and the Crown Chevrolet site in this
amendment, additional economic and traffic analyses were also prepared to evaluate various levels of land
use intensity and development for the properties and thereby determine the maximum development
potential possible for this portion of the Specific Plan area. The resulting analyses are summarized below.
Additional details on the studies can be reviewed in the Planning Commission report from June 26, 2001.
Economic Analysis
The economic analysis prepared for the amendment to the Plan analyzed the Crown Chevrolet property
and the EneaJHHH properties to determine the appropriate land use type and maximum development
potential of the sites within the context of their locations relative to the BART station. Various land use
scenarios and FAR's consisting of low-, medium- and high-intensity development were tested by the
City's economic consultant for each property to illustrate possible development potential, and these are
shown in Table 1 of the Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) dated May 31, 2001,
Attachment 2. This information is briefly summarized below. The economic analysis also projected the
revenue impacts on the City of each land use change in Table 2 of Attachment 2.
Crown Chevrolet Property: The property owner of the six acre Crown Chevrolet property located at the
southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive, and extending to the parcel at the southeast
comer of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive, has requested a Specific Plan land use change for the
site to permit construction of an office and retail building twelve or more stories in height and a FAR
increase to 2.50. In the existing Specific Plan, the property was assumed to remain as an auto dealership
with the existing FAR of. 18. The Crown Chevrolet property is currently shown in the Land Use Plan of
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan with a Retail/Auto land use designation (refer to Attachment 7).
The property contains an auto dealership that is planned to move to the East Dublin area to locate with the
other auto dealerships currently there. The existing building area on the property is 38,325 square feet,
with the majority of the lot acreage presently utilized for parking and storage of automobiles and trucks.
The location Of the property at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive, which is less
than one-quarter mile from the future BART station, lends itself to potentially be developed as an office
type use. There is also a potential market in this area for ground-floor retail. Based on the square footage
that would result from developing the Crown Chevrolet site at a FAR of 1.00 (low-intensity), 1.75
(medium-intensity) or 2.50 (high-intensity), a parking structure at varying heights would be necessary on
the smaller 1.21 acre parcel south of St. Patrick Way to accommodate the parking needs of the
development (refer to Maximum Development Potential table for the Crown Chevrolet Property in
Attachment 5): The lowest development intensity scenario evaluated for the property included a small
amount (10,000 square feet) of ground-level retail in the parking garage building on this parcel.
As the FAR is increased for the property and the square footage of the building size increases, the parking
needs for the development would also increase. Additionally, as the development of the site intensifies to
a higher FAR, the number of stories in the office building and the parking structure increase. At the
present time, eight stories is the maximum height permitted in the Specific Plan area. With the increased
square footage at the various development intensity levels, the traffic impacts of the potential
development on the downtown area increase proportionately. Because of these factors, it is not
recommended that the FAR of 2.50 and a height increase to 12 or more stories, as requested by the
applicant, be approved.
An FAR of 1.00 for the Crown Chevrolet property has been recommended by the Planning Commission
based on the findings of the traffic study and the volume of traffic that would be generated by the
potential development, as discussed below in the Traffic Analysis section. This would result in
approximately 276,000 square feet of development on the site at build-out, which is over seven times the
amount of building square footage on the property at the present time which totals 38,325 square feet. A
FAR of 1.00 for this portion of the Specific Plan would exceed the average FAR for all existing
development in the planning area which currently has a FAR of .23.
Enea/HHH Properties: Robert Enea has requested that the boundaries of the Specific Plan be adjusted to
include his approximately 14-acre property adjacent to the existing Plan boundaries and that the
boundaries be extend to the alignment of the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways. Additionally, Mr. Enea requested
that the land use type for this area be shown as Commercial B in the Plan with a permitted FAR of 1.00.
The land is currently developed as a Planned Development district containing the Enea Plaza, a retail
shopping center, and the Stoneridge Chyrsler auto and truck dealership. Commercial B land uses consist
of retail and office type businesses that are smaller-scale uses such as specialty retail, restaurants, offices,
entertainment and similar pedestrian-oriented uses. As the Enea Plaza property was not included in the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, a potential land use is not shown in this location on the Land Use
Plan of the Specific Plan (Attachment 7).
Additionally, an approximately 6-acre portion of the property at the end of Amador Plaza Road, owned by
HHH Investment Co. and Aldo Guidotti, is currently within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan area and is included in Mr. Enea's request for the land use change. In the Specific Plan, this
property is shown as Retail/Office in the Land Use Plan with an increased FAR of .83. The existing
building square footage on the site, currently developed with three office buildings, is 61,812 square feet,
and with the increased FAR of .83 shown in the current Specific Plan, it has a potential for redevelopment
to approximately 225,250 square feet. Mr. Enea has requested that the FAR of .83 be increased to 1.00
with this amendment, and the Land Use Plan also reflects a Commercial B type land use for consistency
with the Enea Plaza property.
In his request to the City Council, Mr. Enea expressed a desire for flexibility in the Commercial B land
use category on the properties to accommodate potential lodging or upper level apartment uses. The
property is currently zoned as a Planned Development district which allows commercial and retail uses
similar to a C-1 General Commercial zoning district. A motel or hotel facility is required to Obtain a
3
Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission under the City's Zoning Ordinance in all
commercial zoning districts. In this instance, an amendment to the Planned Development district would
be necessary to permit a motel or hotel facility in this area. Ih regard to upper level apartment uses,
Objective 6.7 of the Specific Plan allows the City to consider a vertical mix of uses, such as residential
over retail use, and also live/work units in the planning area when reviewing a proposal.
In analyzing development intensities and land uses for the properties, the economic consultant considered
three potential FAR designations and land use mixes. The property is currently built at a FAR of .21 on
the retail portion of the EneaJHHH properties and contains approximately 185,891 square feet of building
space, and at a FAR of .23 on the portion of the properties developed as office uses (currently 61,812
square feet of building space). The low-intensity development scenario in the economic study assumed a
FAR of .50 with retail, office, residential and hotel uses on the 14-acre retail portion of the properties.
The medium-intensity development scenario assumed a FAR of 1.00 with similar use types and a parking
garage. A FAR of 1.00 would result in 632,000 square feet of building space. The highest intensity of
development considered for the property in the analysis was at a FAR or 1.50 (refer to Maximum
Development Potential table for the Enea/HHH Properties in Attachment 5).
The portion of the properties containing the existing office uses was not analyzed in the economic study
(Attachment 2) as it is in the current Specific Plan at a FAR of.83, and only the medium- and high-
intensity development scenarios would increase the allowable square footage on the property. However,
staffdid evaluate it for this amendment, and with a change from the existing FAR of .83 to 1.00 as
requested, an increase of approximately 47,000 square feet would result in the office use area, for a total
building area of 108,812 square feet for the site. With a FAR of 1.50, an increase of approximately
183,800 square feet would result.
The Commission determined a FAR of 1.00 to be appropriate for the EneaJHHH Properties. With this
FAR for the property, the combined square footage on both the Enea Plaza and office building sites could
increase to a total of 904,690 square feet (over 4 times the existing square footage presently on the
properties). If a project were proposed containing a multi-family residential component in the future, as
analyzed in the economic analysis for the various land use Scenarios for this property, potentially 151
multi-family dwelling units could be provided; however, a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Amendment may be required. This land use component is not being considered with this amendment as
no actual development project has yet been proposed for the property.
Traffic Analysis
A traffic analysis was performed by Omni-Means (Attachments 3 and 4) for the Specific Plan Study and
was utilized to determine the maximum development potential that could be supported by the existing
transportation system, programmed roadway improvements, introduction of the BART station, and the
traffic mitigation measures included in the Specific Plan to ensure that major downtown intersections
continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. The resulting analysis found that the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road would operate at an unacceptable level-of-service (LOS) E
during the PM peak hour in the low-intensity, medium-intensity and high-intensity development scenarios
analyzed in the study if no mitigation was added to the Specific Plan program. As the development
intensity increased, the LOS at this intersection deteriorated proportionately. With the high-intensity
development scenario, the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive also deteriorated to
LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hour without mitigation. The maximum level of intensity of-
development which could be allowed on both the Crown and Enea and still maintain an acceptable level
of service (LOS D) without mitigation at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road was
determined by the traffic consultant to be a total FAR of 0.51.
A development alternative providing all the properties in the study area with a FAR of 1.00 was then
evaluated to determine if an acceptable LOS could be maintained with minimal mitigation while still
4
providing the properties with a higher development potential. The resulting analysis determined that an
additional northbound left-mm lane would be necessary at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/San
RamOn Road to maintain an acceptable LOS. With this mitigation measure, the intersection would
improve to LOS D (0.85) during the PM peak hour. Therefore, ifa FAR of 1.00 is approved for the
subject properties, addition of this mitigation measure to the programmed improvements in the Specific
Plan is necessary. This is included in the resolution in Attachment 1 recommended for adoption by the
City Council.
With the increased development potential from a change in the FAR of .83 to 1.00 on the existing office
site at the end of Amador Plaza Road (an increase of approximately 47,000 square feet) as recommended
by staff, and adjustments in the FAR for other properties in the planning area shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the Specific Plan, traffic generation levels would increase slightly in the area. This
revision in the maximum development potential for these properties would allow development
opportunities for those properties similar to those provided by this amendment to the Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HHH properties (discussed below in the section on Land Use Modifications). However, the
slight increase in traffic associated with these modifications in the Plan would still maintain an acceptable
LOS for mitigated traffic operations in the downtown.
In testing the maximum level of intensity for development on the subject properties, and taking into
account the additional traffic mitigation measure suggested by the consultant, it was found that the two
subject properties could develop to a maximum FAR of 1.49 with the intersections in the downtown area
still operating at an acceptable level of service. However, traffic generation resulting from this level of
development would cause the intersection at Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive to approach maximum
capacity. Additionally, significant vehicle queuing problems would result in the westbound direction on
Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street, as there is inadequate stacking distance
for westbound vehicles in this roadway segment during the PM peak hour. Taking this factor into account
and the results of the revised traffic study, a FAR of 1.0 for the Crown and Enea/HHH properties would
be the maximum FAR that can be implemented for the properties without exceeding the storage capacity
for the westbound left-turn movement at this intersection during the PM peak hour.
Height Issues
The amendment request from the property owner of the Crown Chevrolet property suggested that an
increase in the limit for buildings be allowed for this particular site to permit buildings up to twelve
stories in height. The current height regulation in the Specific Plan allows construction of buildings up to
eight stories in height. When the City Council considered adoption of the Specific Plan in December
2000, an increase in height for buildings up to ten stories was considered. However, it was determined
that the eight-story height limitation was most appropriate for the area, and an increase up to ten stories
might be considered if an outstanding building design was submitted for consideration on a specific site in
the future. At that future time, the City Council would then evaluate such a change in the regulation. At
the present time, the tallest building in the downtown area is four stories. In considering the proposed
amendment, the Planning Commission determined that the increase in the height limitation for this area
should be reconsidered only at such time as a specific development is proposed and a well-developed
building design is submitted. No increase in the height limitation for buildings in the area is
recommended at this time.
Land Use Plan Modifications and Recommended FAR
With the possible move of Crown Chevrolet from the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area to the auto
dealership area in East Dublin, a change in the land use type in the Plan for this property is logical. Based
on the office use across Golden Gate Drive from the site, its proximity to the BART station, and the
potential for other office uses to develop on Golden Gate Drive toward the BART station, a Retail/Office
designation for the site in the Specific Plan, as requested by the property owner, is appropriate. This
would allow development of office and retail uses on the site in the future.
5
A Commercial B type land use on the Enea/HHH properties, as requested by Robert Enea, would allow
development of retail businesses including specialty retail, restaurants, offices, entertainment and other
pedestrian-oriented uses. The businesses within the existing Enea Plaza shopping center are similar to the
specialty retail and restaurant businesses permitted by this category. The existing office type uses on the
6~acre property at the end of Amador Plaza Road would also be permitted within this category of uses.
Because of the proximity of the future BART station, these pedestrian-oriented uses would be appropriate.
for this area. Additionally, an extension of the boundaries of the Specific Plan area is necessary to
facilitate this change. This amendment is not intended to make existing uses non-conforming or hinder
any future expansion of an existing business that a property owner or tenant may find necessary for the
vitality of the business. Expansion of currently operating permitted uses in these areas will be allowed to
remain as permitted uses until such time as the property is redeveloped under the new land use category.
Exhibit H of the recommended Resolution, Attachment 1, adds a text change to the Specific Plan to
clarify this issue.
Based on the economic and traffic analyses prepared for this amendment, a FAR of 1.00 for the subject
properties, as recommended by the Planning Commission, is the most appropriate level of intensity of
development, for the land use designations. In addition to this revision, changes to FAR's for other
properties shown as Retail/Office and Commercial B in the Specific Plan area should be provided for
consistency in the Plan and to provide similar properties with the same development potential
opportunities. As discussed in the traffic analysis section of this report, acceptable levels-of-service could
still be maintained at major intersections in the downtown area with this modification.
Table 5, Maximum Economic DeveloPment Potential, of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan has been
amended to reflect the FAR changes and resulting square footage and is shown in Exhibit A to the
proposed Resolution, Attachment 1. Additionally, the numbers representing the Specific Plan Land Use
Category of Commercial A uses have been corrected in the table to reflect adjustments to the existing
acreage and square footage of existing development.
General Plan/Zoning Conformity
The existing General Plan designation for both the Crown Chevrolet site and the EneaJHHH properties is
Retail/Office. The modifications to the Land Use Concept in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
proposed with the amendment would not require a change in the General Plan land use designation for the
properties. The Specific Plan Retail/Office and Commercial B land use categories to be applied to the
properties are consistent with the General Plan designation of Retail/Office as currently exists on the
properties.
The Crown Chevrolet site is presently zoned C-2 General Commercial Zoning District, which allows a
variety of office and commercial retail uses. The existing C-2 zoning district is consistent with the
proposed change in the Specific Plan land use category for the site and with the projected use as an office
and retail development. The Enea/HHH properties are zoned as Planned Development Zoning Districts
which permit a specific variety of office, retail and other commercial service type uses similar to the C-2
zoning district. In general, the Commercial B Specific Plan category as proposed in this amendment is
consistent with these uses. However, when an actual development project is proposed in the'future for
redeveloping the properties, a review of the proposed uses on the site will be necessary to ensure
consistency with the Specific Plan and the zoning district. An amendment to the Planned Development
Districts' regulations or a rezoning may be required at that time.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments approved on December 19, 2000.
The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area. Additionally, a supplemental traffic analysis was prepared
for this amendment to assess the impacts of the increased FAR's on the transportation system in the
downtown area and a mitigation measure will be incorporated in the Specific Plan to alleviate any
potential impacts on the transportation system of the downtown area. No additional impacts of the project
have been identified at this time. Further amendments or changes in the Specific Plan may require
additional assessment, and specific development proposals on individual sites may require additional
analyses.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the studies prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a
modification in the FAR for the subject properties and other similar properties, revisions to the Land Use
Concept and traffic mitigation measures, and a revision to the Plan boundaries are appropriate at this time.
These changes would be in conformance with the intent of the Specific Plan to create a vital urban
environment in close proximity to public transit facilities and transportation corridors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council hear the Staff' s presentation, open the public hearing, question the
Staff and public, close the public hearing and deliberate, and adopt the Resolution approving an
amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on the subject properties
and other properties designated as Retail/Office and Commercial B, and amend Traffic Mitigation
Measures, Specific Plan Table 5, and appropriate Maps and text change as shown in attached Exhibits A
through H.
7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR PA 01-024
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision
expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City adopted the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on December 19, 2000
which was prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at the request of property owners, the City Council finds it appropriate to amend
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to extend the planning area boundaries and include properties
consisting of approximately 14 acres to the east of the existing area as shown on Exhibit B, Specific
Plan Boundary, Exhibit 3 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find it appropriate to amend the land use category to
Retail/Office for approximately 6 acres of land located in the Specific Plan area at the southeast
comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive for the property known as the Crown Chevrolet
site, and to Commercial B for approximately 20 acres of land located to the west, east and south of
Amador Plaza Road known as the Enea/HHH properties, as shown on Exhibit G, Proposed Land Use
Plan, Exhibit 9 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find that based on the economic and traffic studies
prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a modification in the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) to 1.00 for the subject properties, and for other properties to ensure consistency in
the Plan, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Maximum
Development Potential, as amended, is appropriate to create a vital urban environment in close
proximity to public transit facilities and transportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of increased FAR's were addressed by the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments
approved on December 19, 2000, and prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071 and on
file in the Dublin Planning Department. The Negative Declaration found that the implementation of
the Specific Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures were
ATTACHMENT 1
incorporated into the Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area; and
WHEREAS, a supplemental traffic analysis was prepared for this amendment to assess the
impacts of the increased FAR's on the transportation system in the downtown area and a mitigation
measure will be incorporated in the Specific Plan to alleviate any potential impacts on the
transportation sYstem of the downtown area. No additional environmental impacts of the project
have been identified at this time; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the amendment to the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan on June 26, 2001 and September 25, 2001 and received testimony
and comments from the public and property owners, and recommended the amendment to the City
Council for approval; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the amendment to the West Dublin ·
BART Specific Pl:an on October 16, 2001 and received testimony and comments from the public and
property owners; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find that the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the land use
designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan and the
Specific Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council
does hereby approve the amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to: (1) modify the Plan
boundaries as shown in Exhibit B; (2) revise Table 5 of the Plan to reflect an increase in the
allowable FAR for certain properties to 1.00 as shown in Exhibit A; (3) revise the land use category
for the property known as the Crown Chevrolet site to Retail/Office, and for the property known as
the Enea/HHH properties to Commercial B as shown in Exhibit G; (4) add a third northbound left-
turn lane to the programmed improvements in the Specific Plan for the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard/San Ramon Road; (5) revise the applicable West Dublin BART Specific Plan Maps as
shown in Exhibits C, D, E and F; and, (6) modify the text as shown in Exhibit H, as attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day .of October 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
G~Downtown Specific'Plans\CC reso West BART Amend 10-16.doc
EXHIBIT A
TO ATTACHMENT 1
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PA 01-024
Table 5. Maximum Economic Development Potential (Amended)
SP Land Use Category* Acres FAR Existing Dev. Max. Dev.
DU/AC (sq. ft.)** (sq. ft.)
Commercial A (Com A) ~ a ~-~ 0.25 ~A~ ~nA ~ ~ ~ ~-~<
11.20 0.30 146,826 146,826
Commercial B (Com B) 7.76 n ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ non
26. 69 1. O0 203, 714 1,162, 620
Lodging (L) 9.31 1.20 103,231 339,530
(246 rooms) (486 rooms)
Retail/Office (R/O) ~ ~ o~ n ~ 38,325 ~ ~ ~ ~
18. 40 1. O0 801,500
Residential (R) ' 3.54 45 DU/ac -- 160 DU
Office (O) 6.98 1.00 242,385 304,050
Mixed Use (MU) 11.33 1.00 -- 493,430+
331 DU
Parking (P) 2.46 ......
Right-of-Way 2.11 ......
91.99 734, 481 3, 24 7, 956
0 DU 491 DU
* Note: Potentialplazas areas included in acreages; Land Use Categories refer to those shown on Exhibit
G (Exhibit 9 of Specific Plan)
** Existing 210, 744 Industrial/Warehouse square footage not included.
(rev. 10/16/01cc)
EXHIBIT B
TO ATrACI--IMENT 1
'Area of boundary
LEGEND
i · · ~ SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N ,T.S.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
D.UBLIN
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT C
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
RETAIL/RESTAURANT
OFFICE/SERVICE COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK
HOTEI2ENTERTAINMENT
VACANT (V)
RETAIL/AUTO
EXISTING LAND USES
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT D
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
~ RETAIL/OFFICE
~_.~¢..-,,~' PuBuC/SEu~-PuBuc F^cluw
EXISTING GENERAL .PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT E
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
~ 0-1: RETAIL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
[-:' ......... ':40-2: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
K. X /~ ~l M-l: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT
~ PD: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING ZONING
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.%8.
JUNE 2001
CITY OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT F
.TO ATTACHMENT 1
I,N,t ~MSTATE 580
LEGEND
llliilili ARTERIAL STREET
B I I ii COLLECTOR STREET
IIIII(P)IIII PROPOSED STREET (ST. PATRIC~S WAY)
II1~1111 PROPOSED BIKEWAY-CLASS II (LANE)
I(:!¢~BII BIKEWAY - CLASS I (PATH)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
JUNE 2001
C.ITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT G'
TO ATTACHMENT 1
(P/O)
~to be
(P/O) : ....
(¢o~ BI ~o~
580
LEGEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
[' ] USE AS NOTED
,,~ POTENTIAL PLAZA LOCATION
t~ OPPORTUNITY Sri'E
(P) PARKING
(L) HOTEL
* It is not the intent of this amendment to make
. existing uses on these specific sites non-conforming.
Currently operating permitted uses on these properties
will remain permitted uses and be allowed to
until such time as the property is redeveloped.
PROPOSED
LAND USE PLAN
-WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
(MU)
(0)
(P/O)
(COM A)
N.T.S.
JUNE 2001
M1XED USE
.COMMERCIAL B
OFFICE
RETAIl/OFFICE
RESIDENTLAL
RETAIl/AUTO
COMMERCIAL A
CIT.Y
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT H
TO ATTACHMENT 1
Add to Chapter $.0 Land Use Concept of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, under
5.3 Permitted/Conditional Uses,' the following text:
5.3.3 Exceptions to Non-Conforming Use Regulations
Expansion of an existing business, which would otherwise be considered non-
conforming based on the land use category in the Land Use Plan, on certain
properties in the planning area may be necessary for the vitality of the business.
Expansion of currently operating permitted uses on specific sites, designated by
an asterik on the Land Use Plan, will be allowed until such time as the property is
redeveloped under the new land use category established by this Specific Plan.
To:
From:'
5ubjec~
TECHNICAL
ME-MO.R. AND UM. --
Eddie Peabody. and J.,anet Harbin.,: ~,
Walter Kieser and Nicole Brown
Reveniie Outi00k for Development Scenarios~'.Do~rntown Dublin Specific
plan ~men~en~; EPS .~310
May.31, 2001 ':
BACKGROUND
tn December of last year, the Dublin City Council adopted theWest ~'lin BART
Spedfic Pi~, as welt a,~ the Downtown ~ore Specific Plan, based in part upon.market
analY~is~ ~L~'a..r~cb~d.ae!0m",p~OVide~ by Econo~c &.:Ping Systems, Inc.(EPS).
Six~.%'~...a','.t:. ~:' ~e..~ h~' ff~[~Ved" ~U~s~' fr6~ i~b '~top~-':~e'as' ?ear or
Specifically~ the owner o~ the Crown Chevrole~ properties (parcels 32 ~md 15-7)
requested tha~ her Prope~es be zeroed ~o~ high-rise offi'se o£ twelve or,more stories. The
EPS' was retained by the City to prepare ~' compa~afiveanalySiS of the impacts o~ the
proposed amendments to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as Well. as spe~c
variatioms ,o~ those proposed. ,..amendments, This Technical Memorandum documents
scenarios for'i~eP~.se' of?mp~g the pot~fi~-'.:~evenue unpaets to emstmg'
DEVELOPMENT.SCENARIOS
As indicated ab0V~;, three, developx~ent scenarios ;were created -tO esffrnate the potential
imPactS,of the prOpoS~ ~en~i~ents tothewestDublin B~T'Sped~cPIan:~The~e
sce~ar~'os incir{de l~.de~, me~um:-d~ity,' ~d high~ensity :development.
alternatives, and are shown in detail in Table. 1, attached. It should be noted that the
BERKELEY SACRAMENTO
2501Ninth.Street, Suite 200 phone: 510-841-9190 ~ phone: 9t6-649-8010
BerkeLey, CA 94710-2515 fax: 510-841-9208 fax: 916-~49-2070
www.epsys,com
DENVER
ATTACHMENT 2-.
May 31, 2001
Page 2
owner of the Crown properties requested a change in land use for her properties that
corresponds to the high-density scenario. The Enea property owner requested a land use
designation that corresponds.to the medium-density scenario.
- For each scenario, EPS assumed a' specific floor-to-area ratio for each set of properties, as
well as a height requizemen~, and~,~e~' fO~r~,~ach Parcel. Because ~ density is the
primary .difference between ..the t!~ee alternatives, the uses 'asSum6d for each parcel
remained relatively constartt. For example, in each scenario, parc~ 157 of the Crown
properties was assumed for office use, while parcel '32 is assumed to be:used fo~ parking
(and some retail in the low-density scenario).
For the En~a piibP~iSties, EPS'.assumect that parcels 48and 49-2 wottLd contain ground
floor retail and residential units on upper'floors. Patee149~3 was. assumed to.be used fOr
parking and/or residential units, depending upon the density assumed, and a
combination of retail, restaurant, and hotel uses was assumed for parcel ·38-1. ·Office was
assumed to occupy parcel 42-2for e~C~ scenario, with retail 'or parking as a complement
in the higher density scenarios.
REVENUE!IMPACTS
Using :the devel-opment scenarios .as.des~bed.aboye, ~e revenue impacts 9f each
aitemative were esfima~ted,. ~d.:,~om...Rared..wi~ .exi~tinglc~ti~. ~i sh~.Ta~t? 2.
Althougkthe Enea properties are.~o.,,.t currently !o~ated wi~
Specifi~Plan area boundaries, the ex/sting cOnditi~ ms sh0~ refl~ct estimates of,~u~ent
revenues collec~d by the City.
changing the use. of the Crown,properties. from auto. sales to office use 'will~ decrease
revenues to:the City within?~e Specific PI .an area for e~ of ~he.de~sity ~ce~ioA
s udied. However, it is important:~to no~e that!.~e deaier~l'd'p f~' mO~g,of its own
volition; thus, this loss of,revenue &om.the Specific Plan area is in~fitable and not the
result, of specific plan policy. Further, though the move rep~ieixfs'~a liSSs to'~e Spe~e
Plan area, it will not impact City s~es tax rev. enues because the dealership is relocating
within the City.:of Dublim . .:~ "' :
As sh°'wn,in, Table.~;~~he revenUe IOs~ to :,~e Ci.b/res .u!~giro~ the p~OPoSed use .
change'would range ~om'$258~000 ~°r.&e l°Ve~d~i~"sc!i~° :t°'$~6,0{~0 f6r flxe,high-
density scenario, This'is because sale~, taxes paid.°~,i~{° s~es.'are 'a~ i~Po~
stream foi~ the City, and the-proposed offici use'w~iild res~t.,,~ li~e
Existing sales tax revenues collected from Crown ChevrOlet a~count for nea~ly'30
percent of all sales taxes collected within the Specific Plan area.
Adding the Enea properties to the Specific Plan area WOuld result in n6'~e[ change to the
City's revenues as a whole, but would in,tease, revel. ,~!es w[~ ~e Spec~c plan area by
$646,000. The low. density' scenario,would resUlt in a~ie~ reveziue..1O~s of $124,000 relative
· to existing revenues,.~However,:the hi~er density s~e~8S ~o~ld'?s~!'iin a revenue'
Eddie Peabody and. Janet Harbin
cit of VubZin
/¥
May $1, 2001
Page $
gain of $zi71,000 in the medium-density scenario, and $1,057,000 ln--~-Fagh'densitY....
scenari~
" .... .' '~?; : .~ i
The. total revenue impact of changes made to both'the Crown and Enea properties
wOul~ ~esult in an es~ated'~i0ss Of $382,000 for the low-density scenario~ a gain o£
$285,000 for the medium-density scenario, and an increase of more than $980,000 for the
high-denSity scenario. Changing each set of properties as requested by their respective
prop~ owners would result in a net gain of $395,000.
Table 1
Crown Properties
Development Scenarios
............. ~'~'[i'~-S-~-cTfic Plan An~end
Crown Properties
15-7
32
Enea Properties
48 and 49-2
49-3
38-1
42-2
Medium Density
Crown Properties
15-7
32
Enea Properties
48 and 49~2
49-3
38-1
42-2
FAR
Stories Acres Building
SF.
Use SF
1.00
4 4.905
4 1.211
266,000 Office
196,000 - Parking
Retail
0.48
2 3.569
2 2.410
2 3.900
'2 4.000
75,000 Retail
Residentia{
50,000 ResidentiaJ
82,000 Retail/Rest.
Hotel
84,000' Office
1.75
8 4.905 466,000 Office
8 1.211 355,000 Parking
1.00
3.569 155,000 Retail
Residential
2.410 105,000 Residential
Parking
3.900 170,000 Retail/Rest.
Hotel
4.000 174,000 Parking
Office
Units Parking Pai'king
Needed Met
266,000
266,000
186,000
10,000
196,00.0.
462,000
0
0
0
0
0.
798
-798 297
0 531
30
3o
828 828
37,500 0 113
37,500 38 75
75,000 38 188 188
50R00 50 100 100
41,000 0 205
41,000 · 82 82
82,000 82 287 287
84,000 0 252'
~4,000 ~ 25~ 25~
291,000 170 827 827
466,000 0 1,398
466,000 0 1,398 384
355,000 0 0 1,014
355,000 0 0 1,014,
821,000 0 1,398 1,398
39,000- 0 117
117,000 -117 176
156,000 117 293 288
34,000 34 51
98,000 0' 0 281
132,000 34 51 281
42,500 0 213 '
127,500 255 255
170,000 255 468 315
43;500 0 0 124
174,000 0 522 324
174.000 _0 522' ' 44~
632,000 323 1,333 1,333
Economic & Planning Syatem$, Inc. ,~2~/2001
H:19310~Amen~l$cenari~,~.xl=
Table 1
Crown Properties
................. '.~....pe~..e_!. _opine nt ScenariOs
Dublin Specific .Plan Amendments
FAR Stories Acres
Building ~ Use
'$F
SF Units Parking Parking
Needed . Met
Hi(ih Densib/
Crown Properties
15-7
32
Enea Properties
48 and 49-2.
49-3.
38-1
42-2
2,50 '
1.50
12 ' 4.905- 534,000 Office.
9 1.211 ~13,D00 Parkidg
6
3.569
233,000 Retail
Residential
2.410 3~t.5,000 Parking.
3.900 255,000 Retail/Rest.
Hotel
4.000
261,000 Retail
Office
534,000 0 1,602
534,00Q 0 li602 421
413,000 0 0 1~ 181
413,000 0 0 1,181
947,000 0 1,602 1,602
39,000
194,000
233,000
315,000
42,500
212,500
255,000
43 50~
2~i7,500
261,000
1,064,000
0 117
194 291 -
194 408 289
0 0" 9O0
0 213
425 425
425 638 315
0 131
0 653 ''
0 783 324
619 1,829' !,828
H..Lq3101Amendt ~Scenarico,xls
Economic & Planning b"ystems, Inc, E/2.5/2001
Table 2
Revenue Impact Summary: Crown and Enea Properties
.................... Dub! in_~DQwnto.w.n_ Speclfic_P~an_Ame_~_d~ts
Item Existing ' Scenario 1: Low Scenario 2: Scenario 3: High
Conditions Density Medium Density Density
Crown Properties
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Total ReVenue
change from Existing
$4,820 $146,360
$419,960 $20,000
$424,780 $166,360
($258,420)
$239,018
$239,018
($185,762)
$348,671
$0~
$348,671
($76,109)
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Total Revenue
Change from Existing
$30,638 $142,276 $375,200 $497~840
$615,175 $211,875 $214,375 $325,750
$0 $167;608 $527,352, $878,920
$645,813 $521,759 $1,116,927 $1,702,510
($124,054) $471,114 $1,056,697
Total: Enea andCrownPropertie~.
Property Tax
S~es Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Total Revenue
Change from Existing
$35,458 $288,636 $614,218 $846,511
$1,035,134 $231,875 $214,375 $325,750
$0 $167,608 $527,352 $878,920
$1,070,593 ' $688,119 $1,355,945 $2,05i,181
($382,474) $285,352 $980,589
Source: City of Dublin; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Econ~if~ & Plannt~g $.y'~em$, lnc~
H:~9 310dub~'~en~IScer~tfos.x~s
omni.means
ENGINEERS.PLANNERS
April 19, 2001
Ms. Janet Harbin
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
In~itial Findings Related to the Proposed Eneas and Crown Properties Dublin
Specific Plans Amendment for Proposed Low, Medi-m, and High Density
Alternatives
De~ Janet:
We.have completed our initial traffic analysis fOr the proposed Eneas and Crown properties
amendments as they relate to the Dublin Specific Plans and this letter report summarizes our
findings.
Th~ analysis has involved calculating vehicle trip generation for the low, medium, and high
density alternatives, based on information supplied by Economic and Plamn~ng Systems (Nicole
Brown, EPS, "Eneas and Crown Properties D~velopment Scenarios, Dublin Specific Plan
Annendments, March 19,200i). Based on the same trip generation rates and assumptions found
in the Dublin Specific Plan traffic analysis, daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the
alternative density scenarios was then fa. xed to you for review (attached). For each property, the
"net" trip generation was determined by subtracting out existing uses on the sites from each
proposed alternative. 1Net trip generation for each alternative has been shown in Table 1. As
calculated, net pM peak hour trips would range from 392 trips for the low density alternative to
1,386 trips for the high density alternative.
Initial evaluation of the plan amendments have been based on the operation of six key
intersections in the Specific Plans area (as discussed with City Transportation staff) and include
the following:
1. Dublin/San Ramon
2. Dublin/Golden Gate
3. Dublin/Amador Plaza
4. Village Parkway/Amador Valley
5. Dougherty/Dublin
6. Hopyard/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp
RECEIVED
APR 1 9 2001
DUBLIN PLANNING
ROSEVILLE
2237 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 782-8688
FAX (916) 782-8689
REDDING
434 Redcllff Drive, Suite D
Redding, CA 96002
(530) 223-6500
FAX (530) 223-9326
VISAUA
720 W. Center'Avenue, Suffe O
Visolio, OA 93291
(559) 734-5895
FAX (559) 734-5899
WALNUT OREEK
1901 Olympic Boulevard. Ste. 120
Walnut Omek, OA 94596
(925) 935-2230
FAX (925) 935-2247
ATTACHMENT
Table 1
.................... Eneas_and.=Cro.wn~Pr_operfies;__Net_Daity,_AM_and ..l~Ll~eakHour-.--Trip~G~aeration
Low, Medium, and High Density Alternatives~:
Scenario/
Properties
Trip Generation
Daily AM (In, Out)
PM fin; Out)
LOW Density:
Eneas: 1,028
Crown: 1,552..
TOW: 2,580
MED~ Density:
Eneas: 3,337
Crown: 2.885
TOtal: 6,222
HIGH Density:
Eneas: 6;730
CrOwn: 4,646
Total: 11,376
119 134
27~. 258
390 (329,61)
392 (82, 3 lo)
342 375 4 2 ¥/
5lQ 45.9 7-0 l:
852 (699,153)
834 (173,661)
529 688 ,~
760. 698
1~289 (1041,248)'
1,386 (33~, 1.052)
(2)
Trip generation CalCUlations based on. "COnSultants Report of'the:Transportation Impacts
For the Proposed Village Parkway, DowntoWn COre,: and West BART Station-Specific
Plans, City of Dublin, Omi-Means, Final Draft Report, September 25, 2000." (See
attached trip generation ~alcUlati0ns).
Low, medium, and high density land uses for the Eneas and Crown properties basedon
"Economic and Planning Systems, Inc,. Development Scenarios Specific Plan
Amendments, March 13, 2001." (See attached)
In addition~ City' Transportation staff has provided ultimat~ build-out geometries for the
Dublin/Golden Gate, Dublin/Amador ..P_laza, Village p.~kw.ay/,~ador v.~...ey,
............................ ~$~i(~-7-~ublin 'intei:seCt/~'s,-w'~UI-/-ti~-b-~e~-fn~s '~6~ "i~~~~' '" ...........
derived from' the recent tranSpOrtation,studies performed for the Dublin Safeway and Dublin
Transit Center projects.~ ~ TheSe' volumes represent cumulative traffic with the Dublin Specific
Plans (as previous, iF approved), Safeway., and Dublin Transit Center projects.
· ' ' , ed cumulative baseline volumes, intersection level-
With theremsed Specffic Plan. s..tr~c add. to'
of-service (LOS) have been calculated and are 'Shown in Table 2, Intersec~ionLOS has'been
shown for. the cumulative baseline condition traffic as well as the low, medium, and high density
alternativ i tot revised S eeific ?lans.
With ju~t.'.CUmulative baseIine;.~vo!umes, all six study intersections, wotit/:l be 0per/ting at
acceptable, lev'eli~of-serviee during .the,AM and PM peak hours. HoweVer, with the~"~e~nt
Safeway center project; 'the. intersection of Dublin/San, Ramon would be ;operating ;~t..LOS D
(0.90) during the PM peak hour. Neither the Dubkin Specific Plan or Safeway traffic anatyses
were required to m/t/gate th/s intersection since it continued to operate at acceptabIe ievels.
Discussions with City TranSportation staff indicate that there is a very lira/ted potential for.
physical, circulation improvements that can, he su. ggested b~yond those improvements assumed for
cumulat/¥e traffic,.condit/ons? Based:on our discussions, an additional eastbgund OVerlap phase
for the ::fight;turn mOvements'from ~D~iblin' Boulevard. onto San Rarnon Road has. been.assumed.
Wit~ the addi~.0n of.low, medium, and high density a!ternative traffic, specific key intersecRon
LoS' W°Uld dSgflde. to unaCcePtaiSie'ievel/~ "D~en~l~g°n'the intensity of development, th/s
would include the intersections of Dublin/San Ramon, 'D~b~i~b'G6iden Gate,' '~0 Dubt~/Amador
Plaza intersections. We have init/ally not suggested any additional rnkigation measures for these
intersections to alIow City staff to review intensit~ of development relative to approved and/or
pending traffic mitigation measures (consistent with recent studies). It is also noted that
additional circulation improvements at these intersections may not be feasible beyond what has
currently been assumed.
We have attached EPS data, trip generation calculations, and LOS calculation sheets for staff
review. Please review this report and attachments and call us v~ith your input. We would be
happy to discuss the potential for pursuing.more aggressive mitigation measures to accommodate
some 1eve1 of revised Specific Plan developrnent.
Sincerely,
Peter ~. Galloway, Tran~pormtio
Ptanner
cc: Mr. Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer
Table 2
..................... ~_ey~ Intersection.Level.of. Service (LO~S)
Dublin Specific Plan .CUmulative Baseline and Low, Medium, and High Density Conditions
Key Intersection LOS
Cumulative
Intersection Baseline~ Low Density Medium Densi~ High Density
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1. Dublin/San Ramon C 0.78 D 0.90 C 0.79 E 0.93 D 0.81 E 0.96 D 0:82 E 0.99
2. Dublin/Golden Gate A 0.56 C 0.77 B 0.69 D 0.82 C 0.80 D 0.87 E 0.92 E 0.92
3. Dubliu/Amador Plaza A.0.45 C 0.77 A 0.48 D 0.8I A 0.53 D 0.86 A 0.58 E 0.92
4. Village Pkwy./Amador Valley A 0.46 B 0.63 A 0.47 B 0.64 A 0.48 B 0.64 A 0.49 B 0.65
5. Dougherty/Dublin: B 0.67 D 0.82 B 0.68 D 0.82 B 0.68 D 0;83 B 0.69 D 0.83
6. Hopyard/I-580 EB off B 0.63 B 0.68 B 0.63 B 0.68 B 0.63 B 0.68 B 0.64 B 0.68
(1)
(2)
Cumulative baseline volumes for intersections i-4 derived from a traffic study conducted for the approved
Dublin Safeway Center, Omni-Means, March 2001, Volumes for Intersections 5 and 6 derived from the
traffic study for the proposed Dublin Transit Center, Omni-Means, january 26,2001. Baseline geometries
provided by City Transportation staff for all six intersections.
LOS calculation for the Dougherty/Dublin intersection assumes the extension of Scariett Drive between
Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
References
Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Memo to Peter Galloway,
Transportation Planner, orani-Means~. !'Addendum Traffic :Analysis for the Downtown Specific
Plans," March 15, 2001.
Orrmi-Mea~s, Final Report: .Dublin Safeway Center, City of Dublin, March, 2001.
Omni-Means, Consultant's Report: Transportation Impacts For the Proposed Dublin Transit
Center, City of Dublin, Draft Report, January 26, 2001.
Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Personal communication March 26,
2001.
Appendices
-EPS Development Scenario Data-'
-Trip Generation Tables (1-4)-
-LOS Calculation Sheets-
FROM ECONOM IC ~ PLANN [NG SYS, 'TO
Enea Properties
Development $oenario$
................... Dublin-S pe-¢~flm-Pi~n-~mencFrr~nt=
~. 9259J52247-~19310 P. 02
FAR ~lories A~;res LOt S.F Bu;Idtng Building
SF Footprint
Use
Si= Units Parking laerk~ng
Needed Met
Hiqh DenslW.
48 and 49-2
49-3
38.1
42-2
Medium Density
48 and ~,g-2
49-3
38-1
42-2
Low penalty
48 and 49-2
49-3
38-1
42-2
1.5 $ 3.569 155,466 233,000 39,000 Retail
Residential
.~ 3 2,410 t04,9~0 292.544 98,000 Perking
1.5 6 3.900 169,~84 255,000 43,0~ RetaiFRe~tau~nt
Ho~el
1.5 6 ¢.000 174,240 261,000
44,000 Retail
Office
1.0 4 3,569 155,466 155,000 3~,000 Retail
Residential
Io0 2 2,410 104,g80 105.000 0 Residentisl
Parking
1.0 4 3,goo 169,884 I70.000 43.00~ Retail/Restaurant
Hotel
1.0 4 4 000 174,240 t74,000 44,000 Paridng
Office
2 3.569 I.;51466 75i000 :38.000 Retail
Re$1dent~eJ
0.5
0,.~ 2 2.4~[0 104,980 50,000
0.S 2 3.~)0 le;,$84 82,000
25/300
41 ,Goo Retafl/Res[aurant
Hotel
0.5 2 4,OO0 174,240 84,000 42,000 Office
39,000 0 117
t95,000 195 293
234,000 t95 410
292,544
43,000 0 129
2~5,000 4,30 430
258,000 430 559
288
836
314
44,O00 0 132
220,000 0 660
364,000 0 7~2 322
1,048,544 625 1,761 1,761
3~,000 0 117
t17,000 117 176
156,000 117 293
34.000 34 51
71,000 0 0
105,000 34 51
4,3,000 0 129
129,D00 258 25~
172.000 258 387
44,000 0 0
174,000 0 522
174,000 {3 622
288
202
202
314
t2~
322
448
607,000 326 1 ~253 1,253
38,000 0
38,000 38
76,000 38
114
76
50,OO0 SO 100
41,000 0 123
41,000 82 82
82,000 8;2 205
84,000 0 252
84,OO0 0 252
292,OO0 ~70 747
190
100
2~2
747
FROH EC~OHOMIC & PLANNING SYS.
Crown Properties
..... D_e_v_e Lo_ p m e n LS_aem~ - =
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
TO
FAR Stories Acres
SF F0~lnt
units Parking Perking
Needed Met
Hi.qb Densl~
15-7
~2 %85
MediumDensl~,
Low Density
12 :4:905 213,651
9 1.211 52,750
8 4.905 213,65'1
5 1.211 52,7'50
534,000 46,000 Office
413,000 47,475 Perking
374,000 47,000 Office
247,000 47,475 Parking
534.000 0 1 °602
534,000 0 1,602 421
413,000 0 0 1,181
,413,000 0 0 I;t.81
g47,000 0 1,602 1,602
374,000 0 1,122
374,000 0 1,122 415
247,000 0 0 ' 707
247,000 0 0 707
621,000 0 1,122 1,122
15-7 1.0
4 4.905 213,651 214,000 54.000 Office
32 1.0
3 1.211 $2,750 128,000 43,000
Pa~king
Retail
214,000 o
214,000 0 642
118,000 0
I0,000 0
128,~00 0
342,DD0 0
o 3,3B
30
30 338
672
TABLE 1 HIGH DENSITY SCENARIO
Daily~.AM,_and~P_.M_Eeak_Hou.r_:TripJ~neration ........................................... · ............. : ........................................ .-_ .....
Eneas Properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49-2: Retail = 39,000 Residential = 195 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trips
In Out
Retail:
Dialy 39,000 42.92 1674
AM Peak 39,000 1.03 40 25 16
PM Peak 39,000 3.74 146 70 76
Residential:
Daiiy. 195 6.63 1293
AM Peak 195 0.51 99 16 84
PM Peak 195 0.62 121 81 40
Parcel # 38-1: Retail = 21,500 Restaurant = 21,500 Hotel = 215,000
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trips
In Out
Retail:
Daily 21,500 42.92 923
AM Peak 21,500 1.03 22 14 .
PM Peak 2.1,500 3.74 80 39
Restaurant:
Daily 21,500 89.95 1934
AM Peak 21,500 0.81 17 12
PM Peak 21,500 7.49 161 108
Hotel:'
Daily 215,000 8.23 1769
AM Peak 215,000 0.56 120 73
PM Peak 215,000 0.61 131 70
9
42
8
53
47
62
Parcel # 42-2: Retail = 44,000 Office = 220,D00
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trips In
Out
Retail:
Daily 44,000
AM Peak 44,000
PM Peak- 44,000
Office
Daily 220,000
AM Peak 220,000
PM Peak 220,000
42.92 1888
1.03 45
3.74 185
11.01 2422
1.56 , 343
1,49 328
28 18
79 86
· 302 41
39 288
Total Daily Trips:
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
11,903
686
1,132
463 .223
486 646
TABLE 1 HIGH DENSITY SCENARIO
. ..._..D~i_ly,_._A_M_M,..and PM peakH0ur..TdpGeneration ...................
.Crown Properties
Parcel # 15-7 Office = 634,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trips In Out
Office:
Daily 534,000 11.01 5879
AM Peak 534,000 1.56 833 733 100
PM Peak 534,000 1.49 796 95 700
Total Daily Trips:
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
5,879
833
796
733 100
95 700
TABLE 2 MEDIUM DENSITY SCENARIO
............................................................. Daily_, AM_, and :pM. Peak. Ho.___u r.Tri_~. Generation
Eneas ProPerties:
Parcel #'S 48 & 49-2: Retail = 39,000 Residential = 117 Units
SizelUnits Trip Rate/~, Project Trip
Retail':
Dialy 39,000
AM Peak 39,000.
PM Peak 39,000
Residential:
Dally 117
AM Peak 117
PM Peak 117: .....
42,92 :! 1674
1.03: · 40
3.74 146
6.63
0.5t
0.62.
776
6O
73
Parcel # 38-t: Retail = 21',500 Restaurant = 21,500 Hotel = 129,000
Size/U nits Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Daiiy 21,500 42.92 923
AM Peak 21,500 1.03 22
PM Peak 21,500 3.74 80
Restaurant:
Daily 21,500 89.95 1934
AM Peak 21,500 0.81 17
PM Peak 21,500. 7.49 161
Hotel:
Daily 129,000 8.23 1062
AM Peak 129,000 0.56 72
PM Peak 129,000 0.61 79
Parcel # 42.2: Office = 174,000
Size/U nits Trip Rate Project Trip
Office
Daily .174,000 11.01
AM Peak 174,000 1.56
PM Peak 174,000 1.49
1916
271
-259
Parcel # 49-3: Residential = 34 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate
Residential: .
Daily 34 6.63
AM peak 34 0.51
PM Peak 34 0.62
in. Out
Total Daily Trips:
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
25 16
70 76
10
49
5O
24
In Out
14 9
39 42
12 8
108 53
44 28
42 37
In Out
239 33
31 228
Project Trip In, Out
225
17
21
8,510
499
819
3 1.5
14 7
341 159
353 467
TABLE 2 MEDIUM DENSITY SCENARIO
Daily, AM.,. ap.d...P.M.?eak Hqu.!~...~.d p .G..e.n. era~;!on .........
crown Properties
Parcel # 15-7 office = 374,000
Size/Units
Trip Rate Project Trips
in'
Out
Office:
Daily 374,000
AM Peak 374,000
PM Peak 374,000
Total Daily Trips:
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
11.01 4118
1.56 583
1.49 557
4,118
583
557
513
67
67
70
490
7O
49O
TABLE 3 LOW DENSITY SCENARIO
......................................................................... Baily,.AM~and~EM~P_ea:k:H.our~T.rip-Generatio n ..............................
Eneas Properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49.2: Retail = 38,000 Residential = 36 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Dialy 38,000 42.92 1631
AM Peak 38,000 1.03 39 24
PM Peak 38,000 3.74 142 68
Residential:
Daily 38 6.63 252
AM Peak 38 0.51 19 3
PM Peak 38 0.62 24 16
Parcel # 38-1: Retail = 20,500 Restaurant = 20,800 Hotel = 4t,000
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 20,500 42.92
AM Peak 20,500 1.03
PM Peak 20,500 3.74
Restaurant:
Daily 20,500 89.95
AM Peak 20,500 0.81
PM Peak 20,500 7.49
Hotel:
Daily = 41,000 8.23
AM Peak 41,000 0.56
PM Peak 41,000 0.51
88O
21 13
77 37
1844
17 11
154 103
337
23 14
25 13
Parcel # 42-2: Office = 84,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
in
Office
Daily 84,000. 11.01
AM Peak 84,000 1.56
PM Peak 84,000 1.49
925
131
125
115
15
Parcel # 49-3: Residential = $0 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Residential:
Daily 50 6.63
AM Peak 50 0.51
PM Peak 50 0.62
332
26
31
4
21
Total Daily Trips:'
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
6,201
276
578
184
273
Out
15
74
16
8
Out
8
40
7
51
9
12
Out
16
110
Out
,21
10
92
305
TABLE 3 LOW DENSITY SCENARIO
.... O..a, iJy~_A_Mj, and PM P.eak?~.eUr,:T. rip. Generafion..'~
Crown Properties
Parcel # 15-7 Office = 214,000
Size/UnitS: Trip Rate
Project Trips
Out
Office:
Daily 214,000 11.01 2356
AM Peak 214,000 1.56 3'34
PM Peak 214,000 1.49 3'19
294
38
40
281
Parcel# 32: Retail 10,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trips
In
Out
Retail:
Daily 10,000 42.92
AM Peak 10,000 1.03
PM Peak I 0,000 3.74
429
10
37
6
18
Total Daily Trips:
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
2~785
344
356
300
56
300
TABLE 4 EXISTING ENEAS PROPERTIES
................................................................................ . .Dai~y_,~AM,_and_P_M:Re:ai~*-Hou:r~r~p=Gener at*ion ........
Eneas properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49-2:. Retail = 25,222
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
In Out .. ~:
Retail:
Dialy 25,222
AM Peak 25,222
PM Peak 25,222
Parcel # 38-1: Retail 46,421
Size/Units~
42,92' 1083
1.03 26
3.74 94
Trip Rate
Project Trip
16
45
In
10
49
Out
Retail:
Daily 46,421 42.92
AM Peak .46,421 1.03
PM Peak 46,421. 3.74
1992 .
48
174
29
83
19
90
Parcel # 42-2: Chrysler Auto Dealership: =:24,890
Size/Un:its Trip Rate
Project Trip
Out
Auto Dealership
Daily 24,890; 37.5
AM Peak 24,890 2.21
PM Peak 24,890 2.97
933
55
74
40
30
15
44
Parcel # 49-:3: Retail = 27,146
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Out
Retail:
Daily 27,146 42.92
AM Peak 27,146 1.03
PM Peak 27,146 3.74
1165
28
102
17
49
11
53
Total Daily Trips:
Total AM. Trips:
Total PM Trips:
' 5,173
157
444
102
2O7
55
237
TABLE 4 EXISTING CROWN PROPERTIES
....................................................... ....__D_a_._i!y, .AM .~and PM .Peak Hour Trip__Generafio, .n ....................................... ~ ....................... i
Crown Properties:
Parcel # 15-7: Auto Dealership = 32,880
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip In Out
Auto Dealership
Daily 32,880' 37.5
AM Peak 32,880 2.21
PM Peak 32,880 2.97
1233
73' 53 20
98 40 58
Total' Daily Trips:
Total AM Trips:
Total PM Trips:
1,233
73 53 20
98 40 58
omni.means
ENGINEERS-PLANNERS
September 5, 2001
Ms. Janet Harbin
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Summary of Transportation Methodologies Used To Determine the Minimum
and Maximum FAR for the Eneas and Crown Properties Related to the
Dublin Specific Plans
Dear Janet:
The following letter report summarizes our methodologies used for determining the minimum and
maximum floor-arm-ratios (FAR) for the Eneas and Crown properties in the City of Dublin.
This would include .trip generation assumptions for existing uses on the properties, future trip
generation based on land uses provided by EPS, and the impacts to key intersections in the Plan
area.
1. Existing Land Uses/Trip Generation
Existing land uses for the Eneas and Crown properties were provided by information supplied
by Eddie Peabody and yourself (March 1, 2001 meeting) as well as information from EPS.
Specifically, the Eneas properties existing site plan was provided to us to determine existing
square footage of various retail and auto uses on the site (attached). For the Crown properties,
existing square footage for auto uses was derived from an EPS summary table for the Dublin
Downtown Development Program (Table S-2, attached). For the Eneas properties, it was
determined that there are 98,789 square feet of existing retail and 24,980 square feet of auto uses
generating trips to/from the property that could be redeveloped using various proposed densities.
Existing office uses are also present on the Eneas site. However, we were told that these uses
would remain intact and that only vehicle access wOUld likely change to these rear parcels. For
the Crown property, it was determined that there are 32,880 square feet of auto uses on-site.
In order to evaluate the various development proposals for each property, we removed existing
vehicle trips from the street network that are being generated by the two sites based on the above
land uses. As shown in Table 4 for the Eneas and Crown properties (attached), this equated to
157 AM and 444 PM peak hour trips for the Eneas property and 73 AM and 98 PM peak hour
ROSEVILLE
2237 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 782-8688
FAX (916) 782-8689
REDDING
434 Redcliff Drive, Suite D
Redding, CA 96002
(530) 223-6500
FAX (530) 223-9326
VISALIA
720 W. Center Avenue, Suite C
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 734-5895
FAX (559) 734-5899
WALNUT CREEK
1901 Olympic l~outevard, Ste. 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2230
FAX (925) 935-2247
ATTACHMENT
trips for the Crown propertieS. We then added in the low, medium, and high density
development scenarios for Eneas and Crown properties provided by EPS (please refer to April
19, 2001 letter report to Ms. Janet Harbin, Omni-Means, "Initial Findings Related to the
Proposed Eneas and Crown Properties Dublin Specific Plans Amendment for Proposed Low,
Medium, and High Density Alternatives," not attached). After this letter report was issued, the
City decided to proceed with a "hybrid" FAR scenario for the Eneas and Crown properties. This
hybrid scenario would be based on a 1.0 FAR for each development property.
2. Future Trip Generation
For a 1.0 FAR deVelopment scenario for each property, we went back to our original trip
generation tables developed for the low, medium, and high density EPS data (see attached EPS
Development Scenario Tables). For the Eneas properties, this equated to the "medium density"
scenario and is shown in Table 2 (Medium Density Scenario, attached). These land uses included
retail, residential, restaurant, hOtel, and office uses which would generate 499 AM and 819 PM
peak hour trips. For the Crown property, this equated to the "low density" scenario and is
shown in Table 3 (I_ow Density Scenario, attached). These land uses would consist of office and
retail uses which would generate 344 AM and 356 PM peak hour trips.
The above peak hour trips were distributed onto the street network (after removing existing trips
from current development) to evaluate the traffic impacts of a total 1.0 FAR development
scenario for the Eneas and Crown properties.
After submitting preliminary results, the City requested that we determine the minimum and
maximum FAR scenarios that could be developed. This would be based on two premises; 1) no
additional intersection mitigation; and, 2) additional mitigation measures provided by City
Transportation staff. The focus of our impact analysis would be the Dublin/San Ramon
intersection since it would be functioning at LOS D (0.90) during the PM peak hour with
currently proposed cumulative Dublin Specific Plan traffic (no new Eneas and Crown
redevelopment).
3. Key Intersection Impacts
To determine the minimUm and maXimum FAR ratios that could be developed for the two subject
properties, we proportionately reduced or increased the peak hour vehicle trips generated by the
1.0 FAR development scenario at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection (and other key intersections
on Dublin Boulevard). These peak hour vehicle trips were then compared to overall trip
generation from the Eneas and Crown properties to calculate a representative FAR. The results
would be as follows (see attached LOS calculation sheets):
Minimum FAR Scenario:
With no additional intersection mitigation at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection, it was
2
found that the two properties could develop to a total FAR of 0.51, given the future land
use mix as outlined in the EPS data. Between the two properties, this would equal 599
PM peak hour trips being generated onto the adjacent street network. This FAR would
allow the PM peak hour operation to remain at LOS D (0.90) at the Dublin/San Ramon
intersection.
1.0 FAR Scenario (from EPS data):
With no additional intersection mitigation at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection, an FAR
development scenario of 1.0 would result in LOS E (0.94) operation at the Dublin/San
Ramon intersection. Between the two properties, this would equal 1,175 PM peak hour
irips being generated onto the adjacent street network. With recommended intersection
improvements of three northbound left-turn lanes on San Ramon Road, intersection
operation would improve to LOS D (0.85).
Maximum FAR Scenario:
With recommended intersection improvements of three northbound left-turn lanes on San
Ramon Road, it was found that the two properties could develop to a total FAR of 1.49.
This would result in LOS D (0.89) operation at the Dublin/San Ramon intersection.
Between the two properties, this would equal 1,751 PM peak hour trips being generated
'onto the adjacent street network. It should be noted that with the maximum FAR
'development ratio for the Eneas and Crown properties, the Dublin/Golden Gate
intersection would be approaching capacity. This intersection would be operating at LOS
D (0.89) with an FAR development scenario of 1.49. In addition, a FAR of 1.49 would
cause significant vehicle queuing problems in the westbound direction on Dublin
Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street. There is limited storage
capacity on this segment due to lane configurations and travel distance.~ Given the
additional vehicle trips that would be generated by a 1.49 FAR, there would not be
adequate stacking distance for westbound vehicles between San Ramon Road and Regional
Street during the PM peak hour.
In summary, the minimum FAR for the Eneas and Crown properties which would allow the
Dublin/San Ramon intersection to operate at LOS D (0.90) during the PM peak hour with no
mitigation would be 0.51. The maximum allowable FAR for the two properties with
recommended northbound triple left-turn lanes at the Dublin San Ramon intersection would be
1.49. However, given the limited vehicle stacking distance between San Ramon Road and
Regional Street, there would be significant transportation impacts associated with a 1.49 FAR
during the PM peak hour.
3
We hope that this letter helps to clarify various development scenarios for the Eneas and Crown
properties and apologize for any confusion caused by previous analyses reflecting "net additional
FAR." Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
, Peter j. ~llow~
Transportation Planner
attachments
Ray Kuzbari, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin, Personal communication on August
13, 2001.
4
Summary of Land Uses by Acres or Building Sqft
Dublin DowntoWn Development Program
Existing 1
Area/ Acrea/ Current
Land Use Category Unit Units Poiicy
Mixed [)se
tnleng~f cation
Core
Auto ~ate .~ Jol
Auto related bldg. sqft
Hotel bide s~ft.
Indus*, rial/Wa rehous~.~ b!dg
Of Jicel~otol btdg
Office/retail bldg. sq!t
Off!ce bldg, s~l.
Recreation/ante dainment bldg. sqtt.
Residential bldg.
Residential/rm~it bldg. s~t,
ResfdenliaVretatl/office bldg. sqft.
Resl~urenl bldg. sqft
ReCtauranCr~tail/office bldg. sqfl,
Retail general bide, sq~t
Retail/restaurant bfdg,
Relaiffres~auran~enlnmt bide, ~qfl
Ser~0r hou.Jng bidg, sqfl
Total Auto Sale, Acres
Total Bide, Sqft, (excluding auto s~tes)
BART Auto
AUIn related
Hotel
Indl~$triel/Wa re house
Office/hotel
Office/retail
Office
Recreatlon/entc rtalnment
Residenliat
Residentmuretait { ~. )
R esidenfi~l/retaiL/o fhce (2)
Rest~Ur ant/retail/offi~.e
Refait big bo~
Retail general
FlelaiVrestm,rant
Retali'/rost a ufa nL/entnmt
Senior
Building on pad<lng lot
bldg sqtt.
bide. sqft.
bide sqtt,
bldg.
bide, sqft.
bldg. sql'l,
bldg.
bldg. sqft,
bldg. sqft,
bldg. sqfL
bldg. sqft
bide, sqft.
bide, sqft.
bide. sqlt.
bldg. sqft,
bldg. sqft,
bide. sql/.
bldg. sqfl.
Total 81de. Sgtft. (excludtn~ aute sales)
'8.55
0
0
0
o
~3, ~20
69,752
0
0
0
0
0
271,354
0
~29,293
0
0
8,55
0
0
0
0
0
t3,120
6g,752
0
0
0
0
0
364,484
0
129,2~3
0
0
2 55
0
0
34~,117
29,~,Z0
69.752
0
14.%,505
0
0
0
340,552
38,.939
18.808
52,637
~¢t,340
8.55 8,55 2.55
483.519 576,649 1,11~,570
4,90 4.90 4.76
32,8R0 32,R80 0
103,23~ 223,23! 223.23!
210,744 2t0,744
0 0 0
0 ~ 74,908
~42,385 288,385 280.026
35,60Z 35,60~ 0
0 160.000 ~60,000
0 0 126,455
0 0 366,973
t7,823 17.823 18,816
0 0
0 0 0
243,344 243,344 ~34,355
0 0 0
0 0 90,473
O 0 0
6,120 ... 6,120 0
4.90 4.90 4.76
892,129 1,218,~29 1.870,828
Assumes relsil comprtses 33% of total buiiding soft. Sca Appen,],× A, continued for detai~s,
(2) Assumes'fermi is 20% and office is 13% of tolal building ~qft "~
~P .. Development
Sources' City of Dublin; Econnmic S Planning Syslems. Inc.
TABLE 4 EXISTING ENEAS PROPERTIES
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Eneas Properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49-2: Retail = 25,222
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Retail:
Dialy 25,222 42.92 1083
AM Peak 25,222 1.03 26
PM Peak 25,222 3.74 94
Parcel # 38-1: Retail = 46,421
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 46,421 42.92 1992
AM Peak 46,421 1.03 48
PM Peak 46,421 3.74 174
Parcel # 42-2: Chrysler Auto Dealership -' 24,890
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Auto Dealership
Daily 24,890 37.5 933
AM Peak 24,890 2.21 55
PM Peak 24,890 2.97 74
Parcel # 49-3: Retail -- 27,146
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 27,146 42.92 1165
AM Peak 27,146 1.03 28
PM Peak 27,146 3.74 102
Total Daily Trips: 5,173
Total AM Trips: 157
Total PM Trips: 444
In
16
45
Irt
29
83
In
40
3O
In
17
49
102
207
Out
10
49
Out
19
90
Out
15
44
Out
11
53
55
237
TABLE 4 EXISTING CROWN PROPERTIES
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Crown Properties:
Parcel # 15-7: Auto Dealership = 32,880
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
in
Out
Auto Dealership
Daily 32,880 37.5 1233
AM Peak 32,880 2.21 73
PM Peak 32,880 2.97 98
53
4O
20
58
Total Daily Trips: 1,233
Total AM Trips: 73
Total PM Trips: 98
53
40
20
58
MAR-19-2001 09:54
FROM ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYS.
Enea Properties
· Development Scenarios
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
TO
1925955224?-09310 P. 02
FAR Stories Acres LOt SF Building Bulldlng
SF Footpri~
Use
Units Parking Parking
Needed Met
Hiqh Densl~
48 aJld 49-2
1.5
49.~ - 2.8
38-1 1,5
42-2 1.5
Medium O..en_sity
48 and 49-2
1.0
49-3 1.0
38-1 1.0
42-2 1.0
48 and 49,-2
0.5
40-3 0.5
6 3,569 165,466 233.000
2.4f0 104,9~0 292.~44
3.900 189,884 255,000
4.000 1'/4,240 26%000
4 3.569 155,466 155,000
2, 2,410 104,g$0 10~.000
4 3.900 160,854 170,000
4000 t 74.2,-~3 174.000
2 3.569 1~5.466 75,000
2 2.410 104,980 50,000
39,000 Retail
Residential
98,000 Parking
43.000 Retail/Restaurant
Hotel
44,000 Retail
Office
39,000 Retail
Residential
0 Residential
Parking
43.000 Retail/Restauran!
Hotel
44,000 Partdng
Office
38,000 Retail
Re$1dentml
25,000 Residential
39,000 0
t95,000 195 293
234,000 195 410
'292,$44 0 0
43,000 0 129
215.000 430 430
258,0OO 430 659
44,000 0
220.000 0 660
264.000 0 792
1,048,544 625 1,761
39,000 0 117
117,000 117 176
156,000 117 293
836
314
322
1,761
34.000 34 51
71,000 0 0 202
I05,000 34 51 202
43,000 0 129
29,000 258 258
172.000 258 387 314
44.000 0 0 126
74.000 0 522 322
74,000 0 522 448
607,000 326 1,253 1,253
38,000 0 114
38,000 38 76
76,OOO 38 190
50,000 50 1 O0
190
lO0
38-1 0.5
42-2 0.5
2 3.900 100,~)84 82.000
41,000 Re~il/Restaurant
Hotel
2 4.000 174.240 84,000 42.000 Office
41,000 0 123
41,000 82 82
82,000 82 206
84,000 0 2~2
84,000 0 252
292,000 170 747
2O5
252
747
MAR-Iq-~001 09..~_> FRC'H ECOHQHIC :.~ PLANNING
-'
Crown Properties
Development Scenarios
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
TO
19259352247-09310 P. 03
FAR Stories Acres Lot SF Building Building
SF Footprint
SF
Units Parldng Parking
Needed Met
High De n s_*_~.
15-7 2.50 12 4.905 213,651 534,000
7,83 9 1.211 52,750 413,000
Medium Density
4S,000
47,475
Office
Parking
534,000 0
534,000 0
4t3,000 0
413,000 0
94%00O 0
1,602
1,602 421
0 1,181
0 1,181
1,602 1~02
15-7 1.75 8 4.905 213,651 374,000
32 4.68 5 1.211 52,750 247,000
Low Density
47,000
47,475
Office
Paring
374,000 0
374,000 0
247,000 0
247,000 0
621,000 0
1,12~
1,122 415
0 707
0 707
1,122 1,122
15-7 1.0
4 4.905 213,651 . 214,000
32 1.0 3 1.211 52,750 128,000
54,000
Office
Parking
Retail
214,000 0
214,000 0
118,000 0
10,000 0
128,000 0
342,000 0
642
642 334
0 338
$0'
30 338
672 672
TABLE 2 MEDIUM DENSITY SCENARIO
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Eneas Properties:
Parcel #'s 48 & 49-2: Retail = 39,000 Residential = 117 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Dialy 39,000 42.92 1674
AM Peak 39,000 1.03 40
PM Peak 39,000 3.74 146
Residential:
Daily 117 6.63 776
AM Peak 117 0.51 60
PM Peak 117 0.62 73
Parcel # 38-1: Retail = 2t,500 Restaurant = 21,500 Hotel = 129,000
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Retail:
Daily 21,500 42.92 923
AM Peak 21,500 1.03 22
PM Peak 21,500 3.74 80
Restaurant:
Daily 21,500 89.95 1934
AM Peak 21,500 0.81 17
PM Peak 21,500 7.49 161
Hotel:
Daily 129,000 8.23 1062
AM Peak 129,000 0.56 72
PM Peak 129,000 0.61 79
Parcel # 42-2: Office -- 174,000
Size/Units Trip Rate Project Trip
Office
Daily 174,000 11.01 1916
AM Peak 174,000 1.56 271
PM Peak 174,000 1.49 259
Parcel # 49-3: Residential -- 34 Units
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trip
Residential:
Daily 34 6.63 225
AM Peak 34 0.51 17
PM Peak 34 0.62 21
Total Daily Trips: 8,510
Total AM Trips: 499
Total PM ,Trips: 819
In
25
70
10
49
In
14
39
12
108
44
42
In
239
31
3
14
341
353
Out
16
76
5O
24
Out
9
42
8
53
28
37
Out
33
228
Out
15
7
159
467
2-¢
TABLE 3 LOW DENSITY SCENARIO
Daily, AM, and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Crown Properties
Parcel # 15-7 Office = 214,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trips
Office:
Daily 214,000 11.01 2356
AM Peak 214,000 1.56 334
PM Peak 214,000 1.49 319
Parcel # 32: Retail = 10,000
Size/Units Trip Rate
Project Trips
Retail:
Daily 10,000 42.92 429
AM Peak 10,000 1.03 10
PM Peak 10,000 3.74 37
Total Daily Trips: 2,785
Total AM Trips: 344
Total PM Trips: 356
In
294
36
In
6
18
30O
56
Out
4O
281
Out
4
19
44
300
Condition: PM2010DSP w/ 0.51 Total FAR E&C no mitigation
09/06/01
INTERSEE:TION 1 San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE ~(.)10 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT THRU LEFT
134 727 346
I , ~
I <--- v ---> I Split? N
LEFT 171 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 345 RIGHT
THRU 478 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 426 THRU
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608 --- 2.0 2.0 3.0 f-". 5 3.0 --- 1437 LEFT
~ < ........... > ~
v I ~ ~ v
W + E 838 1042 1536
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: San ~amon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME~ CAPACITY RATIO
CRITICAL
V/C
NB
RIGHT (R) 1536 534 ~ 3000 0.1780
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 3000 0.2793
O. 2793
SB
RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 0.1469
LEFT (L) 346 346 3000 0.1153
0.1469
EB
RIGHT (R) 608 147 * 3000 0.0490
THRU (T) 478 478 3300 0.1448
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 0.¢)570
0. 1448
WB
RIGHT (R) 345 155 ~ 1650 0.0939
THRU (T) 426 426 1650 0.2582
LEFT (L) 1437 1437 4304 0.3339
O. 3339
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACiTY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0. 'DC)
D
ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAP=
CCTALOS Software ver. "...'.35 bY TjKM Transport ation Consultants
Condition: PM...-~.I~.)DSF w/ 1.0 Total FAR E&.C nc, mitiqation
09/06/01
INTERSECTION i San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
N
W + E
S
493 ---> 2.0
608 '~..'. 0
V
RIGHT THRU LEFT
134 727 347
< --- v --- >
1.0 3.0 2.0
~ Split? N
1'. 0 --- 378 R I GHT
(NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 458 THRU
2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0--- 1566
< ........... > ~
~ ~ ~ v
838 1042 1589
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
LEFT
8-F'HASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: San Ramon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
CRITICAL
V/C
NB
RIGHT (R) 1589 497 * 3000
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950
LEFT (L) 838 838 3000
0.1657
0.2105
0.2793
0. 2793
SB' RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650
THRU (T) 727 727 4950
LEFT (L) 347 347 3000
0.0242
0.1469
0.1157
0.1469
EB
RIGHT (R) 608 147 * 3000
THRU (T) 493 493 3300
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000
0. 0490
O. 1494
O. 0570
0.1494
WB
RIGHT (R) 378 187 * 1650
THRU (T) 458 458 1650
LEFT (L) 1566 1566 4304
0.1133
0.2776
0.3638
0.3638
TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.94
E
* ~DJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT~VOL=P.VOL~CAP=
CCTALOS Software vet. 2.35 by TjKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: FM...(31,(3DSP w/ 1.6) Tot al FARE&C NBTripleLT MIT.
J9/06/01
INTEF.'.SEC:TION I San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City ,.,f Dublin
Cc, unt Date CUMULATIVE _013 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak He, ur 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 134 727 347
· ~ ~ ~ ~ .....
~ <--- v ---> ~ Split? N
LEFT 171 --- 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 378 RIGHT
THRU 493 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 458 THRU
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 1566 LEFT
v ~ ~ ~ v
N I ~ ~
W + E 838 1042 1589
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
SIG WAF.:RANTS:
Ur b=Y, F.:ur =Y
STREET NAME: San F.'.amon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* bAFA.,ITY RATIO
L.F.. I T I C. AL
V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1589 497 * 3000 0.1657
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 4304 0.1947
0. 1947
SB
RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 O. 1469
LEFT (L) 347 347 3000 0. 1157
0. 1469
EB
RIGHT (F.:) 608 287 * 3000 0. 0957
~r,r~ O. 1494
THF".U (T) 493 493 ,.:.,,.:, ......
LEFT (L) 171 171 3000 A.0570
0, 1494
WB
F.:IGHT (.F.'.) 378 187 * 165(:) 0. 1 ~-~
THF.'.U (T) 458 458 1650 0. 2776
LEFT (L) 1566 1566 4304 0.3638
0. ~¢ ~o
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.85
D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=B. INT, VOL=P. VOL, _.AF-
Condition: PM2010DSP w/ 1.49 TotalFAR E&C NBTripleLT MIT..
09/06/01
INTERSECTION 1 San Ramon/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
CCTA METHOD
LEFT
THRU
171 2.0
508 ---> 2.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
134 727 349
<--- v --->
1.0 3.0 2.0
('NO. OF LANES)
I Split? N
1.0 --- 411 RIGHT
1.0<--- 490 THRU
8-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 608 --- 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 --- 1695 LEFT
~ < .......... > ~
v ~ ~ ' v
N ~ ~ ~
W + E 838 1042 1642
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
SIG WARRANTS:
Ur b=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: San Ramon
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 1642 461 * 3000 0.1537
THRU (T) 1042 1042 4950 0.2105
LEFT (L) 838 838 4304 0.1947 0.1947
SB RIGHT (R) 134 40 * 1650 0.0242
THRU (T) 727 727 4950 0.1469 0.1469
LEFT (L) 349 349 3000 0.1163
EB RIGHT (R) 608 287 * 3000 0.0957
THRU (T) 508 508 3300 0.1539 0.1539
LEFT (L)~ 171 171 3000 0.0570
WB RIGHT (R) 411 219 * 1650 0.1327
THRU (T) 490 490 1650 0.2970
LEFT (L) 1695 1695 4304 0.3938 0.3938
TOTAL VOLUME'TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.89
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
tNT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL,CAP=
'~ ~= bY TJKM Transportation Consultants ~. ~-~
CCTALOS Software ver, ~.o~ ~
Condition: PM2010Dsp w/ 1.49 Total
09/06/01
INTERSECTION 2 Golden Gate/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin
Count Date CUMULATIVE 2010 Time PM CUMULATIVE Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM
' CCTA METHOD
LEFT
THRU
348 --- 1.0
1456 --->3.0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
271 74 56
<--- v --->
1.1 1.1 1.0
(NO. OF LANES)
~ Split? N
1.1 --- 70 RIGHT
3.1<--- 1097 THRU
5-PHASE SIGNAL
STREET NAME:
Dublin Boulevard
RIGHT 389 1.0
N
W + E
S
2.0 1.1 2. 1 1.0 ---
< ...... · ___> :
~ : : v
716 208 537
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? N
218 LEFT
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Golden Gate
MOVEMENT
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED
VOLUME VOLUME*
CAPACITY
V/C
RATIO
CRITICAL
V/C
NB
RIGHT (R) 537 319 * 3000
THRU (T) 208 208 1650
LEFT (L) 716 716 3000
T + R 527 3000
0.1063
0.1261
0.2387
0.!757
O. 2387
8B
RIGHT (R) 271 271 1650
THRU (T) 74 74 1650
LEFT (L) 56 56 1650
T + R 345 1650
0.1642
0.0448
0.0339
0.2091
O. 2091
EB
RIGHT (R) 389
THRU (T) 1456
LEFT (L) 348
0 * 1650
1456 4950
348 1650
0.0000
0.2941
0.2109
O. 2109
WB
RIGHT (R) 70 70 1650
THRU (T) .1097 1097 4950
LEFT (L) 218 218 1650
T + R 1167 4950
0,0424
0.2216
0.1321
0.2358
0.2358
TOTAL VOLUME-.TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.89
D
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
~NT=B. INT,VOL=P.VOL, CAP=
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISS.ION 'MEETING DATE: June 26, 200'!
SUBJECT:
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HRlt Properties, PA# 01--020
Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
ATTACIIMENTS:
1..ResolutiOn recommending City Council approve the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan Amendment
2. Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) dated May
31, 2001
3. Initial Traffic Analysis prepared by Omni-Means dated April !9, 2001
4. Subsequent Traffic Calculations prepared by Omni-Means dated May
15, 2001
RECOMMEN~DATION:
2.
3.
4.
Open public hearing and receive staff presentation.
Receive testimony of property owners and the public.
Question staf~ property.owners and public.
Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment
to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1,00 on
the subject properties and other properties designated as.Retail/Office
and Commercial B, and amend Specific'Plan Table 5 and appropriate
Maps as shown in attached Exhibits A through G.
DESCRIPTION:
On December 19, 2000, in adopting the West Dublin'B~T Specific Plan, the City Council directed staff
at the request of the property owner to analyze a change in the.intensity of development and the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) for the property presently operating as Crown Chevrolet located 'in the Specific'Plan
area. at. the southeast comer of D'ublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive. Additionally, the City Council
directed ~t'aff to analyze inclusion of approximately 20 acres of adjacent proPerty known as the Enea
Plaza and adjacent office development within the Specific Plan area boundaries,, along-with a request by
the property owner to increase the F .AR._ for. that pmperty~ Staffhas evaluated the requests based on
economic and traffic analyzes prepared by conSultants, and recommends that a Specific Plan Amendment
be recommended for adoption bY'the City.Council-.to change the F~ tO 1,:06 for both. p!;opeCrties~ revise
the Land Use Concept map in the Plan to reflect the projected uses, and-include the.Enea and Office
properties at the end of Amador Plaza Road within the' planning area boundaries.
Background
In a letter dated October 26, 2000, Rober~ Enea of St~ Michael InYestmem expressed concern that the
properties on which the Enea.Ptaza shOpping center, the Stoneridge :Chry, sler auto dealership and the
office'buildings at the terminus of Amad.or Plaza Road are located were not included within the boundary
of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, and thereby would not receive the benefits O~'a ~gher FAR
Copies To:
Property owners
PA File ,
H U-ENT3.
as other properties near the BART Station would. In determining the extent of the boundaries of the ~
redeveloped, it was not anticipated that a change in use would occur over the five- to seven-year time life
envisioned by the. Plan. Mr. Enea has requested that an FAR of 1.00 and a Commercial B use designation
be applied to the properties. Additionally, Mr. Enea has requested that the increased FAR and the
Commercial B use designation be.applied to the adjacent property at the end of Amador Plaza Road
where office buildings are presently located, owned by HHH Investment Company and the Aldo Guidotti
Trust.. In this report, the Enea, HHH Investment Company, and. Guidotti properties will be referred to as
the Enea/HHH properties.
The City Council also received a letter dated November 16, 2000' from William Burns and another dated
December 14, 2000 from Mark Hirsch, both representing Betty Wootverton and Crown Chevrolet,
requesting a change in land use for approximately six acres located at the southeast comer of Dublin
Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive and at the southeast comer of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive
to permit construction of an office and retail building twelve or more stories in height and a FAR increase
to 2.50 for the site. In the existing Specific Plan, the property was assumed to remain as an auto
dealership with the existing FAR of. 18. This assumption that the property would remain under the
existing use was made based on conversations with Crown Chevrolet during the development of the
Specific Plan. Since the 'Specific Plan analysis was essentially complete when the letter was received
from Mr. Burns indicating that the property owner was interested in a change in land use and intensity for
the site, the City Council directed staff to initiate an evaluation of the request and that of Mr. Enea
following adoption of the Plan.
ANALYSIS:
In the development of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan last year, an extensive economic analysis of
existing and projected market demands was prepared by a consulting land use economics firm, EPS, to
assist in determining potential land uses and FAR' s, or intenSity of use, for properties within the Plan
area. Based on the information compiled in the economic study, a thorough traffic and circulation
analysis was prepared by Omni-Means, the City's traffic consultant, to determine the maximum intensity
of development which could be supported by the existing transportation system, programmed roadway
improvements, the introduction of the BART station, and additional traffic mitigation measures to ensure
that major downtown intersections continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. To evaluate the
requested changes for the Enea/HHH Properties and the Crown Chevrolet site in this amendment,
additional economic and traffic analyzes, were also prepared'to evaluate various levels of land use
intensity and development 'for the properties and thereby determine the maximum development potential
possible for this portion of the .Specific Plkn area.
Economic Analysis
The impetus for development in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is the future BART station at
the terminus of Golden Gate Drive, 'immediately north ofthe 1-580 freeway. 'The development of the
BART station, which is expected to be completed in 2004, is anticipated to resuk in a significant increase
in the demand 'for new office, commercial., high-density residential and similar uses because of improved
regional accessibility and the patronage of the new transit station. When the Specific Plan was prepared
and adopted, many of the land use types in this area were changed to uses consistent with more urbanized
development to reflect the economic projections of EPS's study. Additionally, the intensity of use,
2
expressed in floor area ratio (FAR), or the ratio of the square footage of the site to that of the structure on
~: t~h¢~ ..4i.~. · or~m~ope~wa~incma~~¢~~~m~F.~_A~.p,&S~Ul~tO · ._k~. 00~; .dcpcn~t .~. ~..
on the property's location in proximity to the BART station and the projected land use.
The economic ana!ysis'prepared for 'the amendment to the Plan now being Considered analyzed the Crown
Chevrolet property and'the Enea/HHH properties t° determine the appropriate land use type and
maximum developmem potential, reflected by the FAR, for Lose sites within ~e context of their
locations relative to the..BART station. Various land use sce~o.s and FAR's consisting of.low-,
medium- and high, iintensity development were tested by.the economic c0ns!~tant for each property to
illustrate possible development potential, and.these are shown in Table 1 of the Memor~dum from
EconOmic & Planning Systems (EPS) dated May :31., 200'!, Aaachment 2. This .information i.s briefly
summarized below. The economic analysis also projected the revenue impacts on the City of each !and
use change in Table 2 of Attachment 2. '
Crown Chevrolet Property: The Crown Chevrolet propertyis currently shown :in the Land Use Plan,
Exhibit 9, of'the West.DublinBART Specific Plan with a Retail/Auto land uSe designation. The Crown
Chevrolet property contains an auto dealership which is planned to move to the East Dublin area to locate
With the other auto dealerships currently there. The existing FAR for the Crown Chevrolet site is
approximately. 18, with an existing 38,325 square feet of building space. The existing FAR.and square
footage of the structures on the site are reflected in the Specific Plan in Table 5, Maximum Economic
Development Potential. The majority of the lot acreage is utilized as parking and storage of automobiles
and tracks. The property owner has requested, a high-intensity FAR and development potential of 2,50 for
the site~
The location of the property at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive, which is less
than one-quarter mile from the future BART stmion, lends itself to potentially be developed as an office
type use. 'There is also a potential market in.this area for ground, floor retail. Based on the. square footage
that would result from developing the Crown Chevrolet site at a FAR of 1.00 (low-intensity)~.l.75
(medium-intensity) or 2.:50 (high~intensitY), a parking structure at varying he~ghts.wo'uld be necessary on
the smaller 1.211 .acm parcel SoUth of St. Patrick Way to accommodate-the t~arhng needs of the
development. Because parking structures are not considered in the'calculation of FAR, as ~ey usually
contain little or no useable space, the building square footage associated with the acreage in the smaller
parcel has been added to the amount permitted on the office use parcel in the following *.able. The low-
intensity scenario includes a small amount (! 0~000 square:feet) Of ground,level retail in the parking
garage building.
Crown Chevrolet Prope ,rty - Maximum Development Potential
DeVelopment~ FAR (FlOor project~d Land Acreage ' ExiSting Potential Required
Intensity A.roa Ratio) ~Se Sq~re S~Uare .St°ties
.FOOtage. ~OOtag~ ..
Low 1.® " Office"' 4.905 38,.325 ...... 266',000''' 4"
parhng/Retail 1.211 '0 !0~000 4
6.116 3.8,325 276,000 soft' ' '
Medium 1.75 .Office 4.905' 38,325 ' ,;:..' .i
....... . .... 466,000 8
Parking 1.211 0 · 0 8
i 6.116 38,325 466,000 sqfl
High 2.50 Office 4.905 38,325 534,000 12
Parking 1.211 0 0 9
6.116 38,325 $34,000sqfl
As shown in the table above, a FAR of 1.00' applied to the Crown Chevrolet property could result in a
maximum of approximately 276,000 square feet of development, which is over seven times the mount of
building sqUare footage on the property at the present fn'ne. At a FAR of 1.75, approximately 466,000
square feet of space could be developed, approximately t 2 times greater in size than the existing building
area on the site. The highest intensity tested for the site, a FAR of 2.50 as requested by the property
owner, could create 534,000 square feet of building area, and would be approximately 14 times greater in
size than the existing building area presently on the site.
The low-intensity FAR evaluated is. only considered "low" for the purposes of this study. A FAR of t.00
for this portion of the Specific Plan would exceed the FAR of all existing development in the Plan area as
the average FAR for developed properties in the area is .23. As the FAR is increased for the property and
the square footage of the building size increases, the parking needs for the development wouldalso
increase. Additionally, as.the development of the site intensifies to an FAR of 1.75 or 2.50, the number of
stories in the office building and the parking structure increase. At the present time, eight stories is the
maximum height permitted in the Specific Plan area, which corresponds with the medium-intensity FAR
of 1.75 in the above table. With the increased square footage at the various development intensity levels,
the traffic impacts of the potential development on the downtown area increase proportionately. This is
addressed in the Traffic Analysis section below.
Enea/HHHProperties: Robert Enea is requesting that the boundaries of the Specific Plan be adjusted to
include his remaining approximately 14 acre property adjacent to the existing Plan boundaries and extend
to the alignment of the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways, and that the land i~se type for this area be shown as
Commercial B in the Plan with a permitted FAR of 1.00. The land is currently-developed as a Planned
Development district containing the Enea Plaza, a retail shopping center, and the Stoneridge Chyrsler auto
and truck dealership. As this property was not included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, a
potential l'and use is not shown in this location on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9, of the Specific Plan.
Additionally, an approximately 6 acre portion of the property at' the end of Amador Plaza Road, owned by
HHH Investment Co. and Aldo Guidotti, is currently within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan area and is included in Mr. Enea's request for the land use change. In the Specific Plan, this
property is shown as Retail/Office in the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9~ with an increased FAR of .83. The
existing building square footage on the site, currently developed with three office buildings, is 61,812
square feet, and with the increased FAR shown in the current Specific Plan, it has a pOtential for
redevelopment at approximately 225,250 square feet. Mr. Enea has requested that this be increased to a
FAR of 1.00 with this amendment, and the Land Use Plan reflect a Commercial B type land use for
cOnsistency wi;~h the Enea Plaza property.
In his request to the City Council, Mr. Enea expressed a desire for flexibility in the COmmercial B land
use category on the properties to accommodate potential lodging or upper level apartment uses. The
property is currently zoned as a Planned Development district which allows commercial and retail uses
similar to a C-1 General Commercial zoning district. A motel or hotel facility is required to obtain a
.. ~+~onditional_t~~m~an~~m~ssi~er4h~ ~hag~.~knanee~/~n~att ................
commercial zoning disWicts. In this instance, an amendment to the Planned Development district would
be necessary to permit a motel or hotel facility in this area. In regard to upper level apartment uses,
Objective 6.7 of the Specific Plan allows the City to consider a vertical mix of uses, such as residential
over retail use, and also live/work units in the planning area when reviewing a proposal.
In analyzing development intensifies and land uses for the properties, the economic consu.l.tant considered
three potential .FAR designations and land use.mixes. The property is currently built at a FAR of.21 .on
the retail portion of the Enea/HHH properties, and at a FAR of..23 on the portion 0fthe properties
developed as office uses. The low-intensitY development scenario in the economic study assumed a FAR
of .50 with ·retail, office, residential and hotel uses on the 14 acre retail portion ofthe properties. The
medium-intensity development scenario assumed a FAR of 1.00 with similar use types and a parking
garage. The highest intensity of development for the property considered in the analysis was at a FAR or
1.50. The portion of the properties containing the existing office uses was not analyzed in the economic
study as it is in the current Specific Plan at a FAR of .83, and only the medium, and high-intensity
development scenarios would increase the allowable square footage on the property. However, staff did
evaluate it for this amendment, and with a change from the existing FAR of .83 to 1.00 as ·requested, an
increase of approximately 47,000 square feet would result in the office use .area. With a FAR of 1.50, an
increase of approximately 183,800 square feet would result. The resulting maximum development
potential and square footage projected for the entire Enea/HHH property area considered for change at
this time is summarized in the table below.
Enea/HHH Properties - Maximum Development Potential
Development FAR projected Land Use Acreage EXisting Potential R'~qU'ired
Intensity Square SqUare Stories
· Footage ~°Otage/Units. ...
Low ' ' .50 Retail/KeSideritial 3.569 46~42'1 ..... '75,000/38'du 2
· Residential' 2.4i0 27,146 .... ? 50~000/100dii 2 '
Hotel/Restaurant 3.900 25,672 82,000 2
OffiCe ' ·4;000 24,890 84~000 2
.Retail/Office 6;260 61,81'2 136,345 ' .2
13*du
Residemial/Parhng 2.410 27,146 !32~000/34'da 2
HOtel~Retail~ReStaurant 3,900 25,672 170¢000 4
.Q]ffiCe~hng 4tO00 ~4,840..!74:,.Qi~0.' '' 4
.Re~ai!/office~arking '6.260 6·1·,812 · .'2.72~.690· ' 4 · '
1210,.14 · 1:18&891. 904~690.sq.ft. · .
lXIdu
High 1.50 Retail/Residential 3·,569 ·46,421 233,0'00/194du 6
[.Parking 224!.0 ..27,~46 315,000 .3'
5
Hotel/Retail/Restaurant 3.900 25,672 255,000 6
Retail/Office/Parking 62260 61~812 409,030 6
20,14 185,891 1,4 73,030sq.ft.
194du
As summarized in the table above, a FAR of .50 would increase the potential square footage on the Enea
properties to 427,345 (oVer two times the .existing square footage on the property), and could add 138
dwelling units to the site. At a medium-intensity FAR (1.00), as requested by the prope.rty owner, the
square footage could increase to 904,690 square feet (over 4 times the existing square footage on the
Property), and provide 151 dwelling units. The highest intensity of development (1.50), could result in up
to 1,473,030 square feet of office and retail commercial development in this area,.with 194 dwelling
units. Development at this level of intensity would be almost eight times greater in square footage than
the existing development on the site. If a project were proposed containing a multi-family residential
component, as analyzed in the economic analysis, a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Amendment may be required. This is not being considered with this amendment as no actual
development proj eot has yet been proposed for the property..
Traffic Analysis
Based on the information compiled in the economic study for the Crown Chevrolet site'and the
Enea/HHH properties, a thorough traffic and circulation analysis was prepared by Omni-Means, to
evaluate the effects on the transportation system in'the downtown area of the various levels of
development intensities and the land use mixes in the land use scenarios. The traffic analysis was then
utilized to determine the maximum development potential that could be supported by the existing
transportation system, programmed roadway improvements, introduction of the .BART station, and the
traffic mitigation measures included in the Specific Plan, to ensure that maj or downtown intersections
continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service.
The traffic analysis prepared by Omni-Means, Attachment 3, contains the results of the traffic
consultant's evaluation of the scenarios. The analysis found that the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road would operate at.an unacceptable level-of-service (LOS) E during the PM peak hour
with the low-intensity, medium-intensity and high-intensity development scenarios. As the development
intensity increased, the LOS at this intersection deteriorated proportionately. With the high-intensity
development scenario, the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive also deteriorated to
LOS E in both the AM and'PM peak hour.
After review of the traffic consultant's analysis, staff requested that another development alternative
providing ali the properties in the study area with a FAR of 1.00 be evaluated to determine if an
acceptable LOS could be maintained while still providing the properties with a higher development
potential. The resulfmg analysis determined that the LOS at the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road
intersection would operate atan acceptable level (LOS D) during both the AM and PM peak hours (refer
to Attachment 4, Subsequent Traffic Calculations prepared by Omni-Means dated May 15, 2001).
Additionally, Public Works staff tested an increase in'the FAR to 1.25 for both properties and found that
that !evel~ of development intensity was close to the threshold between LOS D and E. Staff determined
that the increased FAR for all the properties at 1.00 would be the best alternative relative to maintaining
~_am ac.~epmble L O,q aL~jrm4 n t er~.~ ;mm~imthe.-...: d o wn~ea~. ........ ~ ......
Additionally, with the increased development potential from a change in the FAR of.83 to 1.00 on the
existing office site at the end of Amador Plaza Road (an increase of approximately 47,000 square feet),
and adjustments in the FAR for other properties in the planning area shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the SpeCific Plan. This revision in the mmum.development potential for these
properties would allow development .opportunities for those.properties similar to those provided by this
amendment to the Crown Chevrolet and Enea/HHH properties (discussed below in the section on Land
Use Modifications),. and traffic volumes would increase slightly. However, the.slight increase in traffic
associated with these modifications in the Plan would still maintain an acceptable LOS for traffic
operations in the downtown.
Height Issues
The amendment request from the property owner of the Crown Chevrolet property suggests that an
increase in the limit for buildings be allowed.for this particular site to permit buildings up to twelve
stories in height. The current height regulation in the Specific Plan allows construction of buildings up to
eight stories in height. When the City Council considered adoption of the Specific Plan in December
2000, an increase in height for buildings up to ten stories was considered. However, the Council
determined that the eight-story height limitation.was most .appropriate for the area, and an increase up to
ten stories might be considered if an outstanding building design was submitted for consideration on a
specific site in ~the future. At that future time, the City Council.would then evaluate such a change in the
regulation.
Additionally, the economic study :Prepared for the amendment evaluated the maximum height that would
be feasible given the potential FAR and parking needs based on building square footage and determined
that more than eight stories in this 'area would not be feasible. At the present time, the tallest building iai,
the downtown area is four stories. Staffrecommends that the increase in the height limitation for this arco
be considered when a specific development is proposed and a well-developed building design is
submitted.
Land Use Plan Modifications and Recommended FAR
With the possible move of Crowa Chevrolet from the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. area to the auto
dealership area in East Dublin, a change in the land Use type in the.Plan for.this property is logical. Based
on the office use across GOlden Gate Drive from the site, its proximity'to the BART station, and :the
potential'for other Office uses to develop on Golden Gate Drive toward the 'BART Station, a Retail/Office
designation for the site in the Specific Plan, as requested by the Property owner, is appropriate. This
would allow development of office and retail uses on the site in'the furore.
A Commercial B type land use on the Enea/HHH properties, as requested by Robert Enea, would allow
development of retail businesses including specially retail, restaurants, offices, entertainment and 'other
pedestrian-oriented uses. The businesses within the existing Enea Plaza shopping center are Similar to the
specialty retail and restaurant businesses permitted by this category. The existing office type uses on the
6 acre property at the end of Amador Plaza Road would also be permitted within this category of:uses.
7
Because of the.proXimity of the future BART station, these pedestrian-oriented uses would be appropriate,
facilitate this change.
Based on the economic and traffic analyses prepared for this amendment, a FAR of 1.00 for the subject
properties is recommended. In addition to this revision, changes to FAR's for other properties shown as
Retail/Office and Commercial B in the planning area are recommended to provide consistency in the Plan
and provide similar properties with the same development potential opportunities. As discussed in Se
traffic analysis section of this report, acceptable levels-Of-service could still be maintained at major
intersections in the downtown area with this modification.
General Plan/Zoning Conformity
The existing General Plan designation for both the Crown Chevrolet site and the EneaJHHH properties is
Retail/Office. The modifications to the Land Use Concept in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
proposed with the amendment would not require a change in the General Plan land use designation for the
properties. The Specific Plan Retail/Office and Commercial B land use categories to be applied to'the
properties are consistent with the General Plan designation of Retail/Office as currently exists on the
properties.
The Crown Chevrolet site is presently zoned C~2 General Commercial Zoning District, which allows a
variety of office and commercial retail uses. The existing C-2 zoning district is consistent'with the'
proposed change in the 'Specific Plan land 'use category for the site and with the projected use as an office
and retail development. The Enea/HHH properties are zoned as Planned Development Zoning Districts
which permit a specific variety of office, retail and other commercial service type uses similar to the C-2
zoning district. In general, the Commercial B Specific Plan category as proposed in this amendment is
consistent with these uses. However, when an actual development project is proposed in the future for
redeveloping the properties, a review of the proposed uses on the site will be necessary to ensure
consistency with the Specific Plan and the zoning district. An amendment to the Planned Development
Districts' regulations or a rezoning may be required 'at that time.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of increased FAR' s were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown .Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments approved on December 19, 2000.
The proposed project is consistent with ~he range of uses and FAR's in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area. Additionally, a supplemental traffic analysis was prepared
for this amendment to assess the impacts of the increased FAR's on the transportation system in the
downtown area. No 'additional impacts of the'project have been identified at this time. Further
amendments or changes in the Specific Plan may require additional assessment, and specific development
proposals on individual sites may require additional analyses.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the studies prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a
modification in the FAR for the subject properties, revisions to the Land Use Concept, and a revision to
the.Plan boundaries is appropriate at this time. These changes would be in conformance with the intent of
~he~pe~ifie~lanAo~r~ate~a~i~k~ban~~-nmeat4n:elose:p~mi~t~~tra~~-ies...-~d...-.-~.-:-: ...~ ...... ,,.., .~
transportation corridors.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by Staff that the Planning Commission t~ke the following actions:
I) Open public hearing.
2) Receive pmsema, tion by Staff.
3) Receive public testimony.
4) Close public hearing.
5) Consider analysis of amendment and testimony.
6) Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment to the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on the subject properties and other properties designated as
Retail/Office and Commercial B, and amend Specific Plan Table 5 and appropriate Maps as shown in
attached Exhibits A through G.
9
APPLICANT:
City 0f Dubtin
PROPERTY OWNER:
Crown Chevrolet Property:
Betty Woolverton et al.
1484 Emmons Canyon Dr.
Alamo, CA
Enea/HHH Properties:
Robert Enea
St. Michael Investments
6670 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
HHH Investment Co.
6665 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Atdo Gaidotti Trust
104 Diablo View
Orinda, CA 94563
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
7544 Dublin Boulevard; 6401-6445 & 6707 Golden Gate
Drive; 6665-6680 & 7450-7498 Amador Plaza Road
941-1500-014-17, -015-07, -032-00, ,038-01, -042,02, -048-
00, -049-2, -049-3, -051-02, -052-00, & -053-00; and various
other properties in the Specific Plan area.
PD Planned Development and C-2 General Commercial
Districts
Retail/Office
R/A Retail/Auto and R/O Retail/Office
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's in the planning
area were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan
Amendments approved on December t9, 2000. The proposed
project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's provided
for in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan for this area.
t0
RESOLUTION NO. 01- 13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR 01-024
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the 'broad vision
expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City adopted the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on December 19, 2000
which was prepared pursuant tO Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at the request of property owners, the Planning Commission does find that it is
appropriate to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to extend the planning area boundaries
and include properties consisting of approximately 14 acres to the east of the existing area as shown
on Exhibit B, Specific Plan Boundary, Exhibit 3 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find it appropriate to amend the Iand use category
to Retail/Office for approximately 6 acres of land located in the Specific Plan area at the southeast
corner of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive for the property known as the Crown Chevrolet'
site, and to Commercial B for approximately 20 acres of land located to the'west, east and south of
Amador Plaza Road known as the Enea/HHH properties, as shown on Exhibit G, Land Use Plan,
Exhibit 9 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find that based on the economic and traffic
studies prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a modification in
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 1.00 for the subject properties, and for other properties to ensure
consistenCy in the Plan, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5 of the Wesf Dublin BART Specific Plan,
Maximum Development Potential, as amended, is appropriate to create a vital urban environment in
close proximity to public transit facilities and transportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of increased FAR' s were addressed by the Negative
· Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments
approved on December 19, 2000, and prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071 and on
file in the Dublin Planning Department. The Negative Declaration found that the implementation of
the Specific Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures were
incorporated into the Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area. No additional
impacts of the project have been identified at this time; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the amendment to the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan on June 26, 2001 and received testimony and comments from the
public and property owners; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the
land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General
Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the
City Council to: (1) modify the Plan boundaries as shown in Exhibit B; (2) revise Table 5 of the Plan
to reflect an increase in the allowable FAR for certain properties to 1.00 as shown in Exhibit A; (3)
revise the land use category for the property known as the Crown Chevrolet site to Retail/Office, and
for the property known as the Enea/HHH properties to Commercial B as shown in Exhibit G; and (4)
revise the applicable West Dublin BART Specific Plan Maps as shown in Exhibits C, D, E and F.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2001.
AYES:
Cm. Johnson, Musser, and Fasulkey
NOES:
ABSENT: Cm. Jennings and Nassar
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
G\Downtown Specific Plans\West BARTXPC reso West BART Amend 6-26.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
TO ATTACHMENT 1
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PA 01-020
Table 5. Maximum Economic Development Potential (Amended)
SP Land Use Category* Acres FAR Existing Dev. Max. Dev.
~ DU/AC (sq. ft.)** (sq. ft.)
Commercial A (Corn A) 10.87 0.25 243,344 118,375
Commercial B (Corn B) 7.76 nv. nQ.~ ~, w, ,w~Q~ !63,090
26. 69 1. O0 203, 7.14 7.l, 162, 620
Lodging (L) 9.31 1.20. 103,231 339,530
(246 rooms) (486 rooms)
Retail/Office (R/O) 12.28 n,,.,,.~': 38, 325 a~...,-~ A.~
18. 40 1. O0 80J, 500
Residential (R) 3.54 45 DU/ac -- 160 DU
Office (O) 6.98 1.00 242,385 304,050
Mixed Use (MU) 11.33 1.00 -- 493,430+
331 DU
Parking (P) 2.46 ......
Right-of-Way 2.11 ......
Totals wa woo ~< ~ n~ !,900,950
91.69 831,000 3,219,505
0 DU 491 DU
*Note: Potential plazas areas included in acreages
** Existing 2 ] O, 744 Industrial/Warehouse square footage not included.
(rev. 6/26/01pc)
EXHIBIT B
TO ATTACHMENT I
..__...-J
Area of boundary
LEGEND
~' · "~ SPECIFIO PLAN BOUNDARY
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
.DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT C
TO ATTACHMENT 1
LEGEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
~ RETAII. JRESTAURANT
~ OFFICE/SERVICE COMMERCIAL
~ INDUSTRIAl/BUSINESS PARK
~ HOTEL/ENTERTAINMENT
I ' I VACANT 04
~ . ,,, .... ~[';';';';';';';';";';;~ RETAIL/AUTO /~~.
_EXISTING LAND USES JUNE 2001
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN C I T Y OF D U B L i N
EXHIBIT 4
.]LAI-IIDI 1 13
TO ATTACHA/IENT 1
LEGEND ......
I~"~'~',,,%~'"'¢~ puBuo/SEMI-PUBLiOFAOILITY ~ \\\\\ '~"~"%'~"~ /////
..... · -,~.~_~:__~_:_:.:..~ : ...----~.~ ......................................................... ~ ---/I/I/
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN JUNE 2OOl
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN C I T Y O F D U B L i N
EXHIBIT 5
I'~-AI'-III51 !
TO'ATTACHMENT 1.
LEGEND
~ O-1: RETAIL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
E"""'"';V'";'¢Z~r"4 0-2: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
~:~ ~.-~..*~_Mr-I~&I GIqT..-1 NDUSTRIAL-.ZONIN(
EXISTING ZONING
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT.6
EXHIBIT F
.TO ATTACHMENT l
__1~] ~STATE-5~O: '
LEGEND
Ii1111111 ARTERIAL STREET
~ ! I ~ll OOLLECTOR STREET
II.II(P)IIII PROPOSED STREET (ST.,PATRICK'S WAY) ~
Illll([i:~l"lll PROPOSED BIKEWAY- CLASS II (LANE) ,/,?/~1!~'~ '~'~,,%
............................................................ ~ N.T, Si -'-'-'--'~'"--~--'--'"'--:---~ ........................
CIRCULATION SYSTEM JUNE 2001 ~
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN C I T Y 0 F D U B L I N
EXHIBIT 7
ATTACHMENT 1
ea to be
(co~ B)
(Wo)
~N] bHSTATE 580
LEGEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY (MU)
~ ~ 'USE AS NOTED (COM B)
~ POTENTIAL PLAZA LOCATION (0)
~ OPPORTUNITY SITE
(R/O)
(P) PARKING (R)
MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL B
OFFICE
RETAIIjOFFICE
RESIDENTIAL
~ i \\\\\V_~.~,,/' ]//I/__~.
LAND USE PLAN . ¢UNE 2oo~
-WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN C I T Y O F D U B L I N
, EXHIBIT 9
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 25, 2001
SUBJECT:
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HHH Properties (PA# 01-024): Modification of Traffic
Mitigation Measures
Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approve the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan Amendment with the modification of traffic
mitigation measures
2. Summary of Transportation Methodologies Related to the Dublin
Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means dated September 5, 2001
3. Planning Commission agenda report and minutes for June 26, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing and receive staff presentation.
Question staff.
Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment
to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on
the subject properties and other properties designated as Retail/Office
and Commercial B, and amend Traffic Mitigation Measures, Specific
Plan Table 5, and appropriate Maps as shown in attached Exhibits A
through G.
DESCRIPTION:
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending an amendment to the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan for the Crown Chevrolet and Enea/HHH Properties to the City Council for approval on June
26, 2001. The amendment is being brought back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration due to
the addition of a traffic mitigation measure related to the potential traffic generation of the increased Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) on the subject properties.
Background:
On June 26, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution,recommending that the City Council
approve a Specific Plan Amendment to change the FAR to 1.00 for the Crown Chevrolet and Enea/HHH
Properties, revise the Land Use Concept map in the Plan to reflect the projected uses, and include the
Enea and office properties at the end of Amador Plaza Road within the planning area boundaries of the
Specific Plan. (Note: A full analysis of the requested amendment is contained in the Planning
Commission agenda report for June 26, 2001, Attachment 3.)
Following the Planning Commission's consideration of the project, it was determined that the traffic
analysis performed by Omni-Means for the amendment should have included the traffic generation rates
for the approved Schaefer Ranch development in evaluating the traffic impacts of the changes proposed
with the amendment, and appropriate traffic mitigation measures should be suggested accordingly. As a
result of this revised analysis, an additional traffic mitigation measure to include a third northbound left-
Copies To: Property owners
PA File
Senior Planner Item No.
ATTACHMElqT-
turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road is suggested by the traffic
consultant for inclusion in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to reduce any potential traffic impacts of
the increased FAR.
ANALYSIS:
In evaluating the amendment request, staff developed several land use scenarios at various intensities for
testing by the traffic consultant to determine the maximum development capacity for this portion of the
downtown area. With the increased square footage at the various development intensity levels, the
resulting traffic impacts on the downtown area increase proportionately. This is addressed in the Traffic
Analysis section below.
Traffic Analysis
The traffic analysis was utilized to determine the maximum development potential that could be supported
by the existing transportation system, programmed roadway improvements, introduction of the BART
station, and the traffic mitigation measures included in the Specific Plan, to ensure that major downtown
intersections continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. In the previous traffic analysis reviewed
by the Planning Commission, the Schaefer Ranch project's traffic generation trips were excluded.
Attachment 2 contains the results of the traffic consultant's revised analysis of the various development
scenarios that were tested for the amendment which includes the traffic projected from the Schaefer
Ranch development.
In determining the volume of traffic for the analysis, the traffic consultant projected the volume of trips
anticipated to be generated under the existing land use intensities of the Specific Plan and all proposed
and/or approved projects, and added those expected to be generated by the increased FAR for the subject
properties. The resulting analysis found that the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road
would operate at an unacceptable level-of-service (LOS) E during the PM peak hour in the Iow-intensity,
medium-intensity and high-intensity development scenarios analyzed in the study if no mitigation was
added to the Specific Plan program. As the development intensity increased, the LOS at this intersection
deteriorated proportionately. With the high-intensity development scenario, the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive also deteriorated to LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hour without
mitigation. The maximum level of intensity of development which could be allowed on both the Crown
and Enea and still maintain an acceptable level of service (LOS D) without mitigation at the intersection
of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road was determined by the traffic consultant to be a total FAR of
0.51.
After review of the traffic consultant's analysis, staff requested that the development alternative providing
all the properties in the study area with a FAR of 1.00 be evaluated to determine if an acceptable LOS
could be maintained while still providing the properties with a higher development potential. The
resulting analysis determined that the LOS at the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection would
operate at an unacceptable level LOS, E (0.94) during both the PM peak hour, without mitigation, and
with a FAR of 1.00 for the properties. The traffic consultant has recommended that an additional
northbound left-tm lane be included in programmed improvements in the Specific Plan for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road to maintain an acceptable LOS. With this mitigation
measure, the intersection would improve to LOS D (0.85) during the PM peak hour. This mitigation
measure is included in the resolution in Attachment 1 recommended for adoption by the Planning
Commission.
With the increased development potential from a change in the FAR of .83 to 1.00 on the existing office
site at the end of Amador Plaza Road (an increase of approximately 47,000 square feet), as recommended
by staff, and adjustments in the FAR for other properties in the planning area shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the Specific Plan, traffic generation levels would increase slightly, in the area. This
revision in the maximum development potential for these properties would allow development
opportunities for those properties similar to those provided by this amendment to the Crown Chevrolet
and Enea/HHH properties (discussed below in the section on Land Use Modifications). However, the
slight increase in traffic associated with these modifications in the Plan would still maintain an acceptable
LOS for mitigated traffic operations in the downtown.'
In testing the maximum level of intensity for development on the subject properties, and taking into
account the additional traffic mitigation measure' suggested by the consultant, it was found that the two
subject properties coUld develop to a maximum FAR of 1.49 with the intersections in the downtown area
still operating at an acceptable level of service. However, traffic generation resulting from this level of
development would cause the intersection at Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive to approach maximum
capacity. Additionally, significant vehicle queuing problems would result in the westbound direction on
Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street, as there is inadequate stacking distance
for westbound vehicles in this roadway segment during the PM peak hour. Taking this factor into account
and the results of the revised traffic study, a FAR of 1.0 for the Crown and Enea properties would be the
maximum FAR that can be implemented for the properties without exceeding the storage capacity for the
westbound left-turn movement at this intersection during the PM peak hour.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the economic and traffic analyses prepared for this amendment, a FAR of 1.00 for the subject
properties, as previously determined by the Planning Commission, should be recommended to the City
Council. In addition to this revision, changes to FAR's for other properties shown as Retail/Office and
Commercial B in the planning area should be recommended to provide consistency in the Plan and
provide similar properties with the same development potential opportunities. As discussed in the traffic
analysis section of this report, with the addition of a third northbound left-tm lane at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road, acceptable levels-of-service could still be maintained at major
intersections in the downtown area with the increased land use development intensity. These changes
would be in conformance with the intent 0fthe Specific Plan to create a vital urban environment in Close
proximity to public transit facilities and transportation corridors.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by Staff that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1) Open public hearing.
2) Receive presentation by Staff.
3) Close public hearing.
4) Consider analysis of amendment and testimony.
5) Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve an amendment to the West Dublin BART.
Specific Plan to change the FAR to 1.00 on the subject properties and other properties designated as
Retail/Office and Commercial B, amend Traffic Mitigation Measures, Specific Plan Table 5 and
appropriate Maps as shown in attached Exhibits A through G.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Dublin
Crown Chevrolet Property:
Betty Woolverton et al.
1484 Emmons Canyon Dr.
Alamo, CA
Enea/HHH Properties:
Robert Enea
St. Michael Investments
6670 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
HHH Investment Co.
6665 Amador Plaza Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Aldo Guidotti Trust
104 Diablo View
Orinda, CA 94563
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:
EXISTING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
7544 Dublin Boulevard; 6401-6445 & 6707 Golden Gate
Drive; 6665-6680 & 7450-7498 Amador Plaza Road
941 - 1500-014-17, -015-07, -032-00, -038-01, -042-02, -048-
00, -049-2, -049-3, -051-02, -052-00, & -053-00; and various
other properties in the Specific Plan area.
PD Planned Development and C-2 General Commercial
Districts
Retail/Office
R/A Retail/Auto and R/O Retail/Office
The environmental impacts of increased FAR's in the planning
area were addressed by the Negative Declaration for the
Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan
Amendments .approved on December 19, 2000. A
supplemental traffic analysis was prepared for this
amendment to assess the impacts of the increased FAR's on
the transportation system in the downtown area and a
mitigation measure will be incorporated in the Specific Plan,
as discussed in this report, to alleviate any potential impacts
on the transportation system of the downtown area. The
proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and
maximum FAR's proVided for in the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 01- 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING coMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR PA 01-024
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City adopted the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on December 19, 2000 which
was prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design ·
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at the request of property owners, the Planning Commission does find that it is
appropriate to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to extend the planning area boundaries and
include properties consisting of approximately 14 acres to the east of the existing area as shown on
Exhibit B, Specific Plan Boundary, Exhibit 3 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find it appropriate to amend the land use category to
Retail/Office for approximately 6 acres of land located in the Specific Plan area at the southeast comer
of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive for the property known as the Crown Chevrolet site, and to
Commercial B for approximately 20 acres of land located to the west, east and south of Amador Plaza
Road known as the Enea/HHH properties, as shown on Exhibit G, Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9 of the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find that based on the economic and traffic studies
prepared for the' requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, a modification in the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) to 1.00 for the subject properties, and for other properties to ensure consistency in the
Plan, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5 of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Maximum Development
Potential, as amended, is appropriate to create a vital urban environment in close proximity to public
transit facilities and transportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find that based oh the economic and traffic studies
prepared for the requests to amend the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, an additional traffic mitigation
measure to add a third northbound left-turn lane should be included in programmed improvements in the
Specific Plan for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road to maintain an acceptable level
of service (LOS D) with the FAR increase to 1.00 for the subject properties; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of increased FAR's were addressed by the Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans and the associated General Plan Amendments approved on
December 19, 2000, and prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071 and on file in the
Dublin Planning Department. The Negative Declaration found that the implementation of the Specific
Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as mitigation measures Were incorporated into the
Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the range of uses and FAR's in the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for this area. No additional impacts of the project have been
identified at this time; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the amendment PA 01-024 to
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on June 26, 2001 and September 25, 2001 and received testimony
and comments from the public and property owners; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment'PA 01-024 is consistent
with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin
General Plan and the Specific Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the
City Council to: (1) modify the Plan boundaries as shown in Exhibit B; (2) add a third northbound left-
turn lane to the programmed improvements in the Specific Plan for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard
/San Ramon Road; (3) revise Table 5 of the Plan to reflect an increase inthe allowable FAR for certain
properties to 1.00 as shown in Exhibit A; (4) revise the land use category for the property known as the
Crown Chevrolet site to Retail/Office, and for the property known as the Enea/HHH properties to
Commercial B as shown in Exhibit G; and (5) revise the applicable West Dublin BART Specific Plan
Maps as shown in Exhibits C, D, E and F.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2001.
AYES:
Cm. Johnson, Musser and Fasulkey
NOES:
ABSENT: Cm. Jennings and Nassar
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
G\DowntownSpecPlns\West BART\PC reso West BART Amend 9-25-01.doc
EXHIBIT A
TO ATTACHMENT 1
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PA 01-024
Table 5. Maximum Economic Development Potential (Amended)
SP Land Use Category* Acres FAR Existing Dev. Max. Dev.
DU/AC (sq. ft.)** (sq. ft.)
Commercial A (Com A) 10.87 0.25 243,344 118,375
Commercial B (Com B) ,~ -~ n A Q ~ -~ Q~ ~ ~ nor~
26. 69 1. O0 203, 714 1,162, 620
Lodging (L) 9.31 1.20 103,231' 339,530
(246 rooms) (486 rooms)
Retail/Office (R/O) ! 2.28 O. 83 38, 325 a.a. 4, ! a. 5
18. 40 1. O0 801,500
Residential (R) 3.54 45 DU/ac -- 160 DU
Office (O) 6.98 1.00 242,385 304,050
Mixed Use (MU) 11.33 1.00 -- 493,430+
331 DU
Parking (P) 2.46 ......
Right-of-Way 2.11 ......
Totals qn -mo gA; ~ n~ ~ ann o<n
91.69 831,000 3,219,505
0 DU 491 DU
*Note: Potential plazas areas included in acreages; Land Use Categories refer to
those shown on Exhibit G (Exhibit 9 of Specific Plan)
** Existing 210, 744 Industrial/Warehouse square footage not included. (rev. 10/16/01cc)
EXHIBIT B
TO ATTACHMENT 1
Area of boundary
Ill
mil
lie
LEGEND
.~.,i ,, · .m~ SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N .T.S.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT C
:TO ATTACHMENT 1
}N ) ~qTA i e. &g0 ,
LEGEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
~ RETAIL/RESTAURANT
~ OFFIC E/SERVICE COMMERCIAL
r~ INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK
~ HOTEL/ENTEFFfAINMENT
' I VACANT ~
[';';';';;~';';4-;';-;t RETAIL/AUTO
F_.XISTING LAND USES
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUBLIN
ExHiBIT'4
ExHIBiT D
TO ATTACHMENT 1
7-
LEGEND
i~.a,--r;?i .uBuc/sm~-PuBuc F^o~uw
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.8.
JUNE 2001
CITY OF
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 5
E~IBIT E
TO ATTACHMENT 1.
LEGEND
~'O-1: RETAIL OOMMEROIAL ZONING DISTRICT
[,~,~.¢~,,',.'4 0-2: GENERAL COMMEROtAL ZONING DISTRICT
~'~' X X )1 M-l: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRIOT
~; RP: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING ZONING
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N .T.8.
JUNE 2001
CITY
DUBLIN
EXHIBIT .6
EXHIBIT F
.TO ATTAC~NT I
LEGEND
lilllllll ARTERIAL STREET
i ! I i COLLECTOR STREET
I[III(P)Illl PROPOSED STREET (ST. PATRIOt, S WAY)
IIIl(/i~llill PROPOSED BIKEWAY- CLASS II (LANE)
l~ BIKEWAY - CLASS I (PATH)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N .T.S.
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF'
DUBLIN
E~HIBIT 7
EXHIBIT G
i TO ATTACHMENT 1
to be
LEGEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
~ ] 'USE AS NOTED
-.~ F'OTENT~AL PLAZA LOCATION
I~1 OPPORTUNITY SITE
(P) pARKING
(L) HOTEL
(MU)
lOOM B)
(0)
(R/O)
· (COM A)
MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL B
OFFICE
RETAIL/OFFICE
RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL/AUTO
COMMERCIAL A
PROPOSED
LAND USE PLAN
· WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S,
JUNE 2001
CITY
OF
DUB, LIN
EXHIBIT 9
(R/o)
DUB~N
(COM A)
BOULEVARD
COM B)
(COM B)
(R/O)
",, (COM B) (,O') (p)
m ~ mm,,
(R/O)
LEGEND
"--" -- --'" SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY (MU) MIXED USE
~;~ ~ USE AS NOTED (COM B) COMMERCIAL B
~' pOTENTIAL PLAZA LOCATION (O) OFFICE
(~ OPPORTUNITY SITE (R/O) RETAIL/OFFICE
(P) (PARKING) (R) RESIDENTIAL
(L) HOTEL (R/A) RETAIL/AUTO
(COM A) COMMERCIAL A
EXISTING
]-AND USE PU~N OECEM~;=~ 2000
.,WEST DUBUN BART SPECiFiC PLAN C I T Y O F D U B L ! N
EXHIBIT 9
ATTACHMEN'i :~