Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Downtown Dublin SP Attch 5-6STA'1'E OF CALIFORMA-BUSINE:SS. TRANSPORTATION AND AOUSINC3AGENCY ARNOLD SCI3VJARZENEGGER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR~ATION 111 GI2.AND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAI~,AND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 622-5491 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 • December 14, 2010 Ms. Kristi Bascom Ciry of Dublin Community Development Department l00 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Bascom: ~~~~tl~~~ • p • Flex your power! ~E~ ~ 0 2~~~ Beenergye~cientl ~~~~t~ ~~~~I~~ ALAGEN247 SCH#2010022005 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan - Final Enviroizmental I-npact Report Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). The following comxnents are based on the Final Environmental Impact Report (rEIR}. In the Draft Environmental Impact Report, for the intersection of Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Road/Interstate b80 southbound ramps, Tables 3.9-11 and 3.9-13 states that the intersection will experience significant delays during the AM and PM peak hour and in Table 3.9-12 significant delays during the PM peak hour. The State has a minimum operation standard of level of service D for new or existing signals affected by proposed future developments. Please include mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Yatman Kwan of nny staff at (510) 622-167d. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~~~ LISA CARB~NI District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across Cali(ornia.' ATTACHMENT 5 ` ..: . ~. .... ._. .,. - -- .,,_.. _ ~.< - .. .:. _ . . _..: . _ . _ _. _ _. ::.... . ~D.. G~~.y OP Dp~~ fG ' ~ CITY OF DUBLIN ra /~~~~\ ~~~ 19 (~i=, =7~) 8Z ~ ``V ~/ `\\ ~- ~. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http:l/www.dublin.ca.gov C3r,,.._~a~~ January 19, 2011 Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief State of California Department of Transportation 111 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Re: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final Environmental lmpact Report Dear Ms. Carboni, ~ The City of Dublin received a comment letter from your office dated December 14, 2010 on the Final Environmental Impact Repor.t (EIR) for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. . The 45-day public comment period for the EIR lasted from September 20, 2010 to November 4, 2010. Although CalTrans previously provided comments in a timely fashion on both the Notice of Preparatiort and on the Draft EIR, the comment raised in the December 14'h letter had not been expressed in either of the earlier letters, and so therefore the City did .not have an opportunity to respond to the comment in the Final ' EIR. In an.ear{ier letter frotn CalTrans dated March 1,.2010, the agency "encourages the.City of.Dublin to locate any needed housing, jobs, and neighborhood services near major mass transit nodes, and connect those nodes with streets configured ta facilitate wafking and biking as a means of promoting mass transit use, reducing vehicle miles travelfed, and trafficimpacts on state highways." One of the main focuses of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is an ernphasis on pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety and promoting the use of transit for trips to, from, and within Downtown Dublin. The City agrees with the encouragement offered by CalTrans in the March 2010 letter, and believes that widening roadways to facilitate faster traffic flow would be counterproductive to creating a balance between vehicular and non-vehicular circulation requirements and promoting a transit and pedestrian-friendly downtown. One of the intersections impacted by this decision is at St. Patrick/Amador Plaza Road/Interstate 68~, which could operate below Level of Service (LOS) D with the buildout of the Specific Plan area. When the traffic analysis was conducted for the project,~adherence to the LOS D standard included in the Dublin General Plan was conside.red, and measures to improve the intersections, this one included, were initiafiy reviewed and considered. However, the City made the decision to propose amending the General Plan to allow intersections within the project area to operate at or below LOS D after it was determined that the. construction of additional travel lanes and increased vehicular speeds in the project area could result in severe safety implications for pedestrians and bicyclists. It is important to note that the Downfown Dublin Specific Plan contains two levels of development intensiry that could be achieved by the Plan. The "Base FAR" scenario analyzed the expected traffic impacts if all properties in the project area were intensified or redeveloped up to their permitted floor to area ratio (FAR), which varies between districts. The "Maximum FAR" scenario analyzed the expected traffic impacts if properties in the project area were intensified or redeveloped with additional Area Code (925} - City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 ~ Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 ~ Police 833-667~ Pfanning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Preventian Bureau 833-6606 Attachment 6 ... :. ,. :.. ., _, _ ,.: , . , ~ __... __ _ ,. . ,: .. _.. ...:, --.... . .:_:... :~ - .... . _ __ _. _ _ .. _. . ~ ~ 9~ development capacity that could be granted in exchange for providing a community benefit. This additional development capacity wouid only be permitted in compliance with the to-be-deve~oped Community Benefit Program. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area is compfetely urbanized, and all but a handful of parcels are currently developed. The buildout of the Specific Plan will come to fruition through the intensification of parcels, and it is reasonable to expect that over the 2Q year horizon of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, only a certain percentage of the properties will experience ; intensification and/or redevelopment. The area may never experience the amount af additional development required to cause the subject intersection to operate below LOS D. Additionally, when discussing the issue of amending the General Plan to remove the LOS D requirement for intersections within the project area, the City Council directed City Staff to conduct a reassessment of the traffic performance in Downtown Dublin within ten years of the adoption of the Plan. The purpose of the reassessment will be to determine how intersections in the project area are operating and examine whether allowing intersections to operate lower than LOS D(if that is the case) continues to be a suitable solution. We hope _this letter explains the rationale behind the conclusions reached in the Final EIR, and the actions the City of Dublin intends to take to ensure the adequate flow of vehicular traffic in the Downfown Dublin Specific PEan project area. The City will continue to work with CalTrans on issues of mutual concern, and we thank you for your support of this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a.call at 925:833.6614. ~ Sincerely, ~ ; ~ ? Jeri am, AICP i Community Development Director I Area Code {925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 • Personnel 833-66Q5 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 • Police 833-6670 Pfanning/Code Enforcement 833-661~ • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 ~~ ~~ Ms. Bascom asked if the Commission would like the architect to suggest design enhancements that could be done to the Dublin Blvd elevation. ~ Chair King said no, he did not feel the Commission shouId try to desi e project. He feIt the architect should review the DDSP and come back with a project at the Commission can support. Cm. Schaub agreed with Chair King. He also agreed witl~m. Wehrenberg but felt there was more that could be done to the Dublin Blvd side of the b~zilding. Cm. Schaub stated he would like to see some ele nts on the edge of the building as well as the same element from one side of the building bei built on the other end. Mr. Baker asked the Commission if the are suggesting that the Applicant look at both the building design and landscaping. Cm. Schaub answered whatever an be done to make the Dublin Blvd elevation look more like what has been discussed. H aIso suggested that the Applicant and Staff have consensus on what will be built if the pro' ct is approved. Ms: Bascom stated t t is made clear in the Conditions of Approval that the project will be~ constructed as per e approved plans. 'She stated the Applicant would like to see soinething different but as e condition is currently written the project will be constructed as per the plans. On a m on by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Chair King, on a vote of 2-1-1 with Cm. Brown bein sent and Cm. Wehrenberg opposing, the Planning Commission vated to ~continue the pro' ct to a date uncertain: RESOLUTION NO. 10- XX A RESOLUTION OF TI-iE PLANNING COIVIMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE REGIONAL STREET RETAIL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 85,280 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7117 REGIONAL ST. . (APNS 941-0305-017-02 AND 941-0305-017-01) PLPA-2010-00054 8.4 PA 07-036 Downtown. Dublin Specific Plan. Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties from various Planned Development Zoning Districts to a new Downtown Dublin Zoning District, and Environmental Impact Report - -- - - --- 2' nning (,'umrnissiun ~17erem6er79, 20.10 ~i~~fjtrfar'ile~tirrg 151 ATTACHMENT 7 y~i. ~~ ~ Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the changes were made in response to input to the last iteration of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Bascom stated changes were made to the Specific Plan primarily based on the City Council and Planning Commission direction. She continued the main changes to the specific plan based on comments that came out of the EIR were based on the air quality and residential design requirements. Chair King asked where it states in the DDSP that the public benefit funds are limited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Ms. Bascom answered on Page 121 where the Community Benefit Prograrn is discussed with a list of examples of appropriate community benefits. She continued the last buliet mentions there may be another benefit proposed by the developer and approved by the City Council. , She stated Chair King's comment relates to one of the guiding principles for the Community Benefit Program that could be used to pay for .public improvements in the planning area. Chair King was concerned that the word "consider" the ~beriefit payment could be used for public improvements in the planning area. He stated he intended to ask the City Council to : strengthen that language. Ms. Bascom responded that the first paragraph on Page 121 under the Community Benefit Program states "A Comrriunity Benefit Program will be established fo ensure that developers provide a benefit to the Specific Pian Aren in exchange for receiving rz higher densihj on their properh~." Chair King questions whether that section was restrictive enough. He stated at the last joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session the idea was brought forward far 3 different architectural themes for the three plan areas. He asked if that was ineluded in the final DDSP. Ms. Bascom answered it was discussed at the study session but there was no directiori from the City Council to include it. Chair King mentioned that Table 6.1 gives exaznples of appropriate community benefits. He suggested that a few words be added referencing the specific example found elsewhere in the plan, i.e. the vision for the Transit Districts such as: plazas, sculptures, paseos, and gateways. He was concerned that a future owner may not have the innagination to go beyond the examples and suggested some kind of language be added to include the other examples spread through the plan. Chair King continued with a question regarding a$1 million fund. He stated at a City Council meeting in 2000 there was an agenda item regarding what to do with a$1 million budget surplus and the Council voted to set $2 million aside to buy open space and pay for improvements in the Transit Distxict, but some of the money was used for improvements on 2.~nxniny (;ommzssidn ~De<em6er.19, 20Z(1 ~gi~tcfar~~Vieezing 152 ._ ~~a~~~ Village Pkwy. He asked the Mayor, who was in attendance in the audience if he knew anything about this fund. Mayor Sbranti stated there was a meeting with the auditor recently and where the reserve was discussed. He stated there are still monies in the fund ~vhich was split with $1 million for open space and $1 million for downtown improvements. He stated some funds were used for the Village Parkway enhancements. He stated the City's projected budget deficit did not materialize and the budget was balanced this last year_ He stated there is a$1 million downtown improvement reserve and a$1 million open space dedicated reserve. Chair King was pleased and thanked the Mayor for the information. He then suggested some of the features could be paid for by the fund rather than asking the developers to pay for it. He felt that anything that would help move the pedestrian. plan forward would be a good thing. Cm. Schaub suggested another good use for the fund would be to try to identify parts of a parking lot to buy and that wouId become the open space area. Chair King opened the public hearing and having no one to speak closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub was pleased tivith the DDSP as a start and tonight Staff saw that at least part of this Commission is serious about this DDSP. He stated that when a project comes to the Planning Commission it should comply with -the DDSP. He stated he is very serious about getting the downtown to look good. He thanked Staff and Bill Wiseman for their hard work. Chair King agreed with Cm. Schaub. He complemented the Staff for their outstanding work and for having to take a million things into consideration and was pleased to see the future residents will see the benefits "of the great insights shown by the City. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-0-1, with Cm. Brown being abserit, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION N0.10- 57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUSLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNGIL CERTIFICATION OF FTNAL AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 07-036 RESOLUTION N0.10 - 58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ;i'~imning (":omnzusum cDecem6rr J?, 2010 ~~t~~e&rr'.~eetir{y • 153 ~g3~ ~ ~ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DOWNTO.WN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, A1VD REPEALING THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN, VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND SAN RAMON ROAD SPfiCIFIC PLAN PA 07-036 RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AI~OPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CREATE A NEW CHAPTER: 8.30 (DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ZONING DISTRICT); REZONE ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ZONING DISTRICT, AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO IDENTIFY THE I.OCATIOIV OF THE NEW ZONING.DI5TRICT AMEND ZOIVING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), AND AMEIVD CHAPTER 8.104 (SI'I'E DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV) PA 07-036. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINES5 - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ~ ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:41:46 PM Respectfull submitted, ~ hair Pla 'ng Commission A ~~ Jeff Ba Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 12. ]4.10 DRAFT PC Minutes.doc ~t'lanning ('omrrrisa7c~n Decens6er T=J, ~',(?.10 ~e~ular hieetinq 154