Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 SB343 Avalon Bay DA Appeal ADO -2 v/ y~U-.38~ ~f~`7J-~ti f C~®~°~C~7 May 17, 2011 C~~~ OF DU~~~ ~ 19 8'2 ~ ~~LIFOR~~ SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the. City Manager's Office that relate to an agenda item ~ . after the agenda: packets have been distributed to the City Council be available to the public. This document is also available in the City ~ Manager's Office. The attached. document was received in the City Manager's Office after distribution: of the May 17, 2011 City Council meeting agenda packet. May 17, 2011 Item # 6.2 02 STEWART WEINBERG LORI K. AOUINO DAVID A. ROSENFELD WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD ANNEL VEN WILLIAM A. SOKOL ~ NICOLE M. PHILLIPS VINCENT A. HARRINGTON, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CAREN PC ENCER ZANO-BATISTA W. DANIEL BOONE MANJARI CHAWLA BLVTHE MICKELSON BARRV E. HINKLE KRISTINA M. ZINNEN JAMES RUTKOWSKI• 1001 Marina Village Parkway, SUIte ZOO JANNAH V. MANANBALA SANDRA RAE BENSON MANUEL A. BOIGUES CHRISTIAN L. RAISNER Alameda, CA 94501-1091 KERIANNE R. STEELE... JAMES J. WESSER ANA M. GALLEGOS THEODORE FRANKLIN TELEPHONE 510.337.1001 GARY P. PROVENCHER MATTHEW J.IGAUGER FAX 510.337.1023 PATRICIA M. GATES. Of Counsel ASHLEY K. IKEDA ROBERTA D. PERKINS, Of Counsel LINDA BALDWIN JONES RICHARD T. DRURV, Of Counsel PATRICIA A. DAMS ALAN G. CROWLEV KRISTINA L. HILLMAN • Also admitted in Arizona ANDREA LAIACONA Admitted in Hawaii EMILV P. RICH Also admitted in Nevatla BRUCE A. HARLAND Also admired in Illinois BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY May 17, 2011 Honorable Mayor Tim Sbranti and Members of the City Council City of Dublin c/o Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 FAX: 925-833-6651 Email: tim.sbranti(c~ci.dublin.ca.us; kevin.hart~,dublin.ca.gov; don.biddle(a~ci.dublin.ca.us; kasie.hildenbrand(a,dublin.ca.gov; eric. swalwel lndublin.ca,gov RE: Comments on PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C). Request for CEQA Review and Objection to CEQA Exemption. Honorable Mayor Tim Sbranti and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Carpenters Local Union Number 713 and its many members living in and around the City of Dublin, and Dublin resident Robert Klein ("Commenters") concerning PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) ("Project" or "Avalon Bay Project"). In particular, we request that the City of Dublin ("City") conduct review of the Project to mitigate its impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The City has improperly determined that the Project is exempt entirely from CEQA review due to an EIR that was prepared for the Specific Plan for the broader area in 2002 - almost a decade ago ("Specific Plan EIR"). By this letter, we respond to the City's staff report ("Staff Report") prepared for the May 17, 2011 City Council meeting, which was made available to us only last Friday. We also incorporate by reference all of our prior comments. LOS ANGELES OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE ~ HONOLULU OFFICE 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 428 J Street, Suite 520 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 1602 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1907 Sacramento, CA 95814-2341 Honolulu, HI 96813-4500 TEL 213.380.2344 FAX 213.381.1088 TEL 916.443.6600 FAX 916.442.0244 TEL 808.528.8880 FAX 808.528.8881 Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 2 - As discussed below, the Project is not subject to the Specific Plan EIR exemption because it is substantially different than the project analyzed in 2002, and it will have numerous significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. In particular, as a result of a July 2010 order of the Alameda Superior Court, the adjacent City of Pleasanton has lifted its "housing cap" which artificially limited the number of housing units in Pleasanton. As a result of that Court order, the City of Pleasanton has increased the number of units to be built in the Hacienda Business Park from 870 units to 1596 - an increase of 726 units over the previously approved level. For the City of Pleasanton as a whole, housing will increase by over 1800 units above the now invalid housing cap. The Hacienda Business Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed Avalon Bay Project and directly across the freeway. The previous housing cap was incorporated in the City of Pleasanton's general plan, which was adopted in 1996. That lower housing cap level of development was the level of development analyzed in the 2002 EIR which the City is now attempting to rely upon. The fact that the housing cap would be lifted in 2010 was not accounted for the 2002 EIR and was not knowable in 2002. According to certified environmental scientist, Matthew Hagemann, PG, Ch.G., whose comments are attached hereto, the addition of 726 housing units adjacent to the Project site and 1800 housing units in the adjacent City of Pleasanton will result in significant cumulative air quality impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. (Exhibit A, p. 6) Neither the Staff Report nor the 2002 EIR address this new cumulative impact at all. The 2002 EIR also failed to analyze the public health impacts of placing residential development immediately adjacent to the I-580 freeway. In 2002, there was no CEQA Guidance concerning this impact. As discussed by environmental scientist Hagemann, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") adopted CEQA significance thresholds for freeway pollution in 2010, and the California Air Resources Board ("GARB") adopted guidance in 2005. According to the new BAAQMD methodology, Mr. Hagemann calculates that the Project will result in the following significant environmental and public health impacts: • A cancer risk to residents and workers equivalent to 535 cases per million, more than 5 times the BAAQMD threshold of 100 cases per million; and • PM2.5 emissions of 1.36 ug/m3, which exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 0.80 ug/m3. (Exhibit A, p. 9) These significant impacts were not analyzed at all in the 2002 EIR, and no mitigation measures have been analyzed or imposed to reduce these impacts. Furthermore, the Project proposes to move an additional 100 housing units onto the Project site. These units will be moved from a location farther away from the freeway to a location Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 3 immediately adjacent to the freeway, thereby increasing the severity of this impact above the level that could have been known in 2002.' Also, the 2002 EIR failed entirely to analyze the greenhouse gas impacts of the Project. Again, in 2002 there was no adopted CEQA guidance for greenhouse gases (GHGs), and almost all CEQA documents ignored this impact. In 2010, the BAAQNID . and CARB adopted CEQA guidance for GHGs. Environmental scientist Hagemann calculates that the GHG impacts from the Avalon Bay Project will exceed the applicable BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 1100 metric tons per year by almost ten times. (See Exhibit A, p. 2)2 Also, the City proposes to build 1800 units of housing in the Specific Plan Area, while the 2002 EIR analyzed the impacts of only 1500 units of housing - 300 units less. As a result of this substantial increase in size, the Project will have individual and cumulative impacts much more significant than those analyzed in the 2002 EIR.3 The 1 The Staff Report attempts to dismiss this impact by arguing that the risks of freeway pollution on human health were known in 2002, and that the 2002 EIR did not analyze this impact. Therefore, the Staff Report contends, the failure of the 2002 EIR to analyze this impact cannot be challenged at this time. This truly novel argument turns CEQA on its head. The Staff Report essentially argues that the City can rely on the 2002 EIR because it was inadequate and failed to analyze this impact. To the contrary, the City could rely on a prior CEQA document if it did in fact analyze a particular impact -not if it did not. The City's argument attempts to reward the City for failing to analyze significant environmental impacts that it should have known at the time. Similar arguments have been rejected by the Courts, as discussed below. Furthermore, there was no effective way to analyze this impact in 2002 since no agency had at that. time developed CEQA guidance or methodology to analyze this impact at that time. CARB adopted its guidance in 2005 and BAAQMD adopted its guidance in 2010. So there is neither legal nor factual support for the argument advanced in the Staff Report. Z As with the health risks from freeways, .which are also ignored by the 2002 EIR, the Staff Report similarly attempts to counter this point by contending that the risks of GHGs were known in 2002 and that the 2002 EIR did not analyze them. As discussed in footnote one, this argument turns CEQA on its head by rewarding the agency for failing to analyze known impacts. Furthermore, in 2002 there were no adopted CEQA significance thresholds. Both CARB and BAAQMD adopted their CEQA thresholds for GHGs in 2010. Therefore it would not have been possible to conduct a GHG analysis in 2002, contrary to the conclusions of the Staff Report. s The Staff Report contends that the 2002 EIR analyzed an alternate scenarios involving an additiona1300 units of housing. However, the EIR did not analyze air quality or any other impacts of this alternate scenario. Therefore, the City may not rely on the 2002 EIR for analysis of the impacts of the cumulative impacts of the 1800 unit build-out, since there was no such Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 4 Project will have new significant impacts never analyzed under CEQA, including impacts on air quality, greenhouse gases, traffic, hazardous materials, diesel particulate emissions from nearby roadways, and many others. Therefore, the CEQA exemption is legally improper and CEQA review is required. We request that the City prepare and circulate an EIR for full public review and comment to analyze the proposed Project, and to consider feasible measures to mitigate its adverse environmental impacts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Avalon Bay Communities is proposing to develop 505 apartment units on a 7.2 acre site known as Site C within the Dublin Transit Center Planning Area. The Project is located northeast of Demarcus Boulevard and northwest of Iron Horse Parkway, south of Campbell Green and the extension of Campbell Lane. The City contends that the Project is exempt entirely from all CEQA review pursuant to Government Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan ("Specific Plan Exemption"). The City contends that the Project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Specific Plan EIR") for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2001120395) which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002 ("Specific Plan"). As discussed below and in our prior comments, the Specific Plan Exemption does not apply to the Project because the Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan, in that it is much larger than the Project analyzed in the Specific Plan. Also, the Project will have significant new adverse impacts never analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR.4 . STANDING Local 713's members live, work and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association, community group or environmental group. Hundreds of Loca1713 members live and analysis. (The 2002 EIR is incorporated herein by reference since it is in the City's possession and since the City relies on that document for its CEQA review.) a We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings and proceedings for this Project. See, Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 5 work in areas that will be affected by traffic, air pollution, and water pollution generated by the Project. Robert Klein lives in the City of Dublin and will be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts. LEGAL STANDARDS The California Environmental Quality Act, (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Ca1.App.4th 644, 652) "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the envirorunent within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109) Here, the City staff proposes to avoid CEQA review entirely by relying on the CEQA exemption for residential projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan that has undergone CEQA review. (Gov. Code § 65457) That section provides as follows: (a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan. (emphasis added) The Specific Plan CEQA exemption has numerous exceptions and conditions. First,.the project must be a "residential" project. Since the Avalon Bay Project includes both residential and non-residential components, the exemption does not apply on its face. Second, the project must be "consistent" with the Specific Plan. Here, the Avalon Bay Project is much larger than the Project analyzed in the Specific Plan, and has a Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 6 significantly different mix of residential and commercial uses. Since the Avalon Bay Project is inconsistent with the Specific Plan, the exemption does not apply. Finally, the exemption does not apply if any of the conditions "specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code" occurs after certification of the Specific Plan EIR. As discussed below, almost all of the circumstances specified in Section 21166 have occurred in the decade since the Specific Plan EIR was prepared, rendering this Specific Plan Exemption inapplicable. Government Code section 65457 does not apply if any of the circumstances identified in CEQA section 21166 apply, including: a. substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 7 one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As discussed below, and in our prior comment letter, all of the conditions set forth in Section 21166 exist in this case. ANALYSIS A. The CEQA Exemption Does Not Apply Because the Project is Not Consistent with the Specific Plan. The Government Code section 65457 exemption does not apply because the Avalon Bay Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Section 65457 expressly limits its application to projects that are "consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified." Although there is no case law under Section 65457, courts have held that a prior CEQA document may only be relied upon for a later project that is "essentially the same project" as was analyzed in the prior document. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320; American Canyon Community v. American Canyon, 145 Cal.App.4th 1062) The Avalon Bay Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Most obviously, the City proposes to allow Avalon Bay to construct 100 more units on Parcel C than was analyzed in the Specific Plan. Although these units will allegedly be offset by a . reduction of 100 units on Parcel A, the movement of these units will inevitably affect traffic patterns, air quality and other impacts in ways that were not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Also, the 2002 Specific Plan analyzed a "mixed -use" project that included a mix of commercial and residential uses within the same buildings. The 2002 EIR heralded mixed use development as a way to reduce traffic and other impacts by placing stores and businesses within walking distance of residences. The Avalon Bay Project abandons this mixed use plan entirely, eliminating all of the commercial development within the Project area, and replacing it with housing. This makes the Avalon Bay Project flatly inconsistent with the "new urbanist" design analyzed and described to the public in 2002. As a result, the Avalon Bay Project will have additional traffic and other impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR, as residents will be forced to drive to shopping that was previously proposed to be on-site. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 " May 17, 2011 Page 8 Finally, the 2002 EIR analyzed a project for the Specific Plan Area with 1500 units of housing. The City now proposes to allow the construction of 1800 units of housing - an increase of 300 units. This is a significant increase in the overall cumulative size of the Project, area that will result in vastly increased Project impacts, including traffic, air pollution, greenhouse gases, and many other impacts. Since the Avalon Bay Project is inconsistent with the 2002 Specific Plan, the City may not exempt it from CEQA review. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze all of the Project's impacts and propose mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. B. The CEQA Exemption Does not Apply Because Substantial Changes Are Proposed to the Project. The Specific Plan CEQA exemption does not apply if "substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." (Pub. Res. Code 21166) As discussed above, the City proposes to approve "substantial changes in the project" which will result in substantially increased environmental impacts. Most obviously, the City proposes to increase the number of residential units from the 405 units analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR to 505 units. 1. The Avalon Bay Project Will Have Greater Traffic Impacts than Analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The increase in the size of the Project from 405 to 505 units will inevitably increase the traffic impacts in the Project area. Numerous residents of the Project area complained at the September 14, 2010 Planning Commission hearing that traffic is already at unacceptable levels, particularly near the BART station. Adding another 505 units of housing to the area will certainly make traffic even worse. Furthermore, even though the City is allegedly reducing 100 housing units on Parcel A and moving those units to Parcel C, Parcel C is much closer to the BART station than Parcel C. Therefore, the transfer of the units will likely exacerbate traffic problems over those analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 9 2. The Avalon Bay Project Will Have Greater Impacts Related to Roadway Pollution Than Analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Parcel C is directly adjacent to one the Bay Area's major freeways - I-580. Parcel A is located farther from I-580. The Project map indicates that Parcel C is approximately 200 feet from I-580. Parcel A appears to be about 1000 fee from I-580. Thus, the transfer of 100 units from Parcel A to Parcel C will place 100 additional housing units much closer to I-580. As discussed below, this movement will create a significant health risk for residents that would not exists or would be greatly reduced, if the units remained at Parcel A. This will result in significant additional impacts from hazardous pollution from the nearby freeway. Environmental scientist Matt Hagemann calculates that as a result of the proximity to I-580, the Project will expose future residents to highly significant health risks, including: • A cancer risk to residents and workers equivalent to 535 cases per million, more than 5 times the BAAQMD threshold of 100 cases per million; and • PM2.5 emissions of 1.36 ug/m3, which exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 0.80 ug/m3. This highly significant public health impact was ignored entirely in the 2002 EIR because at the time there were no CEQA significance thresholds or guidance documents. As a result, the 2002 EIR imposes no feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts or to safeguard public health. Feasible measures could include HEPA filtration systems and other measures that would reduce diesel exposure. A supplemental EIR is required to analyze this impact and to propose feasible mitigation. The Staff Report contends that no supplemental EIR is required because this impact was allegedly known at the time of the 2002 EIR. This argument turns CEQA on its head. The Staff Report essentially argues that since the 2002 EIR. was deficient in that it did not analyze a known significant impact, the deficiency cannot be challenged at a later time. Such a position encourages agencies to ignore significant environmental impacts entirely at the programmatic EIR stage, and then at the project EIR stage, contend that it is too late to challenge the impact. The courts have held that an agency should not be rewarded for its failure to analyze impacts. For example, the Court of Appeal has stated, "To apply the exhaustion requirement under these circumstances would stand CEQA on its head and encourage a public agency to leave environmental Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 10 concerns out of its announced plans. It would require the public to ferret out the true nature of the public agency's project and its possible environmental consequences. However, public reaction to a proposed project is no substitute for adequate consideration of environmental concerns by the lead public agency." (McQueen v. Board of Dir. (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1151) Furthermore, it would have been essentially impossible to analyze this impact in 2002 since there were no operative CEQA guidance documents or thresholds at that time. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") and California Air Resources Board ("GARB") now both recognize that freeways pose significant health risks to nearby residences. As a result, both agencies advise against placing residential units near heavily travelled roadways. The California Air Resources Board ("GARB') Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (p.4) advises that residential development not be placed within 500 feet of major road. In Apri12005, GARB released the final version of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which is intended to encourage local land use agencies to consider the risks from air pollution prior to making decisions that approve the siting of new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution. GARB recommends that where residential uses are proposed within 500 feet of a freeway, that a health risk assessment be conducted. The City proposes to move 100 units of housing from 1000 feet from I-580 to 200 feet from I-580. These units.are moving from a location outside of the GARB zone of risk to a location well within that risk zone, therefore creating a new significant environmental impact that was not analyzed in the 2.002 EIR. The BAAQNID adopted its screening to tools to analyze freeway impacts in 2010. Mr. Hagemann applied this methodology to calculate a highly significant cancer risk created by the Project's location of over 500 per million -five times above the CEQA significance threshold of 100 per million. This is clearly a significant environmental impact that was not analyzed in the 2002 EIR and was not known at the time of the 2002 EIR. A supplemental EIR is required to analyze the impact and to propose feasible mitigation measures. 3. The Avalon Bay Project Will Have Greater Greenhouse Gas and Ozone Impacts Than Analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The Avalon Bay Project will have significantly greater Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") and ozone impacts than analyzed in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR. Most obviously, the City proposes to add 100 units to the Project above the number analyzed in the EIR. Also, the cumulative Project area will include 1800 units rather than the 1500 units Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) . Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 11 analyzed in the 2002 EIR, which will also add to the cumulative GHG, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and reactive organic gas (ROG) impacts of the Project. Environmental Scientist Hagemann calculates that GHG impacts from the Avalon Bay Project alone will exceed the applicable BAAQNID CEQA significance thresholds by almost 10 times. (Exhibit A, p. 2) This impact was ignored entirely in the 2002 EIR. The most dramatic changed circumstance is that the cumulative GHG, NOx and ROG impacts will be dramatically altered by a 2010 order of the Alameda Superior Court, ordering the adjacent City of Pleasanton to abandon is housing cap. (See, Exhibit B (Order of Alameda Superior Court and related documents)) The 2001 programmatic DEIR includes only a brief cumulative impacts section (Exhibit C) based on a short list ofthen-proposed nearby projects (Exhibit D). In July 2010, the Alameda Superior Court ordered the adjacent City of Pleasanton to lift its "housing cap" which artificially limited the number of housing units in that City. (Exhibit B) As a result of that Court order, the City of Pleasanton has increased the number of units to be built in the Hacienda Business Park from 870 units to 1596 - an increase of 726 units. For the City of Pleasanton as a whole, housing will increase by over 1800 units above the now invalid housing cap. The Hacienda Business Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed Avalon Bay Project and directly across the freeway. The previous housing cap was incorporated in the City of Pleasanton's general plan, which was adopted in 1996. That lower housing cap level of development was the level of development analyzed in the 2002 EIR, which the City is now attempting to rely upon. The fact that the housing cap would be lifted in 2010 was not accounted for the 2002 EIR and was not knowable in 2002. The addition of 726 housing units adjacent to the Project site and 1800 housing units in the adjacent City of Pleasanton will result in significant cumulative air quality impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Environmental scientist Matt Hagemann calculated based on the applicable BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, also adopted in 2010, that the new development in Pleasanton will result in significant NOx, ROG and GHG impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR for both construction and operation phases. These emissions will be many times above the applicable CEQA significance thresholds. The new significant cumulative impacts are as follows: Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 20 ] 1 Page 12 Project NOx ROG GHG Hacienda 725 units 725 725 Pleasanton 1800 1800 1800 . BAAQIVID Threshold 325 451 78 Significant Yes Yes Yes Recognizing that several projects may together have a considerable impact, CEQA requires an agency to consider the "cumulative impacts" of a project along with other projects in the area. (Pub. Resources~Code §21083(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b)) If a project may have cumulative impacts, the agency must prepare an EIR, since "a project may have a significant effect on the environment if `[t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (CBE v. CRA, 103 Ca1.App.4th at 98, 114; Kings County Farm Bur. v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 721) It is vital that an agency assess "`the environmental damage [that] often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources (Bakersfield Citizens For Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Ca1.App.4th 1184, 1214) A supplemental draft EIR is therefore required to analyze the Project's significant cumulative air quality impacts from GHGs, ROGs and NOx, which impacts were not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The 2002 EIR did not analyze GHGs at all. The Project, with more than 500 du's exceeds the BAAQNID CEQA significance threshold for GHGs by almost ten times. (Exhibit A, p.2) The City may not rely on a CEQA document that ignored this impact entirely. Now that a CEQA significance threshold exists for GHGs, a supplemental EIR must be prepared to analyze the Project's GHGs. (See, Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (Chevron) (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70 (CEQA document must analyze significant GHG impacts and propose specific mitigation measures)) Furthermore, even if the 2002 EIR had analyzed GHGs (which it did not), the City now proposes to add 100 new dwelling units above the number analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Since a significant impact is created by 87 du's, this change to the Project itself creates a significant GHG impact that was not analyzed in the 2002 EIR.S 5 The City may argue that the 100 du's at Parcel C are offset by the reduction of 100. du's at Parcel A. However, this analysis uses the wrong "baseline." The Staff Report ignores the CEQA baseline issue entirely, despite recent Supreme Court case law from 2010 which supports the commenters' position. (Communities for a Better Environment v. So Coast Air Qual. Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321) Currently, Parcel A is undeveloped. Thus, the reduction of 100 du's from Parcel A is purely hypothetical. The CEQA "baseline" must analyze the "actual environment" not a hypothetical environment that has been permitted but not built. The real environment is that there is no Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 13 C. The City May Not Rely on the 2002 Specific Plan EIR Because New Information Shows that the Project May Have Significant Impacts. The City may not rely on 2002 Specific Plan EIR because there is new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the prior development at either Parcel A or Parcel C, and the City proposes to allow construction of 505 units at Parcel C. Any "reduction" at Parcel A is purely illusory, since that property is currently a vacant lot. As the Supreme Court recently explained, every CEQA document must start from a "baseline" assumption. The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project's anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Environment v. So Coast Air Qual. Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency's environmental review under CEQA: "...must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant." (See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Ca1.App.4th 99, 124-125) As the court of appeal has explained, "the impacts of the project must be measured against the `real conditions on theground,"' and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-123.) As the court has explained, using such a skewed baseline "mislead(s) the public" and "draws a red herring across the path of public input." (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Ca1.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Ca1.App.4th 683, 708-711.) Here, the City repeatedly makes the same mistake as was rejected in the Woodward Park case. In Woodward Park, the City concluded that a new project would have no adverse environmental impacts because it was less intensive than the project already analyzed in the specific plan for the area. The court rejected this analysis because the parcel was undeveloped. The court held that in analyzing a specific project proposal, the CEQA baseline was the actual level of development on the parcel no development -not the level of development hypothetically approved by never realized on the property in a general or specific plan. For the same reason, the City's entire CEQA analysis in the Avalon Bay Project is skewed by the use of the wrong CEQA baseline. The CEQA baseline for Avalon Bay should be an undeveloped parcel of property, as in Woodward Park. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 14 document showing that significant effects of the Project will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior CEQA document. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3)) (See, Sierra Club v. Gilroy (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 30, 34 (presence of rare species on project site identified after prior EIR certified necessitated preparation of new EIR).) For example, when new scientific data indicates that toxic chemicals will pose greater health risks than believed at the time the prior EIR was certified, a new EIR is required to analyze the subsequent project and its health impacts. In Security Environmental Systems v. South Coast Air Quality Management District ((1991) (SES v. SCAQMD) 229 Ca1.App.3d 110, 124), an EIR was prepared for an incinerator. After the EIR was prepared, new scientific information was published showing that dioxin emissions from the incinerator would be far more hazardous than previously believed. The court held that a new EIR was required for re-permitting of the same incinerator to analyze the new toxicity data, and to evaluate whether any additional mitigation measures were appropriate in light of the new data. In this case, there are numerous impacts that must be analyzed that could not have been known in 2002 with the exercise of reasonable diligence. In particular: • Greenhouse Gases: In 2002, there were no CEQA significance thresholds for greenhouse gases, and CEQA documents rarely if ever analyzed GHGs. The 2002 Specific Plan EIR was no exception. It failed to analyze GHG's entirely. In 2010, BAAQNID adopted CEQA significance thresholds for GHGs. A project with more than 87 dwelling units is presumed to have significant GHG impacts. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Table 3.1) The Avalon Bay Project's 505 units exceed this threshold by almost six times. This impact must be analyzed in a new EIR, where mitigation measures can be proposed and considered. • Cancer Risks from Roadways: In 2002 it was not well-known that placing residences close to major freeways posed significant health risks. Now, both the California Air Resources Board ("GARB") and the BAAQMD have adopted guidance recommending against placing residential units near major freeways due to significant cancer risks from diesel particulate matter and other hazards, In Apri12005, GARB released the final version of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which is intended to encourage local land use agencies to consider the risks from air pollution prior to making decisions that approve the siting of new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution. GARB recommends that where residential uses are proposed within 500 Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 15 feet of a freeway, that a health risk assessment be conducted. The cancer risk from the nearby I-580 is a highly significant impact. Based on BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds published in 2010, environmental scientist Matt Hagemann calculates that the Project will expose future residents to cancer risks from nearby I-580 of over 500 per million, over 500% above the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold - a threshold that did not even exist in 2002. • Cumulative Impacts from Pleasanton: In 2010, the Alameda Superior Court ordered the adjacent City of Pleasanton to lift its housing cap. As a result, Pleasanton will be building 725 residential.units adjacent to the proposed Avalon Bay Project, and a total of 1800 additional housing units, above the level analyzed in the cumulative impacts section of the 2002 EIR. The 725 and 1800 housing units will have significant air quality, traffic and other impacts when combined with the proposed Avalon Bay Project. This impacts was not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. • Traffic: At its hearing of September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission admitted that traffic is much worse in the Specific Plan area than calculated in the 2002 EIR. Pat Cashman of the Alameda County Surplus Land Authority commented that traffic conditions and patterns have changed significantly since 2003, creating worse traffic than predicted. Planning Commission Chair King admitted that the area already experiences significant traffic congestion, and questioned whether the Avalon Bay Project would exacerbate this congestion. These concerns were echoed by numerous residents of the Specific Plan area. (See, minutes of Sept. 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting) Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the Project proposal with the "caveat" that the traffic problems be forwarded to the Traffic and Safety Commission for analysis and mitigation.6 Since the traffic problems have over time proven to be 6 This is also an example of prohibited deferred mitigation. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296, 308-309; CBE v. Richmond, supra) An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses "`meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance." (Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only "for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible").) A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 16 greater than predicted in the 2002 EIR, this is an impact that was not known in 2002 and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence. It must be analyzed now, prior to the construction of 505 new units that may exacerbate this problem even further. Since there is new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the 2002 EIR showing that significant effects of the Project will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior CEQA document the City may not rely on 2002 Specific Plan EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3)) An EIR is required to analyze these impacts and to propose adequate mitigation. D. A New EIR is Required Because New Mitigation Measures Exist that Were Not Analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The Specific Plan CEQA exemption does not apply if mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines 15162(a)(3)(D)) 1. The Project will have significant hazardous materials impacts that have not been adequately mitigated in the prior EIR. The Avalon Bay Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts due to hazardous soil and groundwater contamination. The 2002 Specific Plan EIR admits .that soil and groundwater at the Specific Plan are may be contaminated with hazardous chemicals. This may be due to the fact that the site was formerly used by the military. As mitigation for this significant impact, the EIR states: Phase I and, if required, Phase II level environmental investigations shall be performed for each individual development project within the proposed Transit Center prior to any grading or construction activity. Individual developers shall be responsible for performing any necessary cleanup, as recommended in the mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps "insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 929, 935.) Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 17 environmental investigations and as required by regulatory authorities. (less than significant after mitigation). (2002 Specific Plan EIR, Mitigation 4.6-1} In an electronic mail message dated March 21, 2011, Mr. Scott Littlehale requested a copy of any Phase I or Phase II reports prepared for the Project analyzing toxic contamination. Mr. Mike Porto of the Dublin Planning Department responded that no such reports had been prepared, and that any reports would be prepared after project approval by the developers. Mr. Porto stated: Scott: In researching your request further, the Mitigation Measure states that each individual site is responsible to conduct their own Phase 1 Assessment at the time of grading activity. There has been no grading activity on the subject site, in fact the site is currently operating as a parking lot. The Phase 1 will be conducted once the grading activity begins. Mike Porto This is clearly deferred mitigation, which is prohibited by CEQA. CEQA does not permit deferral of the development of mitigation measures until after project approval. The overall effectiveness of the proposed mitigation must be evaluated in the Draft EIR and subjected to public comment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296, 308-309; CBE v. Richmond, supra) An agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727) This approach helps to "insure the integrity of the process of decision-making by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935) By deferring approval of the clean-up plan until after certification of the CEQA document, the EIR "sweeps under the rug" questions concerning the effectiveness, and potential adverse impacts of the measure in violation of CEQA. Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the Applicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. In this case, the developer is placed in charge of developing any mitigation measures - taking the issue out of the hands of government officials entirely. CEQA prohibits this approach, and requires that significant impacts be mitigated through a public process in which the public and governmental decision-makers can analyze the impact and ensure that adequate mitigation measures are imposed. Here, the City proposes to leave the Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C)~ Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 18 entire analysis and mitigation to a private developer, outside of public scrutiny. As explained by the Sundstrom court: An EIR "[is] subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." ...Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny. (Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 308.) The post-approval surveys, studies and plans required in the EIR would suffer from the same fatal flaw. Interested parties,wouid be precluded from commenting on their adequacy, even though CEQA requires that they be permitted to do so. The Project has an admittedly significant impact related to hazardous materials. An EIR must be prepared at this time, prior to Project approval, to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are imposed pursuant to an open public process. 2. The 2002 EIR Admitted Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Which Can Now Be Mitigated. The 2002 Specific Plan EIR admitted that the project would have numerous significant unavoidable impacts. Mitigation measures now exist, that may not have been feasible a decade ago, to reduce or avoid many of those impacts. For example, the 2002 EIR admits that the project will have "significant unavoidable impacts" in at least the following areas: • Regional cumulative air quality impacts; • Cumulative(Year 2025) traffic impacts; • Mainline freeway operations near the project area. (Specific Plan EIR, p. 201) Despite these significant impacts, the EIR contains what are very weak mitigation measures by today's standards. (See, 2002 Specific Plan EIR, section 4.2) For example, the 2002 EIR incorporated the basic construction air quality mitigation measures then proposed by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD adopted new CEQA Guidelines in 2010, with much more robust construction air quality mitigation measures. The Project should be revised to require implementation of these new measures. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 19 In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4~` 98, 122-125, the court of appeal held that when a "first tier" EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later phases of the project to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are "mitigated or avoided." (Id. citing CEQA Guidelines § 15152(f)) The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not "adequately addressed" in the first tier EIR since they were not "mitigated or avoided." (Id.) Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been "adequately addressed," in a way that ensures the effects will be "mitigated or avoided." (Id.) Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, "The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA's role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support." (Id. at 124-125) Since the 2002 Specific Plan EIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a second tier EIR is required to determine if mitigation measures can now be . imposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. If the impacts still remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations will be required. Environmental scientist Matt Hagemann concludes that numerous feasible mitigation measures exist for air quality impacts during the construction phase of the Project, which were not analyzed in the 2002 EIR: • Require on-site electrical service for hand tools; • Require preparation of a traffic control plan; • Demonstrate proper inspection and maintenance of construction equipment; • Limit idling to 5 minutes; • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; • Consolidate truck deliveries when possible; • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; • Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts; • Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have minimum impact on abutters and the general public; and Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 20 • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners and operable windows. • Provide on-site lunch, e.g., a lunch wagon; • Implement a carpool program for construction workers. • Require all deliveries to the construction site to be made with trucks that meet clean engine standards or are otherwise equipped with post-combustion controls that reduce emissions compared to uncontrolled equivalents by 50% for NOx, 90% for ROG and CO, and 80% for PM10/PM2.5. • Prohibit the use of conventional cut-back asphalt for paving and restrict the maximum VOC content of asphalt emulsion; • Use low-ROG paints and other low-ROG construction materials; • Employ a construction site manager to verify that engines are properly maintained and keep a maintenance log; • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; • Consolidate truck deliveries when possible; • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; • Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts; • Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have minimum impact on abutters and the general public; • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners and operable windows; • Require all diesel trucks used by construction contractor(s) at the site, or for on- road hauling of construction material, to be post-1996 models; and • Diesel portable generators less than 50 hp shall not be allowed at the construction site. Mr. Hagemann also concludes that feasible air quality mitigation measures exist for the operational phase of the Project which were not analyzed in the 2002 EIR including: • LEED platinum certification. • A local employment requirement to reduce vehicle miles travelled by construction workers during the 30-year construction phase of the Project. • Include onsite solar photovoltaic systems on building roofs. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 2011 Page 21 • Reduce the urban heat island effect by using "cool" roofs with the highest commercially available solar reflectance and thermal emittance; use lighter- colored pavements; plant shade trees. • Use the most efficient commercially available heating and heating and cooling systems; use solar heating. • Design and locate pedestrian routes and bike paths and minimize road crossings to allow safe walking and bicycling. • Provide bus service to and from the Project from local population centers and rail stations. • Establish free parking spaces in retail/commercial areas reserved for electric and hybrid cars and free parking spaces at the transit station reserved for carpools. • Include charging stations in the parking facilities for electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars. • Develop and follow "green construction guidelines" that require the following: use lowest-emitting off-road construction vehicles; use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flyash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; and recycle construction and demolition waste. • Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires LED street lights and traffic lights, minimal amount of concrete and asphalt, permeable pavement (i.e., "Ecocreto" pervious concrete), and incorporating shade trees where feasible. • Install gray water systems. • Consider the feasibility of wind turbines and/or solar farms to meet a portion of the Project's electricity needs. • Require the developer to subsidize acar-share "pod(s)" (i.e., "Zipcar"), using hybrid, electric or ultra-low emission vehicles. These are all feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce the Project's admittedly significant an unmitigated air quality impacts. These mitigation measures were not considered in the 2002 Specific Plan EIR, most likely because the measures were not well-developed or widely known at the time. This is precisely the situation where a new EIR is required to analyze and impose new feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse impacts. While this list is not intended to be exhaustive, it contains measures that should be considered and evaluated for this Project. Avalon Bay Communities Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Comments of Local 713 May 17, 201 l Page 22 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the City may not exempt the proposed Avalon Bay Project from CEQA review. The City may not rely on the 2002 Specific Plan EIR because the Avalon Bay Project is substantially different from the project analyzed in the 2002 EIR. It will have 100 more units than the project analyzed for this site in 2002, and there will be cumulative impacts from an additional 300 units more than analyzed in the 2002 EIR in the Specif c Plan area. In addition, as a result of a 2010 Court Order, the City of Pleasanton will be building 725 residential units adjacent to the Avalon Bay Project, and 1800 units total above the level analyzed in the cumulative impacts section of the 2002 EIR. As a result, the Avalon Bay Project will have additional air quality, traffic, greenhouse gas, roadway health risks, hazardous materials, and many other environmental impacts that were neither analyzed nor mitigated in the 2002 EIR. Anew EIR must therefore be prepared and recirculated for full public comment to analyze and propose mitigation far these impacts. biz ~ rely, • ~ Richard Drury EXHIBIT A Technical Consultation, t)a#a Analysis and 9i ~ 6` Litigation Support for the Environment 2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206 Newport Beach, California 90405 . Matt Hagemann, P.G, Ch.G. Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com May 17, 2011 Richard Drury Lozeau ~ Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Subject: Comments on the Avalon Bay Communities Project, Dublin Station Dear Mr. Drury: We have reviewed the March 22, 2011 Dublin Planning Commission Staff Report. ("Staff Report") for the proposed project entitled the Avalon Bay Communities, Dublin Station Transit Center Site C. The proposed project ("Project") would construct 505 apartment units, a 4,223 square foot fitness center, 733 spaces of parking within two structures, 65 street-level parking spaces (public and private), all on a 7.2-acre site located within the Dublin, California Transit Center Village planning area. I have also reviewed the July 2001 Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Draft Environmental Impact Report, a programmatic DEIR ("2001 programmatic DEIR") that did not address the specifics of the Project. The 2001 programmatic DEIR assessed only the impact from the construction of a maximum of 405 dwelling units, 100 less than that proposed for the Project. Since the preparation of the 2001 Programmatic DEIR, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has issued CEQA guidance that establishes significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gasses and has developed guidance to screen for impact to future residents from roadways and nearby stationary sources. No consideration of the BAAQMD guidance was made in the Staff Report. Our comments are focused on potential impacts to air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to residents from local air quality. Air Emissions and Greenhouse Gasses Need Mitigation The Staff Report provides no specific consideration of air emissions of criteria pollutants from the Project and do not consider greenhouse gas emissions and any necessary mitigation. The 1 2001 programmatic DEIR does address emissions of criteria pollutants but not greenhouse gasses. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAgMD) has established the following thresholds of significance for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).1 T~Z~Ie 2- T~-iresl~~ids of Signifioar`ce fflr ~faer~tiQroa}_Rel~td ~rit~ria #~ir F~ll~atants an~i Precr~c~rs ~'oliufan` rre~ursr ~",a~,irnt;'t? ~!-~nual ~ri1iS:~;ores ~,tl~Y) A+r~rags Ctaiy 5r~~issi~r~s.(ibiday) c3 10 54 t~d'~a ~ 10 S~ fi' ~ 15 2 F`.1~. 9f ~ 1 P'~t~5; Ep} !~~t~ i._r ytu_ . = ~ i' I'~x= - - _ r_ _ :~r _ _ _ ,r,~~ i.crOTp7ta t?~'+'$:, I _...,C_u:; -_=:"C`~,~P.C: ~--~s~'S C2r,.. ~3c< ~t''.t».;~... „tip; 's :'~t~_.; res:61~P'.,~. Wh.i?1~iE(:~i _ - ±~r-=~Dr~~~_ --•r•=~CtI'J"c~L :Q = ~~r. s_`"`C°r:-~~r. F3'~1~t ~ r ' ' ~ ' . ` _ . ~ `at7r~ dt~~~ler'~~2 No estimates of Project emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were made in the Staff Report for the new Project size which includes an additional 100 dwelling units. We have compared the Project size to "Screening Level Sizes" established by the BAAQMDand have determined that the Project will likely exceed emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gasses. The Project will involve the construction of 505 units of single level apartments with eight two-story units (Staff Report, p. 6). According to the table below2, a project size of 505 low-rise apartments exceeds screening sizes for operational criteria pollutants (ROG) and construction criteria pollutants (ROG). Additionally, the Project size of 505 units exceeds the screening size for operational greenhouse gasses by almost 10 times. 'http://www.baagmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines% ' 20Mav%202011.ashx, p. 2-4 Zhttp://www.baagmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidel i nes% 20Mav%202011.ashx, p. 3-2 . 2 Table ~-1 criteria Air ~ailtats anc3 Pr~curs~rs arsd Gi•fG Scn~nir~~ L~v~i Sides Lans~~Js~T~ri Opera*i~nai~ri~~da f~P~r~ti~+nai~FtG ~t~r~,#=ucsor~~ri#~ria Pollutant Scr~~ning Size Screening Size i~~i~u.un Screening Size ,~,ir~c~l~-# niiy du {+#~X} 1 du ~~tC~t3A ~ r.~.~, I,,.~ _ -#u ?~3 des ~4~ ~,i f'-'.C • ~ - - . Because the Project size exceeds the screening sizes, the Project will likely generate operational-related ROG and greenhouse gasses that would exceed the thresholds of significance. Again, no mention of Project emissions was made in the Staff Report. This is a significant omission, and is a potential impact that needs to be evaluated in a DEIR to reflect the Project size as currently proposed. A DEIR should also be prepared to evaluate and identify any mitigation that is necessary to reduce exceedences of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gasses to levels below thresholds, including routine feasible measures that are considered in CEQA projects as listed below. Construction Emissions Mitigation • Require preparation of a traffic control plan; • Demonstrate proper inspection and maintenance of construction equipment; • Limit idling to 5 minutes; • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; • Consolidate truck deliveries when possible; • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; • Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts; • Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have minimum impact on abutters and the general public; • Provide on-site lunch, e.g., a lunch wagon; • Implement a carpool program for construction workers. • Require all deliveries to the construction site to be made with trucks that meet clean engine standards or are otherwise equipped with post-combustion controls that reduce emissions compared to uncontrolled equivalents by 50%for NOx, 90%for ROG and CO, and 80%for PM10/PM2.5. • Prohibit the use of conventional cut-back asphalt for paving and restrict the maximum VOC content of asphalt emulsion; 3 • Use low-ROG paints and other low-ROG construction materials; • Employ a construction site manager to verify that engines are properly maintained and keep a maintenance log; • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; • Consolidate truck deliveries when possible; • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site; • Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts; • Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have minimum impact on abutters and the general public; • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners and operable windows; • Require all diesel trucks used by construction contractor(s) at the site, or for on-road hauling of construction material, to be post-1996 models; and • Diesel portable generators less than 50 hp shall not be allowed at the construction site. Operational Emissions Mitigation • Install photovoltaic panels on the roof or on undeveloped land within the Project boundary; • Use electric equipment for landscaping; • Increase wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; • Install Energy Star approved roofing and windows; • Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning; • Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting; • Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights; • Use light-colored roof materials and paint to reflect heat; • Substitute materials, e. g., use water-based paint; • Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of asphalt; • Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection; • Use ozone-destruction catalyst on air condition systems; and • Reduce standard paving by 20%. This mitigation was not identified in the 2001 programmatic DEIR. Only these measures were listed for mitigation during construction (p. 53): 4 • Water all active construction areas as needed; • Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); ® Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The construction mitigation measures included in the 2001 programmatic DEIR do not include. those measures that are routinely considered in DEIRs that are prepared under today's CEQA requirements (as listed above). Additionally, the 2001 programmatic DEIR did not include any measures to mitigate emissions during Project operation. The 2001 programmatic DEIR could not adequately identify impacts on ROG, NOx and PM from construction and operation of the entire project which was 1500 housing units at the time and which is now 1800 units, an increase of 20%. Additionally, the 2001 programmatic DEIR could not consider impacts on greenhouse gasses at all because guidance had not yet been published by the BAAQMD. A DEIR needs to be prepared to identify impacts from the Project on air quality and on greenhouse gasses using the correct project size and current guidance. Finally, the 2001 programmatic DEIR includes only a brief cumulative impacts section and fails to mention cumulative impacts on air quality from other nearby residential development projects that have been recently proposed. Most notably, in July 2010, the Alameda Superior Court ordered the adjacent City of Pleasanton to lift its "housing cap" which artificially limited the number of housing units in that City. As a result of that Court order, the City of Pleasanton has increased the number of units to be built in the Hacienda Business Park from 870 units to 5 1596 - an increase of 726 units. For the City. of Pleasanton as a whole, housing will increase by over 1800 units above the now invalid housing cap. The Hacienda Business Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed Avalon Bay Project and directly across the freeway. The previous housing cap was incorporated in the City of Pleasanton's general plan, which was adopted in 1996. That lower housing cap level of development was the level of development analyzed in the 2002 EIR which the City is now attempting to rely upon. The fact that the housing cap would be lifted in 2010 was not accounted for the 2002 EIR and was not knowable in 2002. The addition of 726 housing units adjacent to the Project site and 1800 housing units in the adjacent City of Pleasanton will result in significant cumulative air quality impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. As shown in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines3, the new development will result in significant NOx, ROG and GHG impacts not analyzed in the 2002 EIR for both construction and, operation phases. These emissions will be many times above the applicable CEQA significance thresholds. The new significant cumulative impacts are as follows: Project NOx ROG GHG Hacienda (Dwelling 726 726 726 Units) Pleasanton (Dwelling 1800 1800 1800 Units) BAAQMD Threshold 325 451 78 (Dwelling Units) Significarit Yes Yes Yes A supplemental draft EIR is therefore required to analyze this new significant environmental impact that was not analyzed in the 2002 EIR and to propose feasible mitigation measures. Risks to Future Site Occupants from Roadways and Stationary Sources have not been Evaluated The BAAQMD has established tools to screen projects for impacts associated with major roadways and stationary sources for compliance with the District's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.4 The Staff Report has failed to conduct this screening and therefore has failed to 3http~//www baagmd Rov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines% 20May%202011.ashx, p. 3-2 ° http~//www baagmd gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodolosy.aspx 6 identify and mitigate potential impacts to project residents associated with PM2.5 and to evaluate cancer risks from adjacent roadways and stationary sources. The 2001 programmatic DEIR could not consider the requirements of this guidance because it had not yet been promulgated. Therefore, no consideration whatsoever has been given to the Risks to future site occupants from roadways and stationary sources. In addition, the proposed Project will exacerbate these impacts because it moves 100 additional housing units to a location that is much closer to the freeway than the project analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Screening we conducted using the BAAQMD guidance shows thresholds for cumulative impacts were exceeded as follows: • A cancer risk to residents and workers equivalent to 535 cases per million, more than 5 times the BAAQMD threshold of 100 cases per million; and • PM2.5 emissions of 1.36 ug/m3, which exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 0.80 ug/m3. We conducted the analysis using BAAQMD guidance entitled "BAAQMD Risk and Hazard Screening Analysis Processi5 in preparing an estimate of PM2.5 emissions and cancer risk to residents and future workers at the area of the Project. Results of this analysis, summarized below and as depicted in the figures that follow, are included in Attachment A to this letter which presents the estimates for PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risk, chronic hazard risk, and acute hazard risk for receptors in the areas of the Project. Sher//www.baagmd.eov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEOA/Risk%20and%20Hazard%20Screeni ng%20Flow%20Chart l2 29 l0.ashx 7 Roadway Impacts: Highways and Major Roadways Cancer Risk ~ Daly Tnf(ic I Non cnncci Source ~ Drta me Ift) !PM25 (u~;/n8) CCQ(, Th rr-hold (c s 5 prr i C[~,4 ih mph old CFQA Th rcthold Volume million) Hazard I-580 218,000 235 0.567 238.4 0.371 Martinelli Wa 20,000 <100 0.20 15. 0.098 Iron Horse Parkwa 10,000 <100 0.057 0.80 7.5 10 0.049 1 Dublin Blvd 22,560 620 ~ 0.0208 ~ 0.054 0.0 Demarcus Blvd 4,000 <100 NA NA NA Cumulative Impact from Roads: 0.8448 0.80 261 100 0.518 10 Roadway Impacts 1~ear Dublin Transit Center _l Ot~biin Blvd Martin~llrway- @ 620 feet - - _ - - @ < 100 feet Average daily traffit: 22,560 r~~~~_ .,~.r, i Average daily trdffic_ 2i?,00.=~ FM2.5 = 0`02D8 ugJm~- - -'M2 5 0.2 ugJm Cancer = D.054 in amillic,n ~ ~ C.:3ncer = 15 ill a riiiU~ _~n i~J~~nCanr~rChro~l+c=1' ~.i~+s~ NonG?ricer ~;uc Luc lLb ~ s Demarcus Blvd. ~ ~ ~ Note: Map indkaYesradiiof @ < 100 #eet ~ ~ 100, 200, SOD, 700, and A~~riagedallytr f I 110 ~ ~A 1z000feetfromprojectsfte. Noanalysi r ~~~il~~l ! ~ ~ ~ _ --1 - - ,tea - ~ Iron Horse Pkwy, . .1-580 @ 235 feet " _ . - @ < 100 feet Average daily traPfic218,ufl0 - - ~ - ~-+,e daily Vaffic: 10,000 _A' ,.92:5 = CJ.057 uelm3 ...PM25-~S67~IgIm- l_~i~ ~ I n ~i mull ~n „ : , ~ n ~ r - in a nnlln.~n None ,-lacer ~ hrvnir 0.311 --r -~1 bS lCrinccr ~ hroni~_. J.UG'? - - F Y,.. i ~ +_.~s~ ~ 8 Permitted Source Impacts: Permitted Source G3ncer Risk PM2.5 CEQA Noncancer Source (cases per CEQA Threshold CEQA Threshold (ug/m3) Threshold Hazard million) Ba Area Ra id Transit 0.038 21.15 0.008 Kaiser Permanente 0.447 0.80 252.77 10 0.090 1 Cooks Collision of Dublin 0.028 0 0 Magnussen's Car West Auto Body 0 0 0 Cumulative Impact from 0.513 0.80 273.92 100 0.098 10 Permitted Sources: Permitted Sources Near Dublin Transit tenter Cooks Collision of Dublin y~ r, I ~c minimris'~isk _ _ ~ ~ MaE;nussen's tar west Auto . _ ^1 Body _ r~ - Le minirnu ; r isle Kaiser Permsnente ~ '4rt ' PIN2.5 = 0.447 u^~tn3 ~ ~ ~ Note: Ma indicates radii of !s , ~ P e - ~ ~ _ ~ ' 1 ; 100, 2D0, 500, 700, and Cancel = 252.77 i~~ a mlAic,~i ~ i HaZaTd 01.090 ~ ~ 1,OflOfeetfromproJectsite. I a~ _ ,.w. ~ - Bay Area Rapid Transit -rte ~ _ - _ ,,~1, ,-0:(1 u; :nos ~ W ~ o, r r ti i;_~r l` ii ~ r~illian i z ~ _ - -i., _ Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative Impact Canter Risklcases Sources ~ PM25 (ug/m3) CFQA Threshold ~ CEOA Threshold Noncancer Hazard CEQA Threshold per mlllionl Hi hwa and Ma'or Roadwa s 0.8448 260.93 0.518 Permitted Sources 0.513 0.8 273.92 100 0.098 1 Cumulative 1.36 534.85 0.616 As shown in the tables above; BAAQMD thresholds are exceeded for PM2.5 impacts and cancer risks for the Project. The Staff Report failed to acknowledge and conduct the BAAQMD Risk and Hazard Screening Analysis Process as summarized above. The BAAQMD guidance states that if screening of the 9 type we have conducted shows an exceedence of thresholds, more advanced screening is to be conducted following a flow path presented at their website.6 A DEIR needs to be prepared for the Project to include the results of screening analyses recommended by the BAAQMD and to include further analysis to refine emissions. If emissions exceed thresholds, mitigation should be incorporated in the DEIR to protect the health of the future site occupants and workers. Sincerely, ,r, ~ ~ i Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. bhttp•//www baagmd Gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Risk%20and%20Hazard%20Screeni ne%20Flow%20Chart 12 29 l0.ashx 10 Attachment A Summary Narrative of Risks and Hazards -Dublin Avalon Site C Risk and hazards to receptors at the Dublin Avalon Site C Project area from roadways were estimated using the following methodology derived from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. First, radii of 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1,000 feet from the boundary of the project site were created in ArcGIS using aerial imagery. In Google Earth, roadways within 1,000 feet of the project were identified and the distance to each was measured and recorded. Daily traffic volumes for 2010 were acquired from the City of Dublin's Transit Center: counts were available for I-580 and Dublin Blvd, estimates were provided for Martinelli Way, Iron Horse Parkway, and Demarcus Blvd. The October 2010 Alameda County Screening Tables were utilized to estimate 1- 580 contributions to PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risks, and chronic noncancer hazard (CNH) at the site, and the Surface Streets Screening Tables were used for the contributions from the remaining four streets: Dublin Blvd, Martinelli Way, Iron Horse Parkway, and Demarcus Blvd. Estimated values from the tables were selected based on available traffic volume approximations and the measured distance from the site to each of the roads. Martinelli Way, Iron Horse Parkway, and Demarcus Blvd are all located within 100 ft of the site, therefore the concentration, cancer risk, and CNH values associated with them were all extracted from the <100 distance column of the appropriate Surface Streets Screening Tables based on roadway orientation. To more accurately assess the particulate concentrations, risks, and hazards imposed by Dublin Blvd and I-580, the measured distance from each road to the site was used to interpolate values between the 500-700 ft and 200-500 ft intervals, respectively. The methods of interpolation are outlined in the above mentioned BAAQMD screening guide, with approximations obtained by following the calculation Dint, near -Dint, far Dint,near -goad Cint,near - Cint, far Cint,near - road where Dx is the distance to either the near or far interval distance on the screening table or to the road of interest, and Cx is the corresponding value (concentration, risk, or CNH) associated with that distance. The equation was solved for Goad for each parameter attributed to I-580 and Dublin Blvd and the results were included in the roadway impacts assessment. The PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risks, and CNHs were then compared to CEQA thresholds for individual project impacts and the sum of the individual values for all the sources were compared to CEQA thresholds for cumulative impacts. Risk and hazards to receptors at the Dublin Avalon Site C Project area from permitted sources were estimated using the following methodology. Radii of 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1,000 feet from the boundary of the project site were mapped in ArcGIS. BAAQMD's Google Earth 11 permitted source map was downloaded and utilized to locate permitted sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. Each source's estimated PM2.5 concentration, cancer risk, and hazard index values were obtained by clicking on its Google Earth point. PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risks, and chronic and acute hazard risks were then compared to CEQA thresholds for individual project impacts and the sum of the individual values for all the sources were compared to BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for significant impacts. Finally, PM2.5 concentrations, cancer risk, and hazard index values for both roadways and permitted sources were summed, and compared to CEQA thresholds for cumulative impacts. The results of the screening are presented in the text of the comments. 12 ?eahnlcal tans¢itatian, Data Analysis and Lifgalbn &eppart focthe Emlrantnent 2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206 Newport Beach, California 92660 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Fax: (949) 717-0069 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies CEQA Review Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certification: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has .worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 -present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 -present; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc (2000 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 -1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 -1986). Senior Re,.gulato~ and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of numerous environmental impact reports under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and geologic hazards. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a comunity adjacent to a fomler Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for amulti-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. 2 Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the dischrge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. 3 Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Poli Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Eamed an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geoloev: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: 4 • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teachine• From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. In Fall 2010, Matt taught Physical Geology (lecture and lab) to students at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradan. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. 5 Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003: Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. . Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of'the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. 7 Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Geologist licensing examination, 2009-2010. 8 EXHIBIT B THE CfTY OF ' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT j'L~E~S~4NTQNo July 20, 2010 City Manager's Office City Attorney TITLE: APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AGREEMENTISETTLEMENT TERM SHEET CONCERNING Urban Habitat v. City at Pleasanton LITIGATION AND DRAFT RESOLUTION AMENDING EXISTING NON-DISCRIMINATION IN ' HOUSING POLICIES SUMMARY On April 6 and 20, 2010, the City Council conducted public meetings for the purpose of informing the public of the March 12, 2010 Superior Court ruling in the Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton litigation. Since receiving public comment regarding potential courses of action relating to the litigation, the City Council has been working with Urban Habitat, Public Advocates, Inc. and the Attorney General's Office, in an attempt to reach a settlement of the entire case. This report describes a tentative settlement agreement/settlement term sheet (Tentative Agreement) which has been reached . between representatives of all parties. If approved by the City Council, this matter along with all outstanding litigation against the City will be dismissed upon final adoption by the City Council on August 17, 2010 (including three pending unresolved claims/lawsuits related to the General Plan and the City's housing policies). As part of the settlement terms, the City's existing non-discrimination in housing policies are to be strengthened, and a resolution making such modifications is provided for the City Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Tentative AgreementlSettlementTevm Sheet (Attachment 1). 2. Authorize the City Attomey to prepare a settlement agreement embodying the concepts and provisions set forth in the Tentative Agreernent/Settlement Term Sheet. 3. Direct the City Manager to place the settlement agreement on the August 17, 2010 City Council agenda for approval. 4. Approve the attached draft resolution (included as an attachment to the Tentative Agreement) approving enhancements to the City's existing non discrimination housing policies. 5. Authorise staff to begin preparing resolutions, ordinances and agreements consistent with the terms set forth in the Tentative Agreement. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The Tentative Agreement requires the payment of attorney's fees equaling $995,000 within thirty days of the settlement agreement (anticipated on August 17) and an additional $995,000 within thirty days of July 1, 2011. These payments will be approved formally upon approval of the settlement agreement, at which time staff intends to recommend the use of the Self-Insurance Retention fund (218) for the initial payment. The second payment will be addressed as part of the 2011-12 Budget. BACKGROUND In November 2006, Urban Habitat filed a lawsuit against the City claiming that various City policies and ordinances prevent or hinder the development of affordable housing in Pleasanton during what is known under the State Housing Element Law (Government Code section £5583 et seq.) as the "Third Planning Period" ending in 2409. The Petitioners' complaint, which was amended in 2009 to assert similar claims arising in connection with the City's housing requirements for the Fourth Planning Period, and which the State Attorney General then joined, alleged (among other claims): • that the City's Housing Cap violates state law in a number of respects, including that the Cap prevented the City from accommodating its regional "fair share" housing numbers ("RHNA"}, and sought to have the Cap declared invalid. • that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, and under the so-called Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Gode section 65913,1 et seq.), namely, that the City failed to zone sufficient property to accommodate its regional affordable housing obligations. • that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under another General Plan program by failing to amend its Growth Management Ordinance to override the annual housing allocation in order to meet regional housing needs. _ In addition, the Attorney General filed a separate lawsuit in 2009 challenging the City's 2009 General Pian update. That lawsuit asserted claims that the General Pian update EIR was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, and that the update itself violated State law in several respects. The Attorney General and the City agreed to suspend litigation on the General Plan lawsuit pending the outcome of the Urban Habitat litigation. On March 12, 2010, the Court issued a decision in the Urban Habitat matter which may be distilled as follows: • the Cap conflicts with State law RHNA requirements. • the City cured any defects in its Growth Management Ordinance by its recent (October 2009) amendment allowing the Council to override the ordinance to satisfy RHNA requirements. Page 2 of 9 • the City failed to carry out a mandatory duty, under Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element and under the Least Cost Zoning Law, to rezone sufficient properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 units/acre) in order to accommodate the remaining housing units required for the Third Planning Period. Although in October 2009, the City Council rezoned properties in the Hacienda Business Park to meet this obligation, the Court agreed with Urban Habitat that this rezoning was "illusory," and did not satisfy Program 19.1 or State law because it did not actually allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUD amendment process that is anticipated to last at least one year. The Court's order invalidates the Cap in its entirety. It also directs the City to: • "cease and desist" from enforcing, administering andlor implementing the Cap. • remove references to the Cap from its General Plan. • affect sufficient, "non-illusory" rezonings to accommodate the "unmet" RHNA (521 units) for the Third Planning Period. • cease issuing any non-residential building and all related permits for construction or development until it brings its General Plan into compliance. To fully inform the public of the Court decision, and solicit complete public involvement, the City Council held public meetings on April fi and 20 during which potential responses to the Court ruling were discussed (The agenda reports for those meetings are included as Attachment 3). While a range of comments were presented to the Council, many members of the public expressed an interest in resolving all legal matters as expeditiously as possible. In addition, many members of the public stated their concern over continued legal appeals/challenges and the expenses stemming from continuing this legal dispute. In response, and in view of information provided by staff and legal counsel, the City Council decided to pursue a settlement of the entire lawsuit and related second lawsuit and through it discussions, five general goals were identified upon which settlement options were evaluated. The five goals are as follows: • Retain local control and flexibility to the maximum extent possible relative to the Hacienda rezonings and development process, including retention of a meaningful role for the Hacienda Task Force and public input; . Restore City's non-residential permitting authority as quickly as possible; . Retain control over the City Housing Element update process to assure it reflects both State law and the interests of the community; • Reach a global settlement that addresses the Court's entire March 12, 2010 ruling as well as other outstanding litigation; . Minimize financial impacts of the litigation. To facilitate the negotiations, the City Council appointed Mayor Hosterman and Councilrnember McGovern to serve on a negotiating team, including the City Manager, Page 3 of 9 City Attorney, the City's contract legal counsel and various staff members, for the purpose of attempting to reach a settlement agreement. Numerous negotiations have occurred over the past few months which have resulted in the Tentative Agreement (Attachment i The negotiating team has determined that the Tentative Agreement meets the City Council's settlement goals, and as a result, the Tentative Agreement is being recommended for approval. This public hearing provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement terms prior to execution of the settlement agreement. DISCUSSION The Tentative Agreement has been approved by the Petitioners (Urban Habitat and Public Advocates} and the State Attorney General's Office. It will act as the basis for preparation of a settlement agreement that will more specifically memorialize the settlement. Based on the implementation schedule (see Attachment 2), the Settlement Agreement will be presented to the City Council for adoption on August 17. For organizational purposes of this agenda report, a summary of the Tentative Agreement has been separated into terms and impacts regarding those matters Related to the Court Order and those matters and impacts related to resolving the remaining, unadjudicated causes of action in the Urban Habitat lawsuit and the second lawsuit brought by the Attorney General's Office but not prosecuted against the City of Pleasanton (Matters Not Specific to the Court Order}. SUMMARY OF MATTERS RELATED TO THE COURT ORDER Housing Cap White the City Council has been well aware of the voters' interest over the years in retaining limits to the number of allowable housing units in Pleasanton, the Court Order states definitive4y that the City must "cease and desist" from enforcement of its current Housing Cap, and remove all references to the Cap from the City's General Pian. Therefore, in recognition of this, the Tentative Agreement reflects the City's intent to amend the General Plan to eliminate references to the Housing Cap (General Plan Policy 24 and Programs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3; in addition, several other provisions of the City's General Plan that refer to the Cap also will be deleted}. The attached implementation schedule outlines the timeline for steps necessary to amend the General Plan and other actions related to the Tentative Agreement. Alternatives to the Existing Housing Cap Throughout the litigation proceedings and settlement negotiations, the City Council has been cognizant of public concern over amending the General Plan to remove the voter approved housing cap. Unfortunately, it has been determined that the housing cap is no longer consistent with State law because it provides a barrier to appropriately plan (e.g. , zone) for regional housing obligations as mandated by the State of California. These requirements are consistently applied to every municipality and county jurisdiction in California. As a result, in this instance, State housing laws now preempt the City's housing cap. Page 4 of 9 in recognition of this preemption, at its April public meetings the Council discussed alternative growth management measures that it intends to pursue as part of or in conjunction wi#h the Housing Element process. For example, the Council could utilize the Housing Element process to amend its current growth management ordinance to specifically reference City-wide standards far services and infrastructure such as intersection level of service, sewer capacity and water supply, and acres of parkland per 1,000 in population. (The current growth management ordinance provides for the City Council to use the information related to services and infrastructure included in the periodic Growth Management Report to evaluate the capacity to serve additianal growth.) Another approach would be to develop a growth management program that would align future growth with the major themes of the General Plan. For example, if sustainability were a priority objective, measures could be developed that would score projects based on energy and water use, poteritial vehicle miles traveled, Green Building score,, ar estimated greenhouse gas emissions, and so on, and could require development to attain a minimum score to advance in the development process. Regardless of the final outcome, it is anticipated that amending the General Plan to remove the housing cap will result in the implementation of new growth management measures that are consistent with State law, the settlement agreement, the Council's long range planning goals, and the City's emphasis on protecting and enhancing the community's quality of life. It should also be noted that the General Plan Land Use Element, Policy 24 incorporates language established by Measures PP and QQ that further defines housing units to be counted against the Housing Cap and this language will be removed and part of the amendment process. However, Measure PP and Qo language regarding limitations to hillside development, as currently incorporated in the General Plan will not be amended. Hacienda Rezonings The Court determined that the rezoning of three sites in Hacienda Business Park (including BRE, WP Carey and Roche) as set forth in Ordinance 1998 do not satisfy Program 19.1 of the current Housing Element or State law because they do not actually allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUD amendment process. As a result, the Court ruled that "land zoning and land-use changes need to be implemented such that they are without condition or need of future discretionary approval." As outlined in the attached April 20 agenda report, the rezonings are necessary to address the 1999-2007 Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) which sets forth the City's obligation to plan for additional housing units as determined by the State. Notwithstanding the Court order, the City Council determined that retaining its land use control over the Hacienda rezonings and development process, including retention of a having an important effect role for the Hacienda Task Force, was critical to reaching a settlement agreement. In view of this goal, the Tentative Agreement establishes a City directed process for the Hacienda development that includes three broad areas: core development standards, a public process for establishing additional development standards and design guidelines and project approval. Page 5 of 9 The Care Development Standards establish the number, type and location of affordable units to be included on the three sites. In general, these terms are consistent with the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and mandate that 15%, or 130 units which ever is more, be made available at rents affordable to households at the very low income level and that these units be dispersed throughout the development. In addition to affordability standards, the Core Development Standards establish that project density will be at a minimum of 30 units per acre resulting in a total of approximately 870 units on the three sites. While consistent with the City's inclusionary zoning ordinance, execution of the Settlement Agreement will restrict the Council's ability to accept or require ,affordability and/or project density that is less than provided for in the Tentative Agreement. While the Core Development Standards are consistent with the 1Z0, and will be presented to the Task Force for its information, they must be approved as included in the Tentative Agreement. The City has no discretion in this regard. The Task Force will, however, continue to have a significant role and discretion in determining project design guidelines and other development standards (referred to in the Tentative Agreement as "non core development standards"), which include the amount of retail space, project design (including building height, massing anti materials), and amenities such as open space, parking, etc. Following the Task 3=orce's recommendation regarding the project's design guidelines and non-care development standards, the City Council will adopt PUD ordinances setting forth the overall elements for projects, including all appropriate environmental review, at these locations. Upon receipt of a development application for any of the three sites, the City Council will use its discretion to adopt conditions relative to the interpreta#ion of the PUD ordinances' non core development standards, but will riot have discretion to deny an application for a housing development that meets the PUD ordinance core development standards, Update to the Housing Element The Tentative Agreement stipulates that within one year of the settlement agreement date, the City will submit to HCD its updated Housing Element and complete any rezonings required to meet the current RHNA. An update of the City's Housing Update was already part of the Community Development Department's work plan. The Tentative Agreement does not impact the overall Housing Element process nor does it require specific language for goals and programs that will be included in the document. It does, however, require that the process, as determined by the City Council, will include: (1) a discussion with non-profit affordable housing developers; (2) identification of affordable housing sites that would be most competitive for award of Lower Income Housing Tax Credits; (3) the adoption of goals and programs promoting affordable housing for families and special needs housing; and {4) the inclusion of one or more programs, as determined by the City Council, to attract non-profit affordable housing development for families for the identified affordable housing sites. (These items are outlined in Attachment A to the Tentative Agreement.) Similar to the Hacienda rezonings, retaining local control .of planning matters was critical to the Council's focus in the discussion related to the Housing Element, and the Tentative Agreement addresses the Council's interest. Moreover, staff believes this approach will be mandated by HCD in its review of the City's Housing Element update. Page 6 of 9 Issuance of Building Permits The Court Order requires the City to cease issuing non-residential building permits and all related building permits for any construction or development until the City brings its General Plan into compliance with the requirements of State Law. As a result, the Council's goal has been to restore the City's permitting authority as quickly as possible and this interest was one of the fundamental reasons for entering into a settlement agreement. Further, the City's legal counsel has advised that pursuing additional litigation would likely result in retention of the permit restriction far some undetermined period in the future. The Tentative Agreement provides that upon its approval, permits will be approved by the Petitioner and Intervenor subject to an interim review process to be agreed upon by the parties, likely allowing for immediate approval of applications that do not increase square footage, and such interim process would apply only to the period betweer? approval by the City Council of the Tentative Agreement and execution of the final settlement agreement {i.e. for approximately a one month}. The City's full permitting authority will be restored unconditionally at the time settlement agreement is approved by the City Council (scheduled for August 17). SUMMARY OF MATTERS NOT SPECIFIC 70 THE COURT ORDER As the Council is aware, the Court did not rule on all matters of litigation. Spec~caHy, it did not rule on claims of housing discrimination and the inadequacy of the City's General Plan's Environmental Impact Report analysis of green house gas impacts. Because one of the City Council's goals was to resolve al! litigation, the Tentative Agreement includes matters not addressed in the Court's March 12, 2010 order. A summary of these are as follows. Non•Discrimination The Tentative Agreement requires City Council adoption of a resolution approving certain non-discrimination housing policies. The resolution, which is included as Attachment A to the Tentative Agreement, includes a specific statement of non-discrimination and a requirement for the City Manager to report regularly to the City Council on the City's efforts to fulfill the non-discrimination policy and the City's plans and proposals to attract well designed affordable housing for families with children in the future. Staff believes this resolution is not substantially different from the City's existing non-discrimination policies set forth in the existing Housing Element, and as applied by the City. Environmental Matters To address concerns raised regarding the adequacy of the greenhouse analysis prepared as part of the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report, the City is agreeing to prepare a Climate Action Plan, following the completion of an environmental impact report. It is important to note that the adoption of such a plan is also a requirement of state law (e.g. AB 32} and highly ericouraged by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. It is also a requirement of the City's General Plan, The Climate Action Plan wilt Page 7 of 9 be completed within eighteen months of the settlement date. The contract and proposal detailing the full scope of the Climate Action Plan, which has been in the planning process independent of the litigation for some time now, is included as a separate item on this agenda. In addition, the Tentative Agreement establishes that the City will conduct appropriate environmental analysis, in accordance with CEQA guidelines for actions identified in the Tentative Agreement including the Hacienda rezonings. The level of analysis anticipated is consistent with the City's process used typically for these types of projects. No Additional Litigation To assure no additional litigation related to these matters, all parties agree to dismiss the General Plan/CEQA litigation and the two remaining discrimination causes of action in the litigation and to not pursue additional litigation regarding the Housing Cap and the Hacienda rezonings. Further, the Tentative Agreement establishes an enforcement process that retains the Court's jurisdiction to effectuate the. provisions of the Settlement Agreement. However, if a dispute arises, the opportunity for mediation is available. Attorney's Fees Under a provision of State law known as the "private Attorney General" statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.,5), advocacy groups who are successful in enforcing public laws are often entitled to recover their attorneys fees from the public agencies they successfully sue. This law allows not only for the recovery of fees actually paid, but also for "enhanced" fees based on market rates and "multipliers" based on the length, difficulty and complexity of the litigation. In this case, Urban Habitat has provided the City with information supporting a "base" fee claim of nearly $3 million, and has asserted an entitlement to multipliers that would elevate their claim to an amount exceeding $4 million if the matter were to be litigated. Since the start of the settlement process the City Council has expressed an interest in negotiating a more reasonable attorneys' fee award, and in having that be part of any settlement agreement. While the City could pursue an alternative of litigating attorney's fees, this would be inconsistent with the global settlement focus of the Tentative Agreement and could very well result in higher (potentially twice the settlement amount) attorney's fees. As a result, the negotiating team was successful in reaching what it believes is a reasonable compromise on the amount of the fees. That compromise-- $1.99 million payable over two fiscal years-is reflected in the Tentative Agreement. It should be noted that the Attorney General's Office has decided not to claim fees. As a result, the full fee amount will be paid to the Petitioners, Urban Habitat et al. The two fee payments are in addition to the expenses paid since 2006 to the City's private legal counsel to defend the case. Page B of 9 Submitted by: Approv by: -t J an Lowell Nelson Fialho City Attorney City Manager Attachment 1. Tentative Agreement/Settlement Term Sheet, including Exhibit A "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton Approving Enhancements to Existing Non-discrimination Housing Policies." 2. Tentative Agreement/ Settlement Term Sheet Implementation Schedule 3. City Agenda Report Dated April 20, 2010. Page 9 of 9 Attachment 1 Tentative Agreement /Settlement Term Sheet Urban Habitat et al. v. City of Pleasanton July 20, 2010 (This document has been prepared in furtherance of settlement negotiations. The provisions of California Evidence Code section 1 l 52 specifically apply.) Housing Can No later than October 19, 2010, the City Council will amend its tieneral Plan eliminating Policy 24 and Programs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 and making revisions to other (general Plan and Housing Element text. Housing Element Within one year of the settlement date the City will submit to the HCD an amended Housing Element. 7'he City will adopt the Housing Element within 90 days after receiving a response from HCD however, extensions may be granted for unique and unforeseen circumstances. A draft site inventory will be released within 180 days of the settlement date and rezonings will be completed prior to or concurrent with adoption of the Housing Element. An environmental impact report will be prepared for the Housing Element. Climate Action Plan Within ] 8 months of the settlement date the City will adopt a Climate Action Plan, including completion of an environmental impact report that will address the allegations raised by the Attorney General with regard to the General Plan CE.QA complaint. Nan-discrimination No later than August 17, 2010, the City will adopt a resolution adopting the proposed non- discrimination clause substantially as set forth in Exhibit A hereto. In fulfillment of this objective, the City will study and evaluate housing element programs related to creating programs that promote nan-profit housing development for families, as well as special needs households and that strengthen and promote construction of affordable units for families. The City will undertake this effort as part of the City's housing element update, which is subject to public input and community participation. No Additional Litigation City agrees not to pursue appeal or other/further litigation; Petitioners and lntervener agree to dismiss the General Plan/CEQA litigation and two remaining discrimination causes of action in Urban Habitat litigation, and to not pursue additional litigation regarding Housing Cap and Hacienda rezonings and or the General Plan/CEQA. City Permittinr? Authority Petitioners and Intervener agree to set criteria to allow far the approval of any building permits from time of tentative settlement agreement until the settlement date. As of the date of the settlement agreement, the City's full permit authority shall be restored completely and without limitation of any kind. 7.2U.201U. Final Attorney's Fees City will pay $995,000 within 30 days of the settlement date and additional $995,000 no later than 30 days after July 1, 2011. CE A City will conduct appropriate environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA guidelines for actions identified in this Settlement Term Sheet. Enforcement Develop an enforcement provision indicating the Court will retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate the provisions of the Settlement Agreement until such time that the City has completely performed the terms of the Agreement. Petitioners and Intervenor shall give written notice to City regarding potential breach and the parties shall rneet and confer within fourteen (14) business days of such notice before any party seeks judicial enforcement. Hacienda Rezoninss (nertainingonlyto three sites coned previously 1. No later than November 2, 2010, the City Council will approve the second reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 1948 to remove para~-aph 5, PUD Modification Contingency. 2. Development Standards, Design Guidelines and Application Process A. Phase I Core Development Standards Within 120 days of the settlement date, the City Council will approve the following Core Development Standards: Density: Minimum 30 units per acre Affordability: Income Ranges: The greater of (a) 15°/a of units of all units, or {b) 130 units, will be very low income (50% of AMI). Through the affordable housing agreements entered into between the City and each developer, affordable units will be deed restricted in perpetuity. The affordable housing agreements will be recorded and run with the land. Section 8 Rental Assistance Vouchers: The developments will be required by the affordable housing agreements entered into between the City and each developer to accept HUD Section 8 rental vouchers as a means of assisting qualified applicants. Affordability Unit Mix: • 10% of the total affordable units will be 3 bedroom units • A minimum of 35% of the total affordable units will be two bedroom units The remaining affordable units will be one bedroom units Location of Affordable Units: All affordable units will be dispersed throughout the development. B. Phase II Non core development standards and Design Guidelines Within 180 days of the settlement date, the City will develop non-core development standards and Design Guidelines for the three Hacienda sites that are not inconsistent with the Core development standards. 7.20.2010. Final G Phase Ill Adoption of Development Standards and Design Gs!ldellnes Within 180 days from the settlement date, the City Council will adopt a PUD zoning ordinance for the three Hacienda sites setting forth the Core, non-core development standards and design guidelines. D. Phase IV Protect Application Commencing at the effective date of the PUD Zoning Ordinance, the City will accept the development application(s) from developers}/property owner(s) as part of the City's FUD application process to determine conformance with development standards and design guidelines. E, Phase YI Protect Approvals The City will use its discretion to adopt conditions relative to interpretation of design standards and design guidelines but shall not deny a PUD application for a housing development on the three Hacienda Sites that meet the core and non-core development standards and/or design guidelines or shall not condition a project in a manner that makes it infeasible. Accepted by: ~ o Nelson Fialho Date Richard A; Marcantanio Date City of Pleasanton Public Advocates ~~a~ ~ 1y a ~ /r Jonathan Lowell Date Michael Rawson Date City Attorney The Public Interest I.aw Project ~ ~ ~ ry~~a CtJf~'Rechtschaf en ate • Deputy Attorney Genera Attachments: Attachment A - A ttesolution of the City of Pleasanton Approving Enhancements to Existing Non Diserimination Policies Attachment 8 -Schedule of Tentative Agreemend Settlement Term Sheet 7,20.3010. Flnel EKHIBIT A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, APPROVING ENHANCEMENTS TO EXISTING NON DISCRIMINATION HOUSING POLIICIES WHEREAS, in 2003, the Pleasanton City Council adopted a Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City's Housing Element includes goals and programs that prohibits discrimination to housing opportunities in Pleasanton, including the goal of identifying and making special provisions for the community's special needs housing; and WHEREAS, the City is about to embark on an update to the existing Housing Element; and WHEREAS, through adoption of this resolution, the City Council reaffirms its position on housing non-discrimination, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to update its Housing Element goals and programs through study and consideration of adoption of additional goals and programs related to eliminating discrimination in the areas of affordable housing for families with children and senior citizens as part of its Housing Element update process. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Council does hereby adopt the following Non-Discrimination Policy: In recognition of State and Federal laws which prohibit municipalities from discriminating against developers of affordable housing, including non-profit developers of affordable housing, and from discriminating against families with children in need of affordable housing, it is the official policy of the City of Pleasanton, that the City staff and the City Council will act affirmatively to promote the development of well-designed affordable housing for families with children in Pleasanton, The Clty Manager will report regularly tv the City Council on the City's efforts to fulfill this policy, the success of those efforts, and plans and proposals to attract well-designed afforrable housing forfamilies with children in the future. SECTION 2. As part of its Housing Element update process the City will study and consider adoption of goals and programs promoting affordable non-profit housing development for families, as well as for other special needs households, including strengthening existing programs to promote construction of affordable three bedroom units for large families and including the goal of building affordable family units and affordable senior units in proportion to the need for each. SECTION 3. As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City staff will conduct analysis and prepare information for review by the public and consideration of 7.20.2010. Final adoption by the City Council, related to Sections 1 and 2 above. This analysis will include identifying sites that may be most competitive for Low Income Housing Tax Credits based on the "site amenities" point criteria included as part of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Application. Following the public review process for the Housing Element, which will include discussion with non-profit affordable housing developers, and identification of the most competitive sites for Lower Income Housing Tax Credits, the City Council will adopt and implement one or more programs to attract non-profit affordable housing development for families for the identified sites. Such program(s) shall not prec}ude non profit housing developments on sites other than the identified sites. The City will also study its existing Lower Income Housing Fee and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to determine if it is appropriate to increase the amount of the fee or percentage of affordability to support affordable housing development. PASSEO, APPFtOVEO, AND ADAPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on XXXX XX, 2010. I, Karen Diaz, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the _ day of 2010, by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Karen Diaz, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney. 7.20.2010. Final Attachment 2 Schedule for Tentative Agreement/ Settlement Term Sheet Urban Habitat et al v.City of Pleasanton 7/20/10 DATE BODY STEM July 20. 2010 City Council Approval of Settlement Term Sheet/Tentative Agreement and authorization to prepare Settlement A reement July 20, 2010 City Council Approval of agreement for consukant services to prepare the City's Climate Action Plan July 20, 2010 City Staff Release of notice to Native American tribes indicating City's intent to amend its General Plan (90 days/ GC§ 65352.3(a)) July 21, 2010 City Staff Release drak revisions to the Housing Element to State HCD regarding intent to eliminate housing cap (45, days/ GC§ 65754(a)) August 17, 2010 City Council Approval of Settlement Agreement August 17, 2010 City Council Approval of City non discrimination resolution September 7, 2010 City Council Approval of agreement for consuitant services to prepare Housing Element update September 15, 2010 Planning Commission Review of amendments to the General Plan and housing Element regarding removal of the housing cap September 15, 2010 Planning Commission Recommendation of amendment to PUD 1988 concerning removal of section 5 September 16, 2010 City Staff Issuance of first payment for attorney tees October 19, 2010 City Council Approval of resolution removing the housing cap from General Plan, irtduding the Housing Element October 19, 2010 Ciry Councit introduction of ordinance amending PUD 1998 to remove Section 5 November 2, 2010 City Council Second reading of ordinance amending PUD '1998 December 7, 2010 City Council introduction of ordinance establishing Core Development Standards for three Hacienda sites (final date is December 22, 2010) January 4, 2011 City Council Second reading of ordinance establishing Core Development Standards for three Hacienda sites February 15, 2011 City Council Introduction of ordinance establishing non-core development standards and design guidelines for three Hacienda sites February 20, 2011 City Staff Final day to release Housing Element site inventory March 1, 2011 City Council Second reading of ordinance establishing non~ore development standards and design guidelines for three Hacienda sites July 31, 2011 City Staff Issuance of second payment for attorney fees August 16, 2011 City Staff Transmit Draft Housing Element Update to State HCD (City to adopt Housing Element within 90 days after receiving a response from HCD, however extensions may be granted for unique and unforeseen circumstances.) February 17. 2012 City Council Adoption of Climate Action Plan Note Ordinances are eflect~ve 30 days fopovnng secontl reazling/atloptbn THE CIiY Of ATTACHMENT 3 _ i, j~L£~S~4NTaNo CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT April 20, 2010 Community Development Planning Division TITLE: PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO AND RECEIVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE JUDGE'S ORDER IN Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton AND POSSIBLE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO IT SUMMARY This item follows up on the April 6, 2010 agenda report (Attachment 1 }which provided an overview of the Urban Habitat litigation and the recent Court order, and briefly touched on the options available to the Council. This agenda report provides additional information regarding the origin of the housing cap, an overview of Regional Housing .Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, an outline of the Housing Element process, a description of the City's growth management ordinance, and a more detailed discussion of the options available .to the City. The City Council is seeking public input prior to deciding on a course of action on this matter. RECOMMENDATION This is an informational item to facilitate public input regarding this issue and, as such, no action is anticipated at this meeting. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The City's legal expenses litigating this case since its inception in the fall of 2006 are approximately $500,000. (This reflects only the City's legal expenses paid to its own outside legal counsel. It does not reflect work performed by the City Attorney's Office nor any staff time or resources expended in providing a defense to the City.} Depending an the City's response to the Superior Court's ruling, potential future legal expenses are conservatively estimated to be $250,000. The City will also face claims for Petitioners' and Intervener's legal expenses, which Likely will be considerably higher than the City's own legal fees, as two parties are involved. Similarly, should the City pursue further litigation, their future legal costs will be more, and the City could find also itself liable for payment of those fees. OVERVIEW In November 2006, Urban Habitat filed litigation against the City claiming that various City policies and ordinances prevent or hinder the development of affordable housing in Pleasanton during what is known under the State Housing Element Law {Govemment Code section 65583 of seq. } as the "Third Planning Period" ending in 2009. The lawsuit alleged (among other claims): • that the City's Housing Cap viola#es state law in a number of respects, including that the Cap prevented the City from accommodating its regional "fair share" housing numbers ("RHNA"), and sought to have the Cap declared invalid. • that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under Program 19.1 of the 2003 'Housing Element, and under the so-called Least Cost Zoning i_aw (Government Cade section 65913.1 et seq.}, namely, that the City failed to zone sufficient property to accommodate its regional affordable housing obligations. • that the City failed to carry aut mandatory duties under ano#her General Plan program by failing to amend its Growth Management Ordinance to override the annual housing allocation in order to meet regional housing needs. On March 12, 2010, Superior Court Judge Roesch issued his decision (a copy of which is attached with the April 6, 2010, agenda report), which may be distilled as follows: • the Cap conflicts with State law RHNA requirements. • the City cured any defects in its Growth Management Ordinance by its recent (October 2009) amendment allowing the Council to override the ordinance to satisfy RHNA requirements. the City failed to carry out a mandatory duty, under Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element and under the .Least Cost Zoning Law, to rezone sufficient properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 unitslacre) in order to accommodate the remaining housing units required for the Third Planning Period. Although in October 2009, the City Council rezoned properties in the Hacienda Business Park to meet this obligation, the Court agreed with Urban Habitat that this rezoning was "illusory," and did not satisfy Program 19.1 or State law because it did not actually allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUD amendment process that is anticipated to last at least one year. The Court's order invalidates the Cap in its entirety. It also directs the City to: • "cease and desist" from enforcing, administering and/or implementing the Cap. • remove references to the Cap from its General Pian. • affect sufficient, "non-illusory" rezonings to accommodate the "unmet" RHNA for the Third Planning Period. • cease issuing any non-residential building and afl related permits for construction or development until it brings its General Plan into compliance. Page2of11 Depending on the final outcome of the litigation, or any negotiated settlement with the plaintiffs, the litigation will most likely lead to changes in the City's housing cap, recent Hacienda Business Park rezonings and the development approval process for those sites, the upcoming General Plan Housing Element process and the City's growth management policies. As a result, it is helpful for the public and City Council to have an understanding of the State Housing Law and the constraints and obligations it confers on the City when evaluating the options available to City Council at this stage in the litigation. The sections that follow, therefore, provide background regarding the housing cap, as well as an overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and State Housing Law, and the City's growth management program. Following this background is a discussion of the litigation and the recent Court order, and the report concludes with an outline of the options available to the City, including opportunities for alternative growth management strategies. BACKGROUND 1996 Hausina Cap The November 5, 1996 GeneraE Election ballot included two City Council sponsored initiatives: one regarding the Urban Growth Boundary, and the other a Residential Buildout Initiative which provided thaf the maximum number of residential units at buildout shall not exceed 29,000 units and cannot be changed except by a vote of the people. (Resolution 96-89 is shown in Attachment 2}, According to the Initiative Ordinance for the residential cap, the purpose of the measure was to: A. Achieve and maintain within the City of Pleasanton a complete, well- rounded community of desirable neighborhoods, a strong employment base and a variety of community facilities. B. Develop the City of Pleasanton in an efficient, logical and orderly fashion. C. Reaffirm and readopt General Plan programs and policies establishing Pleasanton's maximum number of residential units. D. Provide a method for residents to participate in the review and amendments to the City's General Plan by requiring any change to the maximum number of residential units to be approved by a vote of the people. The 29,000 unit cap was based on the residential holding capaci#y of the 1996 General Plan. That buildout number was calculated by assuming General Plan policies and assuming that all remaining residentially-designated land an the General Plan map is developed at mid-point density ar is developed consistent with an adopted Specific Plan where applicable. The 1998 General Plan was originally adopted on August 6, 1996. Language in the Land Use Element (Policy 15 and Programs 15.1 and 15.2} was then amended by the initiative that was passed on November 5, 1996. 2005 - 2025 General Plan: The Pleasanton General Plan adopted in July 2009 included the residential cap language from the 1996 General Plan (now Policy 24, Program 24.1 and Program 24.2), as it was amended by Measures PP and QQ in November 2008. These measures reaffirmed specific policies in the General Plan regarding hillside Page 3 of 11 development, as well as providing definitions of a housing unit'. Policy 24 in the General Plan is shown as amended by Measure QQ. (Change is shown italics). Policy 24: Maintain a maximum housing buildout of 29,000 housing units, within the Planning Area. Each single-family residential unit and each multi-family residential unit (for example, a condominium, townhouse, each half of a duplex, a mobile home, or an apartment unifJ, whether market rate or affordable, shall count towards the maximum housing buildout. Urlifs within assisted !ruing facilities are generally not counted towards the maximum housing buildout due to their commercial nature, but a proportion of such developments may be counted fowards the maximum housing buildout based on impacts on community services and infrastructure. Second units and exfanded stay hotel rooms steal! not be counted againsf the maximum housing buildout. The General Plan also includes nine other references to the housing cap in the General Plan, including in the Introduction, Land Use Element and Air Quality and Climate Change Element. A list of the references is included as Attachment 3. In regards to the units remaining under the Housing Cap, as of January 1, 2010, there are approximately 25,964 residential uni#s2 in the Pleasanton Planning Area, 44 units under construction, and 653 units with planning approval but not yet under construction. Subtracting the rezonings recently completed in Hacienda leaves 1,469 units. To staffs knowledge, Pleasanton's "hard" housing cap'may be a one of a kind policy in the State and the only one that would prevent a City from planning for its RHNA allocation as discussed below. However, other communities have established housing caps that adjust to meet RHNA obligations and as such, a modified housing cap that adjusted to reflect changes in future RHNA allocations as discussed below, may be allowable. Staff anticipates that this matter would be discussed during the F{ousing Element process. Regional Hvusing Needs Assessment. Another concept that is central #o this litigation and the options available to the City, is an understanding of the City's obligation to plan to accommodate i#s share of the Regions! Housing Needs Assessment which is set forth in State Housing Element Law and implemented locally by the Association of Bay Area Governments t;ABAG) in cooperation with cities and counties in the ABAG region that includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Morin, Napa, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Salano and Sonoma counties. Generally, the RHNA process involves the California Department of Housing and Communi#y Development working in concert with the California Department of Finance to identify the number of housing units that they determine are necessary to meet the State's housing need for all ~ Measure PP also included additional restrictions regarding hillside and ridgeline development. The Court's ruling focused on the Ciry's housing cap. The ruling also directed the City to cease enforcement only of those provisions of Measures... PP, and QQ, which limit the number of housing units permitted in Pleasanton..." Provisions of Measures PP and QQ related to restrictions on development on hillsides and near ridgelines are not considered to be effected by the ruling and will continue to applied to property and proposals subject to these restrictions. j Excluding second-family units and assisted living units. Page Q of 19 income categories over a seven year period. Once the number of housing units is identified, the number is divided between the State's 31 Council of Governments {COGs) {which in our case is ABAG} that have the responsibility to work cooperatively with cities and counties within their region to allocate the units to each individual agency. Based on State law, the RHNA process has four objectives: 1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low and very low income households. 2} Promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns, 3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing. 4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent decennial United States census. To develop the formula for allocating housing units throughout the ABAG region for the 2007 - 2014 RHNA {the 4°h RHNA period) ABAG established a Housing Methodology Committee {HMC} comprised of elected officials and staff members from cities in the region. As an outcome of this process, the HMC developed an allocation methodology that incorporates the following factors with the following weight of each factor: • Household growth {45%} • Existing employment (22,5%} • Employment growth {22.5%} • Household growth near existing and planned transit (5%) • Employment growth near existing and planned transit (5%} As mentioned above, the RHNA methodology specifies that these allocations must be divided into specific household income categories including: . Very Low Income -defined as households with income up to 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI} which is currently $44,650 for a family of four; . Low Income --defined as households with income between 50% AMI and 80% of the AMI which is currently at $71,450 for a family of four . Moderate Income- defined as households with income between 80%AMI and 120% of the AMI which is currently at $107,150 for a family of four Above- Moderate -which is defined as households with income above 120% AMI Page 5 of 11 Based on these criteria, the housing units assigned for Pleasanton during this RHNA period are as follows: . 2007.2014 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION IFOR PLEASANTON _RHNA ALLOCATIONS Household Income Categories Pleasanton Alameda Co. ABAG Re ion Ve Low Income 50%AMI 1,076 10,017 _ 48,840 Low Income 80% AMI 728 7,616 35,102 Moderate Income 120% AMI 720 _ 9,078 41,316 Above Moderate Income 753 18,226 89,242 TOTAL 3,277 44,937* _ 214,500 betail of allocation in Alameda County is included as Attachment 4. One point to bear in mind regarding the City's RHNA allocation is that the City is required to plan for this number of units, that is, to have residential zoning that will accommodate it, but is under no obligation to commit public resources or to actually build that number of residential units. Another point is that, in accordance with the Sta#e Housing Element Law, any ordinance, policy, voter approved measure, or standard of a ci#y or county that directly limits the number of residential building permits issued by a city or county shall not be a justification for a determination or a reduction in the share of a city or county regional housing need. In addition, Housing Element Law sta#es that adjustments can be made for lack of sewer and water service due to federal or state laws, regulatory actions or supply distribution decisions made ~y a sewer. or water provider other than the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from providing the necessary infrastructure for additional development during the planning period. As a result, based on the above, the City is required to plan for 3,277 housing units in the income categories noted above during this RHNA period. As mentioned previously, assuming the zoning far these units, the City's housing cap situation would be as follows: 2007-2014 RHNA IMPACT ON C17Y'S HOUSING CAP Pleasanton Housing Cap 29,000 Existing Housing Units 25,964 Mousing Units Under Construction 44 Planning Approval but not yet constructed 653 Hacienda Business Park Rezonings 870 Total Constructed and Planned Units 27,531 Difference between total cons#ructed and tanned units and 29,000 1,469 2007-2014 RHNA Requirement _ 3, 277 Total Units with 2007 - 2014 RHNA 34,808 Units Owerthe Cap with 2001-2014 RHNA 1,808 Page 6 of 11 As a point of comparison, Pleasanton's housing units for the last RHNA period were as follows: 1999 -2807 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION FOR PLEASANTON RHNA ALLOCATIONS Household Income Categories Pleasanton Alameda Co. ABAG Re ion Ve Low Income 50%AMI 729 9,910 47,265 Low Income 80% AMI 455 5,138 25,095 Moderate Income 120% AMI 1,239 12,476 60,839 Above Moderate Income 2,63fi 19,269 97,544 TOTAL 5,059 46,793 230,743 CITY HOUSING ELEMENT State Planning and Zoning law requires each city and county government to regularly update its General Plan Housing Element. {A brief summary of Housing Element law is included as Attachment 5.)The State also mandates that each Housing Element address its share of the regional housing need (RHNA) as outlined above. The due date for- cities to submit their Housing Elements for the 2007-2014 RHNA period was June 30, 2009. Due to the complexities of this litigation, the City has not yet submitted it Housing Element for this period. As required by State Housing Law (Article 10.6 Housing Elements), the Housing Element adopted by the City of Pleasanton in April 2003 included an inventory of residentially designated land (lists and maps) and a summary table (Table IV-19A) comparing total built, approved and potential units with the above regional housing need. It showed then current zoning could nvt accommodate 871 of the total 5,059 units required by the 1999- 2007 i~HNNA. Tv address this issue, our Housing Element included .a Program 49.1 which states Within one year of adoption of the Housing Element, complete land use studies to identify for conversion as many of the sites identified in Table IV-6 from non- residential to high density residential use as are necessary at appropriate densities {far example, approximately 30 acres at 30 units per acre or 40 acres at 20 units per acre) to meet the City's regional housing needs goal. Follow through with an appropriate modification to the Land Use Element and rezonings as soon as ,possible, but not later than 2004, so that implementation can occur within the planning period. It should be noted that the Ciry's original Housing Element language did not include the one year time line because staff and the City Council were concerned that the rezonings could not be completed until an update to the General Plan was completed. However, the Department of Housing and Community Development rejected this concern and required inclusion of the one year time line. For various reasons, including work on updating the City General Plan, the rezonings were not completed within the year specified. However in October 2x08, the City Council approved a Genera) Plan amendment and a Planned Unit Development for 350 high Page 7 of 11 density (approximately 50 units per acre) apartments adjacent tv Stoneridge Mall Road and the new BART station (V1lindstar development). Further, in October 2409, the City Council rezoned three parcels in Hacienda Business Park far Mixed Use with a minimum .density of 30 units per acre. In the City`s opinion, this rezoning provided for the remaining 521 units (the original requirement for 871 units, minus the 350 unit Windstar project) with some units remaining to apply to the next RHNA period. Notwithstanding these rezonings, which the City maintained addressed its obligation under Program 19.1, the Court determined that the rezonings were "illusory" and did not satisfy Program 19.1 or State law because they did not actually allow development to occur until after completion of a City Council established Hacienda PUD amendment ' process, that includes involvement of a 21-member Hacienda Task Force, which wilt take one year to complete. Regardless of the outcome of the current litigation, the City is still obligated to prepare a new Housing Element reflecting the new RHNA units. With the completion of the General Plan, staff intends to commence work on the project as soon as possible and anticipates a public process that will be complete within one year. The City will use the Housing Element planning process to discuss potential sites for higher density housing which wilt be required to meet the RHNA needs and to discuss changes to the City growth management program to address changes or elimination of the housing cap. Growth Manaaement Proaram: In addition to the residential cap, as discussed above, the City has used several other tools to ensure the orderly growth and development of the City, including the implementation of a Growth Management Program. The Court recognized that the recent amendment of the Growth Management Ordinance removed any constraint to accommodating the City's share of regional housing need, and therefore, the use of this tool should not be impacted by the recent Court order, and may remain in effect. The City adopted its first growth management ordinance in 1978, designed to regulate the location and rate of new residential growth in a period of sewage treatment constraints and air quality concerns. The growth management program was modified following the comprehensive revisions to the General Plan in 9986 and 1996, and was modified again in October 2009 to allow the City Council to override the annual housing allocation in order to meet the City's RHNA. Currently, the Growth Management Ordinance: • Establishes an annuaE limit far new residential units (with the exception described to accommodate our RHNA obligation); • Requires the apportionment of new residential units to categories of projects (i.e. affordable projects; major projects; first-come, first-served projects); and, • Describes a process for obtaining an allocation under the program. In recent years, as fewer large residential development sites are available, and the number of residential units seeking building pem~its became significan#ly lower than the Page 8 of 11 annual allocation, the growth management ordinance has not come into play. However, in fight of the elimination of the housing cap and State legislation related to meeting RHNA targets, the City Council could reinstitute existing practices such as the requirement far formal growth management approval of projects, a requirement that has been dropped in recent years because the number of units applying for approval was well below the allocation threshold. -The City Council could also call upon the re- establishment of the Council's Growth Management Committee to review projects on an annual basis. (As with the requirement far formal growth management approval, the Committee has not needed to convene in recent years because of the small number of residential projects being approved.} In addition to amending current practices, the Council could utilize the Housing Element process to amend the ordinance to specifically reference City-wide standards for services and infrastructure such as intersection level of service, sewer capacity and water supply, and acres of parkland per 1,000 population. (The ordinance cun'ently provides for the City Council to use the information related to services and infrastructure included in the periodic Growth Management Report to evaluate the capacity to serve additional growth.) Another approach would be to deveSop a growth management program that would align future growth with the major themes of the General Plan. For example, since sustainability is a current priority for the City, measures could be developed that would score projects based on energy and water use, potential vehicle miles traveled, Green Building score, or estimated greenhouse gas emissions, and so on, and could require development to attain a minimum score to advance in the development process. Other growth management measures could include: Pace the annual growth rate to ensure an annual average to a specific percentage of the population (e.g. 1%, 2%, etc.); Protection of natural amenities and environmental qualities of the community; Growth compatible with the City's capability to provide services related #o schools, sewer and water services and recreational facilities; Development and Design standards related #o physical, visual and fiscal policies; . Assure development stays within the City's Urban Growth boundary; Maintenance of a jobs housing balance. DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS TO ADDRESS LITIGATION While there are many potential options and outcomes related to the litigation, staff and the City Council have identified three that are most plausible. A summary of these is as follows. Option 1- Confirrue to lifigate in ar? atfempf to have the Superior Court modify ifs order, and/ or fo have a higher courf overrule fhe lower court's ruling. With this option the City Council would direct staff and legal counsel to continue to litigate in an attempt to modify and or overturn the Court's ruling, Et is anticipated that this course of action could take years to resolve, depending upon what particular steps the City pursues. Page 9 of 11 Advantages: Were the City to prevail, the housing cap and rezanings could be retained. If litigation prevailed, the housing cap could be retained in its current or amended capacity Disadvantages: . The overall ability to appeal or to continue litigation is limited due to the complexities of the case. Additional litigation will be expensive, particularly. if the plaintiffs prevail and are awarded legal fees. There is no assurance the City will prevail in court. . City permitting authority for non-residential projects could be withheld until resolution of the litigation. A resolution of this matter could take years Option 2- Comply with fhe Court's order With this option, there are a number of potential impacts depending on how compliance is defined. As an example, due #o the complexity of the Court's order, the City and the plaintiffs may have divergent opinions related to interpreting the Court's ruling. As a result, while additional litigation would not be the goal of this option, it is possible. The City Council would consult with staff and legal counsel to identify the actions required to comply, which can encompass a narrow or broad interpretation. At a minimum, these would include some changes to the Hacienda rezanings and entitlement processes, elimination of the Housing Cap in its current form, and changes to the City's growth management program. Advantages: Potentially resolves litigation, particularly if a broad interpretation of compliance is approved by the Council. Minimizes additional legal expenses. • Could allow the City to regain its permitting authority. • Would facilitate the preparation of the City Housing Element. Disadvantages: • Were the City Council to comply narrowly with .the Court's order, it may result in additional litigation. • If further litigation were to result, the City's permitting authority for non-residential projects could remain enjoined by the Court. The City would be required to eliminate the Housing Cap and lose some flexibility related to the Hacienda developments. Qption 3 Negotiate a settlement with the petitioner and intervener in an attempt to resolve al! legal issues. The City Council has been engaging in discussion with the petitioner and intervener in an attempt to craft a global settlement that resolves all matters, including the potential payment of the other side's legal fees. Page 10 of 11 Advantages: • The only alternative that assures the end of this litigation with petitioner and intervener. Recognizes the interests of both parties and sets parameters for moving forward. Perhaps the fastest alternative to return permitting authority to the City. Disadvantages: Require areas of compliance that may be overturned in future litigation • Will result in the elimination of the housing cap and changes to the Hacienda development review and approval process. • May require an accelerated schedule for matters related to amending the General Pfan to eliminate the housing cap and preparation of the Housing Element. Summary The City Council is considering at a second public meeting this matter to both educate the public and to get its input regarding available options. Following this meeting, the City Council intends to provide direction to staff and legal counsel regarding a preferred course of action. Due to the timetable established by the Court, it is anticipated that this direction will occur within 7 td 14 days of this meeting. The Council will continue to keep the community informed as this matter progresses. Submitted by: Approved by: ~r..r l Brian Dolan Nelson Fialho Director of Community Development City Manager Attachments 1. April 6, 2010 City Council agenda report and attached Court order 2. Resolution 96-89 Authorizing the Placement on the November b, 1996 Regular Election of City Sponsored Initiatives. 3. References to the Housing Cap in the 2005 - 2025 General Pfan 4. Alameda Caunty RHNA allocation 5. California Department of Housing and Community Developmen# Housing Element law summary Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT 1 _ THE CITY OF r - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ~ PL~E~4S~NTONo Aprils, 2010 City Attorney TITLE: PRESENTATION REGARDING EFFECT OF JUDGE'S ORDER IN URBAN HABITAT V. C/TY OFPLEASANTON LITIGATION SUMMARY The Alameda County Court has issued its ruling in the above-referenced case cha{lenging the City's Housing Cap (Cap), Growth Management Ordinance and implementation of the 2003 Housing Element. The ruling has invalidated the City's Cap in its entirety, required substantial and substantive revision to the City's General Plan to remove the Cap, ordered the City to rezone properties (at the City's Hacienda Business Park or elsewhere) in compliance with Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, and broadly suspended the City's non-residential permit authority pending compliance with the ruling. The City Council has been discussing with legal counsel in closed session the effect of this decision and what possible responses are avaifab`e to the City. The purpose of this item on your meeting agenda is to share this information with the citizens of Pleasanton. RECOMMENDATION Hear presentation from City's outside special counsel, Thomas B. Brown of Hanson Bridgett LLP. Listen to comments from interested members of the public. Decide whether or riot to hold an additional meeting an this subject to allow for further public input; the April 20, 2010 regular City Council meeting has tentatively been set aside for this purpose. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The City's legal expenses litigating this case since its inception in the fall of 2006 are approximately $500,000. (This reflects only the City's legal expenses paid to its own outside legal counsel. It does not reflect work pertormed by the City Attorney's Office, nor any staff time or resources expended in providing a defense to the City.) Depending on the City's response to the Superior Court's ruling, potential future legal expenses are conservatively estimated to tie $250,000. Although such claims could be disputed factually and legally, the City may also face clalrros for the Petitioners' and intervener's }ego! expenses, which likely witl be considerably higher than the City's own legal fees, as two parties are involved. Similarly, their future legal costs will be more, and the City could find itself liable for payment of those, as well, BACKGROUND In November 2006, Urban Habitat filed litigation against the City ctairning that various City policies and ordinances prevent ar hintter the development of affordable housit?g in Pleasanton during what is known under the State Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65583 et seq.) as the "Third Planning Period" ending in 2009. The lawsuit alleged (among other claims): • that the City's Housing Cap violates state law in a number of respects, including that the Gap prevented the City from accommodating its regional "fair share" housing numbers ("RHNA"}, and sought to have the Cap declared invalid. that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, and under the so-called Least Cost Zoning Law {Government Code section 65913.1 et seq.), namely, that the City failed to zone sufFcient property to accommodate its regional affordable housing obligations. • that the City failed to carry out mandatory duties under another General Plan program by failing to amend its Growth Managernen# Ordinance to override the annual housing allocation in order to meet regional housing needs. In 2007, the City succeeded in having the lawsuit dismissed at the trial court level on procedural grounds. Urban Habitat appealed that decision, however, and the Court of Appea! reinstated most of the litigation, including that portion that challenges the validity of the Housing Cap. The City thereafter sought review of the Court of Appeal decision by the California Supreme Court; that Court, however, denied the City's petition. While the case was on appeal, the City was assigned its RHNA numbers for the next {Fourth} Planning Period by ABAG, covering 2007-2014. Thus, following remand to the trio! court, Urban Habitat amended its lawsuit to assert claims that the City's Cap prevented the City from accommodating its new RHNA numbers. At that time as well, the California Attorney General contacted the City to indicate the State's interest in joining Urban Habitat's case against the City. The Superior Court granted the Attorney General's application to intervene in the case in early 2009. The City's efforts to dismiss the case prior to teal, based on a variety of substantive and procedural arguments, were unsuccessful. Accordingly, the case was briefed and argued before Judge Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court on December 18, 2008. r In 2009 as well, the Attorney General also filed a separate lawsuit cha4enging the City's decision approving its General Plan update, and certifying the attendant environmental impact report (EIR), based (among other Claims} an the continued existence and enforcement of the Cap. Page 2 of 6 DlscussloN The Court's Order On March 12, 2010, Judge Roesch issued his decision (a copy of which is attached), which maybe distilled as follows: • the Cap conflicts with State law RHNA requirements. • the City cured any defects in its Growth Management Ordinance by its recent (October 2009} amendment allowing the Council to override fhe ordinance to satisfy RHNA requirements. • the City failed to carry out a mandatory duty, under Program 19.1 of the 2403 Housing Element and under the Least Cost Zoning Law, to rezone sufficient properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 unitslacre) in order to accommodate the remaining housing units required for the Third Planning Period. Although in October 2009, the City Council rezoned properties in the Hacienda Business Park to meet this obligation, the Court agreed with Urban Habitat that this rezoning was "illusory," arxi did not satisfy Program i9.1 or State law because it did not actually allow development to occur until after completion of the Hacienda PUO amendment praoess that is anticipated to last a# least one year. The Court's order invalidates the Cap in its entirety. It also directs the City to: • "cease and desist" from enforcing, administering andlor implementing the Cap. • remove references to the Cap from its General Plan. • affect sufficient, "non-illusory" rezonings to accommodate the "unmet" RHNA (521 units) far the Third Planning Period. • cease issuing any non-residential building ar~d all related permits for construction or development until it brings its General Ptan into compliance. Actions the Order Directs the City to Take Once the Court's decision is final, it will require the City to take certain actions to comply, and prevents the City from certain other actions, as follows: 1. Cease and desist from enforcing/implementing Cap; remove Cap references from the Genera! Plan. While to date the City has never actually "enforced° the Cap, insofar as the City currently has nearly 3,000 units remaining before the Cap is exhausted, Urban Habitat and the Attorney General produced evidence from developers that they have found the Gap to present a disincentive to proposing and applying for residential development projects. Urban Habitat and the Attorney General have also argued that the Cap will pn~clude the City from accommodating its RHNA in its updated Housing Element for the next {Fourth) Planning Period. Specifically, their argument has been that even if the Page 3 of 6 City could zone property (at Hacienda or elsewhere) to satisfy its RHNA for the Third Planning Period without violating the Cap, the City cannot do so for the current, Fourth Planning Period since the remaining units under the Cap are just under 3;000 and the City's current RHNA exceeds 3,204. Thus, fairly interpreted, the ruling prevents the City from using the Cap in any planning documents or decisions. it also requires the City to actually amend Policy 24 and Programs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 of the current General Plan to remove the Cap's provisions altogether. To effectuate this, the City wilt be required, within 120 days of the date the Court signs its formal writ memorializing i#s March 12 Order, to amend Policy 24 and Programs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 of the current General Plan to remove references to the Cap altogether. Alternatively, although the Court's Order does not explicitly allow this approach, the City could petition the Court to allow it to replace those references with references to a revised Gap that includes an exception allowing the City to accommodate its State RHNA obligations. Pursuant to Government Code section 65759, making such changes to the City's General Plan are exempt from CEQA. However, section 65759 requires a streamlined environmental review process that must occur strictly within the 120 day compliance period. The 'ruling does not require the City to immediately undertake to prepare or adopt its updated Housing Element for the Fourth Planning Period covering 2007-2014. 2: Rezonings to accommodate the City's "unmet" 1899-2007 RHNA. In Program 19.1 of the 2003 Housing Element, the City stated its intention, initially by June 2004, to rezone sufficient properties to high density residential (e.g., 30 units/acre) in order to accommodate the remaining (now 521) housing units required for the Third Planning Periad (1999-2007). For a number of reasons, the City did not do so until October 2009, at which time ii undertook to rezone three parcels at Hacienda. Again, the Court's March 12 ruling found that that rezoning did not satisfy either Program 19.1 or the least Cost Zoning Law. The basis for this ruling was Section 5 of the rezoning ordinance (No. 1998), which precluded development under the Hacienda rezoning until after the completion of the amendment of the Hacienda Pl1D process, which was anticipated to fast for at least one year. ~ The CourtiousxS (at page 8) thE'good cause" provision of Ordinance 1898 !o be "illusory," and an 'obvious disincentive to developers.' Page 4 of 6 To satisfy the Court's ruling, the City may follow one of two courses. First, it may amend the October 2009 rezoning ordinance (No. 1998) to remove Sec#ion 5 so as to allow immediate development at the higher densities, rather than precluding it #rom occurring until after completion of the PUD amendment process. Alternatively, provided it does so in a manner that does not create any new barrier or disincentive to development, the City may opt to rezone sufficient properties elsewhere in the City to satisfy the unmet 1999-2007 RHNA. The Court's ruling with respect to the rezonings creates an additional requirement. Spec'rfically, the' Court states that "the zoning and land-use changes need to be implemented such that they are without condition or need of future discretionary approval." Urban Habitat has advised the City that it interprets this requirement to mean that development following the rezonings would be "by right," meaning without discretionary review by the City other than design review. The City disagrees, and bekieves that the rezonings required by Program 19.1 were never intended to eliminate any need for future discretion by the City, and thus that the Court's ruling should be construed such that the rezonings would simply eliminate the need for amendment of the Hacienda PUD process. This aspect of the order appears to require further clarification, and will require litigation if the City pursues that course. 3. Cease issuing any non-residential building and ail related permits. Government Code section 65755 allows the Court to suspend the City's non-residential permitting authority pending actions by the City to bring anon-compliant General Plan into compliance with State law. At Urban Habitat's request, Judge Roesch exercised that discretion against the City. Pending the actions outlined above, the City will be precluded from approving any non-residential building permits. Next Steps The City Council continues to confer with legal counsel in closed session. The City's legal counsel and a subcommittee of the City Council, consisting of Mayor Hosterman and Council member Cindy McGovern, have met with the petitioners and intervener regarding potential resolution of this matter. The options available to the Council will be discussed in greater detail on April 20, but. consist, essentially, of: comply with the Court's ruling, as narrowly as permitted by law, continue to litigate, or negotiate a resolution. Page 5 of 6 We have discussed the City's compliance options above. If the City chooses to continue to litigate, it will be required to address the fact that Urban Habitat has two claims outstanding against tha City that have not been triad or resolved, and that the Court's March 12 ruling does not address. These are discrimination/fair housing claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Law (FEHA), and the anti-discrimination statute (Government Code section 65008) within the State Planning Law. Urban Habitat may assert that the City cannot ask the Court of Appeal to review the March 12 ruling until those two outstanding claims are resolved. Assuming the correctness of that assertion, the City may be in a position of being required to comply with the Court's interim (March 12) ruling for many months, if not a year or more, while Urban Habitat prosecutes its remaining claims. Submitted by: Fiscal Review Approve by; nathan P. Lowell David Culver Nels n Fialho City Attorney Finance Director City Manager . Attachments: 1. Court Deasion of March 12, 2010 Page 8 0# 6 V ~~1~ FILED lILAM$DA COt1NTY MAR 1 8 1010 ca~rtoptt~ Laos oottRr SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR TIC COUNTY OF ALAIvIEDA UR.BAI~T HABITAT PROGRAM AND Case na.1~GQ6-293831 SANDRA DE GREGORIO, Petitianers & Plaintiffs, PEOPLE OF THE STATIr OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. EDMUND G. ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR BROWN, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, WRIT OF MANDA"I'E ct al., Ptaititiff-Intervenor, v. CITY OF PLEASANTON, A MUNICIPAL, CORPORATION ANI'7 THE CITY COUNCIi. OF PLEASANTON Respondents & Defendants, The hearing on the fiirst Amended Veiificd Petition of Petitioners end Plaintiffs Urban Habitat Program and Sandra De C3segorio (aolleatively, i "Petitioners") for Writ of lvilandate came regularly before the court on December 18, 2009, judge Frank Roesch presiding. Appearing for the Petitioners were Richard Marcantonio, Esq. of Public Advocates, Inc., Michael Rawson, Esq. of California Affordable Housing Project, and Christopher Moody, Esq. of Paul, Hastings, Ianofsky & Walker LLP.. Appearing for the Respondents were Thomas Brown, Esq. and Adam Hofmann, Esq. of Hansen Bridgett LLC and Michael Roush, Esq., Interim City Attorney. Appearing for Intervenor was Clifford Rechtschaffen, Esq. of the Office of the Attorney Genera[. The matter was argued and submitted. The court has carefully considered the papers and pleadings filed herein and has considered the azgumen# of counsel. Good cause appearing therefore, the court HEREBY GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Mandate. The reasoning ~ • follows. BACKGROUND This lawsuit concerns allegations relating to Respondent's city planning process, and the adequacy or inadequacy of its planning documents. Policy IS of the Land'Use Element ofthe City's 1996 general Plan and Policies 24 et seq. of the Land Use Element of the City's 2005 general plan codify measure QG, a housing cap. Measure GG was an initiative measure passed by the voters in 1996. It {and the Land Use Etement's policy codif nations} restrict and 2 place limits on the Pleasanton City Council and City government, prohibiting them from permitting the construction of more than 29,fli10 housing units from 1996 until the end of time. The only exception permitted by the Measure is that it may be amended, but only by a vote-of the people.' It is the continuing validity of ibis housing cap that is one of the subjects of this action. Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 17.36, entitled Growth Management Program, includes section 17.36.460, which places annual limits on building permits for the construction of new housing units. This provision of the ~ Pleasanton Municipal Code was modified about a month and a half before the hearing of the present Petition to allow an exception to the maximum number of building permits rule allowing. an increase to the maximum amount, but only if the City is obligated io do so in order to meet its Regional Housing Needs'Allocation ("RHNA'~ In 2043 the City of Pleasanton adopted its current I lousing Element of the General Plan, Within that plan was an acknowledgment that "the amount of units projected from [all ofJ the City's residentially owned Eand would be short of the number required require to meet the city's aggregate share of regional needs..," (Housing Element, p. 35.) Also in that Housing Element is a plan to study (within ' The measure was amended by Measures I'P and QQ in 2008 by public vote. Those measures reaffirmed the 29,440 units bousing rap, reaffirmed that the City Council had no discretion to allow any waiver to the housing cap, ar?d excluded in-law units and extended-stay motel rooms front the housing cap. 3 one year of 2043) which other vacant land in this City aught be rezoned tQ • "residential" to accomplish the City's obligation to accommodate its ItHNA. The City did not conduct its study within that year and has not yet completed a complete land-use change/ZOning change necessary for it to accommodate the shortfall of RH1VA existing in 2003. The City Council did, a month and a half before the hearing on the present Petition, pass Pleasanton Ordinance 1998 approving the rezoning of a portion of the Iand located in the "Hacienda Business Park." However, a careful reading of the ordinance discloses that the status qua was not changed. The ordinance i i requires that the approval of any development plan for~residential development "shall not be granted until the completion of a PUD Major Modification foe the entire Hacienda Business Park." This is a process that could take up a period of time ranging from one year to forever. focal governments such as the City of Pleasanton are delegated the authority over Iand-use decisions and planning within their borders; and "have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate" new housing construction that "make(s) adequate provision for the housing needs of a[1 economic segments of the community." (Govt. Code § bS5t30, subd. (d).) The scope of that responsibility rs spelled out in detail in the Housing Element i,aw, (Govt. Code bS5$0-65589.8.) It.was the intent of the Legislature by the enactment of the Housing Element Law to assure that counties and cities recognize 4 their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goat, and to assure that counties and cities wilt prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and slate programs, wi!! move toward attainment of the state housing goal. (Govt. Code § 65581.) ]n order to attain state housing goals, the Legislature prescribed that cities, I including Pleasanton, maintain an inventory of land evailablc for residential development (see Govt. Code § 65583.2}, and that cities must make available for ~ residential development suf'llcient suitable land to accommodate its share of reg"sonal housing needs. {Sec, e.g., Govt. Code ~ 65584.) Existing and projected regional housing needs are determined in the manner detailed in Government Code sections 65584.01 and 65584.02, and those regional needs are allocated within the various regions of the State by the council of local governrrrents in each respective region. (See t3ovt. Code 655$4,04, 65584.05 and 55584,06,) Here that council of governments is the Association of Bay Area Governments {ABAG). r A city's obligations under the Housing Element Law require it to implement programs to zone or rezone land to establish adequate sites to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (1RHNA} and must timely adopt a housing element with an inventory ofsiies which can accommodate a city's share of the regional housing need. (See, e.g., Govt. Code 65583, 63584,09, and 65588.) The RHNA allocated by AHAG to the City of Pleasanton in 2001 relating Eo the 1999-20t)~ planning period is 5,059 units of housing, The R>`INA allocated by 5 r ~ ABAG to the city of Pleasanton in 2007 relating to the 2007-2U14 planning period is an additional 3277 housing units. THE EiOUSING CAP There is a difference of opinion regarding the number of housing units built since the imposition of fhe arousing cap, but the difference is not material. The parties do not disagree that the number of units allowable under the Measure GG housing cap is less than the City's 1ZHNA obligation. . It is self-evident that the City cannot comply with the State statue requiring the City to accommodate its RHNA when the city is not permitted by its local law, Measure GG, to allow the number of housing units to be built that would satisfy the RHNA. The question of which law prevails is elementary. State law preempts whenever focal laws contradict state law. (See Cal. Const. article XI, § - The Supreme Court has stated it succinctly "The genera! principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled." "The Legislature has specified certain minimum standards for local zoning regulations (Govt. Code _ §65850 et Seq.)" avers though it also "has carefulty expressed its intent to retain the maximum degree of local control (see, e.g., id., 65800, 65802)." (!T Corp. 'v. 5otano County Bd. ofSupervisors (1991) 1 Cal.4'~ 81, 89.) "A county or city may make and enforce - within its limits all local police, sanitary, and outer ordinances and regulations not in con,Jiict with general Jaws." (Cat. Const., art. XI, § 7,.italics added.) "Local. legislation in conflict with genera! !aw is void. Canfl.icts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citat~iansj, contradicts [citation], or enters in an area fully occupied by general Iaw, either expressly or by legislative impllcation [citationsJ. (People ez rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1986) 3b Cal.3d 476, 6 484, quoting Lancaster v. Municipal Court (t 972j 6 Cal.3d 805, 807-80$; accord, Sherman-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles " (1993} 4 Ca1.4`" 893, 897.)" Morehart v County of Santa Barbara (1994} 7 Cal_4'~ 725, 747. Here Measure GG, with the passage of time and the promulgation of a ItHNA obligation that is contradicted by the provisions of Measured GG, has becomepre-empted by the Housing Element Law, rendering it void? (See also Building Industry Association of Sair Diego v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4a' 744}. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM . At the eleventh hour, the city has avoided the invalidation of its annual limitation on new housing units, which conflicts wish the 12HNA, by promulgating an exception to the program. The change cures the facial invalidity of the program and there is no as-applied challenge presented here. COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1999-2007 RHNA OBLIGATION The City is in clear violation ofthe Housing Element Law, the Least Cost . Zoning Law, and its obligations to complete its 2003 Housing Element program designed to satisfy its RHNA for the 1999-2007 planning period. 1 This lawsuit is about the City's obligation to plan and to accommodate its RHNA in its plans. It matters not that the City planners bave a belief that the State's 1ZHNA requirements arc unlikely to be satisfied because of the current ' economic climate. fiirst and foremost, the City does not have the discretion to ignore the specific mandates of State law and second, the City planners' current beliefs are subject to change based on economic events beyond the control of either the City or the State, The City still has not accommodated the I2NNA allocated to it in 2001. The City's enactment of Ordinance 1998 a month and a half before the hearing on this petition may start a process to cure the City's failure in this matter, but is wholly inadequate to be considered a cure. Its requirement of further necessary acts before any development plan can be approved vitiates any actual remedial effect of the Ordinance. Moreover, the "good cause" exception in the Ordinance is illusory because it is not defined and because it is an obvious disincentive to developers. The requirement that a developer might have to spend a great deal of money just Eo reach the paint where a discretionary determination of whether "good cause" exists to allow a developer to continue with a project will inhibit any developer from proposing any residential development. For the above stated reasons, the Writ of Mandate is t31ZANTEI7. Respondents City of Pleasanton end City Council of the City of Pleasanton must cease and desist from the enforcement; administration, and/or implementation of the provisions of Measures GG, PP, and QQ, which limit the number of housing units permitted in Pleasanton, and must remove those provisions from all of Plcasantan's planning documents including the General Plan and sny element of the General Plan. This includes Policy 24 and Programs 24,1, 24.2, and 24.3 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Respondents must implement non-illusory zoning changes sufficient to accornrnodate the unmet RHNA for the 1999.2047 Planning Period. Thai is, the zoning 8 and land-use changes need be implemented such that they are without condition or need of future discretionary approval. Respondents mast cease issuing non-residential building permits and all related building penrtits for any construction or development except as provided in Government Code sections 65755, subdivisions (a){ 1) and {b) and 65760 until the City brings its General Plan iota compliance with the rcgttirements of State Law. Petitioners are to prepare a form of Writ returnable in 120 days and a form of judgment for the Courts review and consideration and submit them to the court within ten days. EVIDENTIARY DETF~RMJIYATIC?NS J. Petitioners' and Intervenor's Objections filed 12/7/09. STERN DECLARATION 1. overruled -goes to weight and credibility. 2. sustained on all three grounds asserted. 3. sustained on all three Bounds asserted. 4. overruled. 5. sustained -relevance. 6. sustained -legal conclusion. 7. sustained -legs! conclusion. 8. sustained -speculation. 9, overruled -goes to weight. ~ . 9 l0, overruled -goes to weight but is limited io dcclarant's expertise as a city planner. ISERSON DECLARATION 1. sustained -hearsay and relevance. ' 2. sustained -relevance. 3. overruled -internal inconsistency, ar incorrect facts or incomplete facts are nat evidentiary objections. 4. overruled -admissible fay opinion. ERiCKSUN DECLARATION 1. sustained -relevance. LIBIKI DECLARATION 1. sustained-relevance. ' 2. sustained -relevance. 2. Respondents' Objections dated December 14, 2009 CRESSWEI.L DECLARATION I , ovemtled. 2. sustained -relevance. 3. overruled -the portion of the Creswell Declaration contains admissibly evidence of an agency's interpretation of its dudes. The ruling made on . May l7, 2047 relates to a different declaration wtcich is not identical to the declaration at issue. i0 . _ r TAEB DECLARATION 4, overruled. - ' S. overruled. j C. overruled on the grounds asserted. i 7. overruled. 8. sustained. 9. overruled. GHIELMETT[ DECLARATION 10. overruled. 11. overruled. 12. overrated. 13. overruled. 14. overruled. RICI-IA[tD MARCANTONIO DECLARATION I5. overruled. Ob}ections to Intervenor's Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice. ' i6 and 17 -overruled. 3. Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice is granted. 4. Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice is granted and the ob3ectiorrs asserted to it are all Overruled. ' 11 5. Intervenor's Request for 3udicial Notice is granted and the objections asserted to it are all overruled. 6. Intervenor's 5u lemental R uest for 3udicial Notice is ted and the PP eq ~ objections asserted to it are overruled. Dated ~ I Z i'° /y~'~ Fran Roesch Judge of the Superior Court 12 CLERK'S DECLARATION OF MAILING 1 certify that I am not a party to this cause and that an the date stated~below I caused a true copy of the foregoing ORDER GRANTWG PETITION FOR WRfI' OF MANDATE to be mailed first class, postage pre paid, in a sealed envelope to the persons hereto, addresscd as follows: Richard A. Marcantonio, Fsq. • Public Advocates, Inc. 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Frarrcisw, CA 94105 Michael Rawson, Esq. The Public Interest Law Project 44915h Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 94612 Michael Roush, Deputy City Attorney l23 Main Street p.0. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 • Thomas B, Hrown, Esq. . • Hansen Bridged Marcus Vlahoa & Rudy, LI,P 425 Market Strcct, 26a' Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Cliff' Rechtschatl'en, Deputy Anomcy General 1515 Clay Strect, 20s' Floor Oakland, CA gab l z Megan H. Acevedo California Department of Justicx 1515 Clay $breet, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 • I declare under pcnalty of perjwy that the same is true and correct. Executed on March 15, 2010 By: Vicki Daybell, D ty Clerk Department 31 ATTACHMENT Z ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TEIE CITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY. CALffORNIA RESOLUTION NO.96-89 A RESOLUTION AI7THORPl.~iG TSE PLACEMEN'T' ON TSE NOVEMBER S~ 1996 REGULAR RLECTiON OF CITY C©UNC3L SPOPiSORED INTT1iAT1VILR PR0I~OSII~G AMENDMIl;HN'II'$ T4 THE T'I.EASANTON GENERAL PLAN CONCERNING '!'IiZ URBAN GROV4?TH BOUNDARX AND Tl~ c.TTY's ova govsmG uxrr cAP, DIRECI7NG THE CI'T'Y ATI'OYtNICY TO PREPARE AK Il~'ARTL~L ANALY$79 OF TBJd INTiZATIVI~B, AUTHOAIZiNG ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE INITIATTi?1C MEASURIE3, ALLOWII~iG RTCBU'E'TAL ARGUM'EN`d'S REGARDING 1'HE IlY1Ti/?31V1c MEASURSl4~ AND REQUE.4I~IG AGAMEDA COUNTY TO CONDUCT THIS ELEG7CION IN CONY[JNCTION WITS THE NOVEMBER S, 1991 RICGULAR ELECTION VyFIERF.AS, on August 6, 1996. the City Couttca7 adopted a Qe>~sI Plan Updttq r+evrsirtg and atrtasdirtg the Cit}~s Qenaal Plan is tnurreraus rospects; artd Wid~tFrAB. tl?s City Couram adopted as part o#'tbe Land Use Plemm~t ot7tain polidea and programs as to the croa~6on and aufateasaae of as Uttiare Growth Boundary beyond which urbsa developt»att e,lnll nos oavr, and y4r~FAS, the City Council also adapted as part of rho Load Use EIeaaart poGcia and programs as to the maxuiwm housing amts at b~a'Idout of th,e C.er?rra! Plan; sad Wf~RF.AS, t]sese policies and programs are fundarneaW to the Cityrs prearxvatioa of open spsKx sad raarw,girtg growth is Fleasaedotti and the citimrrs of Piarsaataa have wcpa~esaed a sh'ong interest tlut chatrges m tbea+o arras of the Geuta~ Plan s4oulld not occur vaithaut the citizens' being consulted; sad WHF..REAS, st is the County's intent that rheas poltaes and programs be rsailirmed sad readopted by the voters ofPleasarttan attd that these programs sad policies be changed only by the voters of Pleasanton; and VirFi>rR.EAS, Section 9222 of the Electioaa Code permits tik City Cotuicil to submit to the voters. withaut a petition therefor, a proposition fflr the repeal, amendrnerrt ar enactment of an ar+dinar~ and Resolution No. 96-89 Page 2 VvT~AS, the City Council has reviewod and eonsidcred the initiative Ordinances attached to this Resolution; sad WFIERF.AS, Section 928D of tho Elections Code des tbat the City Catu~7 may direct tlu City Clerk oo traaantit as iwtsetiva to the City Attatney oo prepare an impartial snttlyais of the manure; and VIVHEREAS. section 9282 of the fileceions Cade speaf es that the legiststiva body. or any stensber ar mastbers of the te~aaative body authatixed by that body, msy ale a wcitian arguar~tt £or any sty measaue; and VI~,RF_AS, Sectiae 9285 of the Election, Code seta forth the proc~odures for robutta! NOW, THEREFORE, TIiB Ci;TY COUNCII, OF THfi CITY OF PY. tU1SANTON RESOLVES as otiOws: 'on E: That tare City Caw?al sponsored mitiati++es, one regardi't8 ttn Urban Growth Boundarp and os~e regardhrg rho m~uaurnirn eumber of tmuaing orals st bta7daut, be placed on theo Novend~ S, 1996 General Ela~lon, and the Irat~tive Ordinances era attarbed to thin rosohrtion. The tneasuroa shall be designated by letter by rho Abuned~t Coungr Registrar. The ba8ot language shall be w foilowa: ,a,s to the Lirbsg~~y~h BeLnd1Y Irtitiativa Shall the Pleasanton Urba~s Growth Boontiary Tmtiative be adopted m require voter appruvai of all bnt minwr changes to the City+a Lirban Growth Horntds~l Yes No Shall the PEeasaruaa Residential Burldout Iratiative be adapted which provides that tfie ms~daaua Wombat of r~esidesttitd vain st berildout shall not euceed 29,t7DD units and cannot be changed except by s wte of tI~e people? Yes No RdoEntion No. 41x69' Page 3 The City Ctezk is directed tD trarramit the initiatives to the City Attorney to pt~epsra as impartial tuu~tyaia of the ntessurm. gam: The City Counn'l wthotizes arguments for the inrtiativ~ee tv be Sled by Mayor Eea Tarver and Couredlrrramber Becky Deanis. These argumerrta rn:at be submitted to the City Clerk by 5;00 p.m., oa Au~uat li, 1996. ~^~xEan 5: The Crty Council lsa~eby adopts the prooedutes aai forth en Sectior~ 9Z8S ofths FJecriom Coda regarding aubrnieeicen oitebuttal argtmeer~. The City Couad hereby requeeta the ALmede County Board of Svperviaorn to order LFds election be conducted by Alameda County on November 5, 1996. is conjunction with the Gener'tl F3ection being hdd within the County on that date, with the ached poet: for Said dectioa to be rsia~bucaed by the City W the CourAy. S~g~: This rnsolutioa shall become effbctiv~e irnrr?edisteiy upon its passage aril adoption I ]E~REBY CERTQrY THAT TIC FOREGOIIdCi VITAS DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTOI~ AT • A MEETING HF3~ ON AUGUST 7, 1996 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Couaciirnornbcrs • Denaisr Pion and Mayor Tarv~er NOES: Cotgtct'lmernbtrs -11?ichdatti sad Mohr ABSENT; None AHSTAYAT: None ATTP..ST: ~ ~ Ptg~? .City APPROVED AS TO FORM: IV4'ichael H. Aoueh, City Attorney THE PLEASANTUN URBAN GRC)W'I'H BOUNDARY INIT.[ATIVE The People of the City of Pleasanton do hereby ordain ss follows: Section 1. Deelarrrdon o~,g~ 't'he purpaae of this axsaure is lo: q. Acdzieve and rnobstsin a corrrplete, wdl~rounded oomnatai#y ~detirabla ne;ghborhoods, a strong cmploynxM base and a vr~ritly of cosata~ussity facilities. B, Preaatvs open spacx cress fbr the protaatioti public health and ssfdy. rec~eadonal opportunities, use ~ sgrieuhure cad graru~, tbo production of . natural naoo~uces, tbt preservt+tion of wgdlatda, aatl tba physicl separation of Pleasanton front eesghboring oonanwzutios. C. ReaSitm and readapt General Plan progrsnrs and policies eatabtiahing Pleasantoa"s Urbart Growth Boundary (f1Q8). I?, Provide a method for r+esidants to partiapate in the review and aaterdmerts W the City's C,asaral Plan by requirir~ with aetain excepttorrs, arty in the UC3B to be approved by a vote of the people, t;tttioa $ A Tho Genets'] Plan Map designates !ut Urban tJrowth Boundary (UQH) line around the edgo of land planned !br urban dev~]opaaent at Ganetnl Plert besddout. The lino distin~triahe~ arras generally suitable ~r urban devdopmem attid the provision of ccrban pub& bdlidsr and service 8~om areas generally suitable for the tong-lean prvDection of nattind :+esourus, largo lot t~grioulture and graraatg, parka and recreation, pnbGe heahh and safety, subregiornsily significant wddlands, buffers between couu:ninities, and aoeaitc ridgellrsa views. 'I'!ie UGB is intaded to be perrnanatit and deSna the Gtse beyond whielt urban developndant wilt a~ot occur. 13. The UGB tine was established ist rooagnitioo of the location of open space Panda protected by a valor approved initiative, jwisdictiaaal boundaries, errd physical terrain conetrabrts. TAe western UGB luWte is coterminous with the eastern border oFthe Pleasanton Ridgt•Jands open apace area. 'This I3,000-bcra area is prafected for parks and recreation, and Iuga-bt agrieultwal use+, ss n result of a voter $pprovtd initistiHe sdoptad in 1993, and through parallel policies adopted by Alameda Caurrty and the City of Hayward. Ths northert+most UGB is cotenniaoua with the Pleasantor~lDtrbs:n city limit litre. The eastern UGB exter>t4s through the Pleasanton quarry }ands. Since the future arse of lard iA this arcs will f ~uq I not be detemmred uau7 after atinigg activities sre let the Pleasarrtoa Plea stipulates that the liar toil at std ~ as ccurepr~ehertaivo use es ere co rxTw lands The eaatarn sou of e~quarry T'r~a ~s a told Livermore city linut line as it extends throargh the Ruby N:iI development. Tdie UQ3 to the south is based upon physical terrain as is extender along ttre base ofthe steep lulls that enclose the FLppy Valfey area. It is also situated is nearby hilly locations to acconmadate future devdopmrnt wlricb has been permitted by the Gemeial Plan for many yeaQS. C. I.oweQ dts+eitia should be arcouraged along the crude edge of the UGB to provide a tsarisition/buffer for preventing potential cangicts with tssero imtn~ediatdy beyond the boundary such ss agricmitur+e sad anldtands. D. In order to implernem the U®~ the Land [Ise Fleremrt of the (m~eral Plan adopted August 6, 1996 provides Policy 1l sad its related programs as follawr. • . Policy 1 l: Mairrtaia a permanent Urban t3rowth Boundary (UGB) beyond which urban dcvefopnx~nt alsall not be pexrrutted. • Program 1 l.l:' Permit only nao-urban uses beyond the UGB. • Program 11.2: Extend Urban Services only to areas within the UGB, with flee follosvimg possibb ttioa ibr adectod Urban Services: {I) ar+cas beyond the UCxB where the public health sad esfety P av~aridittg considerations: (2) es to water trervioq areas which are within the boundaries of rho forutar Pka.+an;on County township water District and when the service auenslon is conaiatutt with the 196? Jaiat Po~rors Agreement betwear the City sad the Distritx;. and (3) on reclaimed land which is currently designated as Sand end Gravel Asrvcsting in Fast Pleasanton when the pot~erttial Rttun use is non-urban. • Program E 1.3: Because the UGB is considered to be permanent, future edjastmertu to the line's location are ~ . discouraged; pravidod, hvw~over, minor adjustments maybe granted that asect aR the foilowittg; (I) are otherw;ee cansiatertt with the goats and pofides of the Crenerat Plea; (2) would not have a signd' rcant adverx impact on agriarhute, vvildlarrd eraser, or scvno ridgeline views; (3}are contiguous with exiatiwg urban devdopment or with property for which all disr:retionary approvals for ttrbsa development have bean granted; {4) would not inducer further adjustments to the boundary; and {S~ datnonstrata roRnanta~rrrtssa~ars~ 2 that tha fu>~ r8t~e of usbett pudic facilit~~a and eervioea will be adequatelypravided is an e@fcknt a»d timejq manner. • Progtttria t l .4; Encourage faaver ir~asity uses irrrenethetely made the UGB, s. nes7esaary~ to ptev~art pote~l laed use cott8i~ wltlt custi?~g n~o~ uzban w~ E, Pleasanton's UGe reSects a comrt to foaw !;slurs growth within the City to prevcat usi%tt sprawl. The Ut3B is based oa a realistic BBt of Pleasarttoa'a ability to octend City services ssuh v newer end warner asd a dedgned to protect eervlronneesuelly sensitive arras curb as the Rldgelruda and t1~ Southeast h~ls. '!'tat UGB complataa~ Gelreral P9an poliaa pmntoting ad~tionel housing opporturdties, carghasssing it~Q devdopruent, and suppouting s thriving psfplayraegt canter. The UGB wm: • P,r~ouraga e89aenc growth pattcrna sad protect tha city ofPiesaanton's quattry of Ii6a by aancerWatirtg future developmert largely within eaoatiug deYeioped arena; • Promote ttaee that foster pub5e heahh and safety and prvduct~vs investrne~nt for agricultural enrm~priees on finds ousadde the boundary; • Fostetr and prvta~ tbo oorsmnsnity charactrs ofPleasanton white . aPi~Pn~ ~°c devetopnteat in accorderc~e with rho City's unique local conditions: • Cvnocat~c growth wkhia the boundary in order to Iisnit the aatatt of c+equ{ted city aesvices stand rcatmir, lncnssea Tn their costs; • Allow the City to oorttimse to meet file hAt:ang needs for all rceasomie segs»eotts af'the populasion. especially lower and moderate income hocrsehaJda~ lry ~n8 ~ development of housing into areas whe:a services sttd int$'asirtscttue can be pravidtd mon cost ei3bctive~r, and • Promote atabdity im Ivrtg-tam plautrung Cot tine ~r by establishp~g s corneratooe policy witturt the General Platt designating the goograDhia }units of brrg-farm ur>zan development and also~wirtg su~dmi Sao'bglry within thole lirtsits to reapasd to the City's changing needs over liras. F. The t,,eneral Plan has a policy flat Flatsartton re9iderrts will partidpsta its load-use plannirsg and decipai malting and filar Pleasamon residents wilt patticipata i>t tha review anct u~tate of the Oarsersi Plan as conditions change. Consistes# with flat popsy and to ataure that the Urban: Growth Boundary remains permartort and not bs: substamially adjusted without the Pleaaenton voters' oottaetK the voters rmsat approve an arrts;rtdmsntt to rho Pleasanton (icneral Plan as provided in this meastue. cow 3 Sectbn 3. General PLan Amendments Reeardlas! the IIri~aa Crmvt6 undar? A. ReatYftatation add Readoptioa of Utfian GroRtla Boandary . The Pleasanton Urban Growth Boundary Imttative hereby c~eaffirms and radopv (1}the UrbaA Growth Boundary dealgnsicd on the Lend Uee De4ignatiot~ Map of the City ofPleasaatart General Plan adopted August 6, 1996, a redaoed Dopy of which is attached to the initisdive for ~usuative purpores as Exhibit ead (Z} Land Use F.leiaeitt Paficy 11 and its Programs 11.1 throttglt 11.4 of the City of Pleasanton General Plan es sd forth is section 2D of this aritiat;ve. B. Adaptia~ of Urbaa Growth Boundary Amendment Police The filloPwirg text is added to the Laid Use F~rmreru of the 6ty of Pleasanton General Pisa adapted August 6. 1996 itnmadistely foIiuwirtg Prngraat 11.4:. ' Progtun 1 I.i: The fongoing Polityy 11 and Programs 11.1 through l 1.4, this Progryun 11.5, anid the Urban Otnwth Bouadiuy deaigrsated on the Land Use Demgnatiotts Map of the City ofPleasantoa General P1aa adopted August 6, !496 snd u readopted by the Pleasanton Urban Gsvwth Bo¢rndary Initiative, shalt be aaxxrded only bg? s vote of the people. Section 1. Lmolemsata~s A. Effective Date. This ininitiativa afrafl take effect if a majority of the votes cast on rho fititistive are In favor of its adoption. Upon the effootive data of this initiativeti the provisions of seGion 3 of the inldative are hereby inserted iutto the Land Usa Element of the City of Pleasanton General Plaa a an araendrndrt tfieroofy accept that if the feu arnendrreonts of the mandatory demestts of the general plan permitted by :ate iaw Por any gives calendar year have already been utilized is l 996 prior to the effxtive lots of this initiative„ this ilk plea amendmvrrt shag be the Brat amendment inserted i» the {Say's General Plan oat January 1, 194T. If the inltistive deaczibod as the Pleasanton Rgaiderrtial HuNdout Initiative ie also approved by the voters d the Novernbar, 1946 alerxiort, the Ge~rksal Platt amardmatit adopted bythet initisaive and the amendmenrt adopted by this inidattve shsJl ba simultaneouslp iaaelled into the City of Pleasarttnn General PLm as a single amendment thereof, At each time as taus general plan amendment is inserted in the Gity of Pleasarstor~ Gmtersl Plan, any provisions of the C'uy of Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance, as reflected in the ordinance text itxlf or the City of Pleasanton Zoning Map, inconsistent with this gw?eral plea amendment shall not be enforced. B. Project Approvs4. Upon the ~`bctive date of this initiative, the City, sad its departments, boards, oorrtQnasiama, oilxxrs and employee:, aball not grsnt, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, arry general ptaa amendrneru, ~oRnsxESwRBN~s~ 4 re~orring, speci5c plan, subdivisum map, conditional usa Qesnnit, buitdir~g permit or any other disctetionery endiltmead, which is it~conaisteait with thin inutiative. C. Genera! Plan Reorganiutias. The t~ereeral Plan may ba reorganised, and indrvidual provisloas maybe ranuarbered or reor~deTed ~ tha course of ongoing updateM of the Genarel Plan is accordance with the requir+artrattta of atato law, but Land Use Paiicy 1 l and Programs 1 I. i through I l.5 shat7 eortt}rttra to be Deluded in the GesreQal Ptec tsnIwa repeated or amended parrsuartt to the procedures ad forth above ar by the voters of the City. D. Tsidngs. The City Caar>~ may arnd~d the UGS if it msicea each of lira tollawing >btda~: (1} That en application for an amendment to the Urban Gcaovtli Boundary has ban rejected 6y the voters of tha City of Pleasanton; (2) That following the rejection of the proposed arner~rreat to tl~ Urban Growth Boundary the final judgm~ of a cant of compeocrtt jurisdiction ~oncludea timt the application of any aspect of t.aad Use Policy 11 and prognuns 11. l thraug!?1 l .4 would consti~rte an unconstitutional taldrl8 of a landovvrtat's properly; end (3) Thst tha amendrne~t and assoaatod lend use designatiar? will allow additlond tmd uw only ro the rrdrllrrwre rxtent rs~eaeesary to avoid the uttcoztetitutionatlaking of the lsrrdawne~a ptgparry, Section 7. ~~$~jeaf fQLGcrtain Prof This ittitiattive r?ttll not apgty to nay developatatt project that has ob4ained es of the effective date of the inrttativ~e a vested right pursuant to state taw. Section a. ,~ygrllbil;tv Lf any portion of this initiative is Iknatter declar+od invalid by a court of compa0erst jurisdiction, all remaatit4g portions are to be considered valid and shall remain in £u11 font and effxt. Sedioo ~ eadmmt gr Rsrkal T'fiis initiative maybe amended or rspealed only by the voters of the City of Piesaart'ron at a Ciry eteetioa ~bv~.~ Ciry of Pteasaruon Land Ust Designations MaP (R.educed Copy) ' r ~ ~ ~ s n: t r 2 N r~. soar PLBASANTON GSNBRAL PLAN UR~IrN GROWTH BOUNDARY Aunt 1!!i ~BR THE PLEA3A~}TUTI RF~IDEN?IAL BUILDOIJT II~iTi7ATiYE T?lo People ofthe City ofPleasantoa do hereby ordain a8 follows: Scctfon I. IIect~rado~alPtrrv~e The puxpost of this measure is to: A. Achieve and rnaintairt within the City of P}eastueWn s comp}etr, vvdl-rounded comrraertity of descable rrelglebothoodl, astrong employereesrt base and a variety of coa>aou>icy facilities. B. i'Jewelop the City of P}easar:ton ire an eigcidrt, Jvgiul, artd ordtt}y fashiaes. C. Rearm and raadopt Gmrraral PLn progress: and policies establishing Pleasanton's maumum number ofrrside~ial orals. p, Provide a metfeod far residersta to participate is tba review and araerrdtna~t to the Gtys t;ersee8l Plant by reguitiag arry to the ersexirrartn auaeber of r+didtrrtisl unuts to be approved by a vats of the people Sscdoa i ~ A Holding capacity u the ui!thnate aiu of tlee corrtrrautity that can be accommodated ifal} lend us~+ shown oa the Gesteral Plea Map wero to be bunt si iataneitia attovved m cite General Plant. Capsc~iy b espresaed in tererq of housing orals, popuiatioa„ coastnereiaYofi3eefiadustrial but7d'eag Soar area, and jobs, a!I :x buildout_ ' 13. If all n.~errtial land drown aar the (3arural Plan Map .vere bus's out et inrmsities ailowved by the Cnxeaal Plan, Pleaiantas would eonttim approxintstely 29,000 housing units. That bui[dout aumbec has Trot charsged siattdy in the last IO years and is calwleded i3y asau:siesg t,nrsertd Plats policies and ti;rat a mid rassge of danaities wiU be developed oe: the remaining vacant land t+vithin the City's Urban Qrowt}e Bewadary. C. Tht resides>tial buildaut polieia in Chia initiative support the Crones[ Pleda central policy that adequate housing is asseatial to a thriving coeresrsunity. The Pleasanton General Plan Dromotes efficient housing deveopment in the City through policies and pr~ograrxsa w3sic}r encoucsge irt60 development, facilitate constructing aeooad dwelling snits, promotes affordable !rousing through io-lieu fees and otherwise. and tndeavor to sr~t Pleasaaton's altars of regional housing noeda. Moreover, the Pieasantors General Plan recogetizta that the easatrce of the jabs/housing issue isto _ recognize ditfertnt typo of comrrwte behavior and to provide adequate housing t • t opportunities within the wmmuto arcs deairad by da$'erorrt worlc~aa/rommuteas. Flwasntoa has adopted an approach which plates for a balance of jobs and housing within the Tri-Vatlrry wmmuta am and hr~s taken eigm8r~nt steps to contn'bute its shave of?ri.Valky housi>«g while s+etairtutg its role es as esaptoymaat carter, As a resuh; residential and otter }end uao deeig~natiom is the General Plw are sufficimit to accorurnodate the expected increase is the City's poptt>ation. D, In order ro further the principles deearibed in fndi~ C, abovq the rrsideritial buiIdout poGcias in this initiative are based oa a resGstic ~ of Pleasanton's ability to extend City servioa arch as sewer and wales sad is designod to protect . environineata8y eensittve areas such as the Ridgetands sad the Southeast bills. The residmrtiaJ bu~7dout cap complanrnts Cretseral P]at polities pmmotinig additional bousing opp~artunities, emphasi~r~g ia8q devdopmeatr and supporting a thrivutg anploymeru cutter. The residartial builAout cap will: • Encourage oll3caerri growth pattoras sad protect rho City of Pleasatiwn's duality of 1de b~ concartrrring flmue dcvelapmerrt largely within earisting developed arsa~ • Foster std protect the community character of PSeasa:iton while ettcauragiag rppropriate economic development in accordance with the Citya urtigtEe loaf cvnditiotu; • Allow the City to continue to meet the housmg needs far all eoonomrsia segtnet~ts of the population, espodally lower and moderate income houaeltotda, by dh+ectatg the devebpment of housing into areas whose services and irrFrastrut~ure can be prrivided amore cost tt~et~ively; and • Promote stabiLt' y in lcmg-term plowing for the Cityr by eatnbliahing a cornerstone policy within the C~laieraJ Plan deaigrtsting the limits of longterm urban dtmloptnatt but allowing atiliaart fleatibiTtty to n:pond to the City's ctwngirtg Heads over tinse~ E. In ret:ogaitioa of the holding capsaty of the City ofPM,asattton and in order to achieve the ptirposp eat forth above, the Land Use EleutatL ofthe General Plan adopted August 6, 1996 provides in Goal 1, Policy 1 i aed its related program the fol3owing: Polity 15: Maintain a ttimrimtim housing bur7daut of 29,000 units within the Planning Area. Program 15.1: Monitor and zone fbttuc residential devdopmestts so as not to exceed the maxirraun housing bttildout F. The talerteral Plan has a policy that Pkaaatston tesiderrts will partiapate m Jand-use piannirag sn~d decision maldtag and that Ptt~aanton residents will paRiapate in the revtea and update of the Glossal Plan asi oorditions cbange~ Corgistewt with that poGry and to enatu~e that the ma~ntnsrta member of housing units et but7dout retneina ai 29.000 ssnthas:t the Pltatur>It~on sroters' conaem~ the wtersi nmu approve ors arrsendmesst to the Plesastrton t3otseral Plw at provided its this sttassure, Section 3. gene Plstn Ameiodtn~ hr~iea the ~11~iiaeus~A~Mential ~uiltloat A ResAlrnsation and Aeadoptlon of Aeaideadd Buitdoat Policy The Pleasanton Housing Cap Initiative hereby r+t~fBtresa end readopts I,and Uea Elesnerst Policy 1 S end ib Program l S. l of the t3ty of Plaaaerstc+n Qe»rxal Plea u set forth in section 2.E Qf this initiative_ H. Adoption otAr~ldenttal HuOdont Polled 7'}n following tact is added to the la»d Use Efetttsnt of the Glty of Plaaaaotao Genoral Plan adopted Astgstat 6, 1996 imnsediatdy lbliowing Goal f, Policy IS, Program ls,l: Proge'am I 5.2: 'Ijse foregoing Policy I S end Program 15.1, and this Program IS.2, efsaB be arneasded only by a volt of the people. Sedloo 4. YrrsWcmentaNtat A FJTective Data. This Trsitiative a!?alI take effect if a snyodiy of rho votes wt oa t>be Initiative aye is Svor of its adaptioa Upots the e8iactive dace of tMs inidative~ the provisions of saxian 3 ofthe initiative are hereby insr~ted into the Lend Use Elettsent of the Csty of Pfesaaaton General Pfau at an arne+sda>csst thereof; except that if the f+otts art>auitnasts of flee mandatory detnenta of the gettenl pLn Qerrnitted by syie leer for a»y given astendstr year hsvo already boat utilized in 1996 prior to the egecxivo dale of thin irritiuivr„ this general plan utsondmeat alsdl be the $rst amemdmatt inseri~ed in the City~s Genteel Plan om 7amtaty 1, 1997. If the initiative dmcst'bod as the ploasatston Urbaa Growth f3outtdary Initiative is oleo approved h1'the voters u the Navensba. 1496 dection. the Genernl Plan emendmert adopted by that initiative sad the amm~dttsent adopted by this irsitisliva shalt be simultaneausty inserted fmo fie City of 11c+aaawn Gmaral Plan as a sfngio ernendmertt thereof. At such time as rigs genus! plan ansersdrsseAt is iaset~ed its the City ofPleasss»to» Geeseral Dian, arty provisions of the City of Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance, as reflertesd in the ordinarsce react itadf or the City ofPiesaanton Zoairsg Map, irtconsistem with Chia general plan atrsendment alsall trot be easforc+ed. B. Pro)ect ApprovsL. Upon the etfectivs date of this initiative. the City, end its depertrnents, boards, commission:, o9'icers and ensployeev. shall root grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, arty genseral plan atrsendtssotst, rezatsittg. sptxigc ptar~ subdivision map, conditional rue permit, bw'lding pernsit or arty otistx discxetionary e~tlerrsetst, which is irsconsisteat with tills ititiative. 3 [ ~ ~ C. GeneY'a1 Plan Rcorganiratlon. General Plan reay be reorgaaiud, and individual provisions may be reavmbored or reordered is the course of ongoing updates of the Genexal Plan in aocordanoe with the r+equit+anerrts of state law, but band iJ~e Policy 1S and program: IS.I through 13.2 shall contitttu to be included in the Qenesal Plan unless repealed or amrnded ~rwraat to the procadurq set forth abm~e or by the voters of the City. D. Talcings. T11e Ciry Coved may amend the poftcy and/or programs adapted by this initiative if k melees each of the following iindirtgs: (2) That an appBcation for ea amendmaat to the policy aadJor programs adopted by this initiative has been rejected by the voters of the Chy of PlesaarMq {2) Thai following the rejection of the proposed amertdmer~2 to the policy andJor programs advptcd by this initiative, the grin judgment of a court of competart jurisdiction concludes that the applicadon of arty aspect of that policy ara~/or programs would constitute an untannstitutional felting of a landowner's property; and {3) That the amendmelst vviQ aIIonv additiosral reaidentiai development only to the muurnum vtte:tt necessary to avoid the uriconatitutional talartg aftha laadov~eet's prtrperiy. Sectica S. I~temotion: for Certalrr P~j,~ This initiative shall not apply to arty dev+eloprnem project that here obtained as of the egecGive date of the initiative a vested right purausat to state law. Stdloa 6. Seve,~r billty if a:zy portion of this initiative is hereafter deckred ievslid by a court of competart jurisdiction, all remaining portions ere to be considered valid sad shall remeia in full fvnx and effoot. Seetion 7. A,nrendment or Repeal ?his initiative maybe amended yr repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasanton at s City election a..;Ma ~rs»r 4 - ATTACHMENT 3 References to the. Housing Capin the 2005 - 2025 General Plan General Plan Page Section Comment ElementlCha ter Introduction 1-3 General Plan Accom lishments Land Use Table of Contents Land Use 2-1.4 Growth Bottom of page Mana ement Land Use 2-15 Residential Ca Whole section to be deleted Land Use 2-17 Hoidin Ca acit Second ara ra h Land Use 2-23 General Plan Land Top of page Uses . Land Use 2-24 Mixed Use Bottom of a e Land Use 2-37 Pro ram 23.1 Pro tarn to be rewritten Land Use 2-37 Poiic 24 Po1ic to be deleted Land Use 2-37 Pro ram 24.1 Pro ram to be deleted Land Use 2-37 Pro ram 24.3 Pro ram to be deleted Air Quality and 9-15 Pleasanton's Top right of page Climate.Change Response to Climate Chan e X:UaniceSlCap discussion~CC ARslAttachment 1 References m GP.doc i * 1"` r r ~ zx-a r, c e s _ r, ~ -"v' ~ ~,~~'a,,,r -r~ ~+,~:s • ~ f5p` fC w i ~.,Z~: , fh-.,+ ~ - z $ rs'.. ~ t„t,G i~~ ~ . ~T f 9` ~ "M i ~ ' aPP~nd~x Regic~na~ 4~ r ~ , ~y ~.r 9 rr~ nn ~ k y ~ ,nF' Ly ,r. t ,H,i ~ 5 r, . ~ i . 'SS l j n ~y ~K l ~ NSF 1 ? Y` i ~~~1~ JR,h t t ,+Y x q N' 3~ , . v . ~ Y + .aY' v - 7. _ ,.r.. ~ i~ 1' . iir"''.~:oi9tW ~r 7M~p.. c vs ,r-„M+'~ ~ . r+ ~ r -i. `Jan ~rancist.o ~a~ ~rea t"~ousan~ Needs ~~~~oc.ation, ? 00, to 20 14 T-Merv Low_ ~c50% Low_ <80% Moderate. <120% Ahove Moderate Total SF Sav AreaTotai 1 48.840 35.102 4i.316~ 84.242 214.500 ~~amec~a ~,ount~ ~~jousin`~ ~eee~s,~~~ocatio~~. 2OOi to 20 f 4 K < t a a n x 3 z CT~TF OF AI IFO NIA.@UtLNFSC TRANaPORTA'~fNANOIIOUCING AGEN(^,y _ ATTACHMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUnI'I'Y DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Third Strect, Suitc 470 P. O, 8or 952053 Sacnnento, CA 94252-2053 (916)323.3177 FqX (916) 327-2643 STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW Overview State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan containing. at least seven mandatory elements including housing. Unlike the other general plan elements, the housing element, required to be updated every five to six years, is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by a State agency, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department). Housing elements have been mandatory portions of focal general plans since 1969. This reflects the statutory recognition that housing is a matter of statewide importance and cooperation between government and the private sector is critical to attainment of the State's housing goals. The availability of an adequate supply of housing affordable to workers, families, and seniors is critical to the State's long-term economic competitiveness and the quality of life for all Californians. Housing element law requires local governments to adequately p{an to meet their existing and projected housing needs including their share of the regional housing need. Housing element law is the State's primary market-based strategy to increase housing supply, affordability and choice. The law recognizes that in order for the private sector to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land-use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities #or, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. The housing element process begins with the Department allocating a region's share of the statewide housing need to the appropriate Councils of Governments (COG) based on Department of 1=finance population projections and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans. The COG develops a Regional Housing Need Plan (RHNP) allocating the region's share of the statewide need to the cities and counties within the region. The RHNP is required to promote the following objectives to: (1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner; (2) Promote infi{I development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns; and (3} Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, Housing element law recognizes the most critical decisions regarding housing development occur at the local level within the context of the periodically updated general plan. The housing element component of the general plan requires local governments to State Housing Element Law Page 2 balance the need for growth, including the need for additional housing, against other competing local interests. Housing element law promotes the State's interest in encouraging open markets and providing opportunities for the private sector to address the State's housing demand, while leaving the ultimate decision about how and where to plan far growth at the regional and local levels. While land-use planning is fundamentally a local issue, the availability of housing is a matter of statewide importance. Housing element taw and the RHNP process requires local governments to be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated. The process maintains local control over where and what type of development should occur in local communities while providing the opportunity for the private sector to meet market demand. In general, a housing element must at Least include the following components: . ~ A Housing Needs Assessment: Existing Needs -The number of households overpaying for housing, living in overcrowded conditions, or with special housing needs (e.g., the elderly, large families, homeless), the number of housing units in need of repair, and assisted affordable units at-risk of converting to market-rate. • Proiected Needs -The city or county's share of the regional housing need as established in the RMNP prepared by the COG. The allocation establishes the . number of new units needed, by income category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the housing element. The RHNP provides a benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land and opportunities for housing development to address population growth and job generation. ~ A Sites Inventory and Analysis: The element must include a detailed land inventory and analysis including a si#e specific inventory listing properties, zoning and general plan designation, size and existing uses; a general analysis of enviranmentai constraints and the availability of infrastructure, and evaluation of the suitability, availability and realistic development capacity of sites to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need by income level. If the analysis does not demonstrate adequate sites, appropriately zoned to meet the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need, by income level, the element must include a program to provide the needed sites including providing zoning that allows owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses "by-right" with minimum densities and development standards that allow at least 16 units per site for sites. , State Housing Element Law Page 3 ~ An Analysis of Constraints on Housing: • Governmental -Includes land-use controls, fees and exactions, on- and off-site improvement requirements, building codes and their enforcement, permit and processing procedures, and potential constraints on the development or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. ~ Housing Programs Programs are required to identify adequate sites to accommodate the locality's share of the regional housing need; assist in the development of housing for extremely low, lower- and moderate-income households; remove or mitigate governmental constraints; conserve and improve the existing affordable housing stock; promote equal housing appartuniry; and preserve the at-risk uni#s identified. ~ Quantified Objectives Estimates the maximum number of uni#s, by income level, to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period of the element. 12126107cc EXHIBIT C 6.0 Analysis of Long~Term Effects 1 This section of the DEI1Z addresses the potential long-term effects of implementing the proposed project, as required by CEQ.A. b.1 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources S~nifi~ant Irreversiyle Environrntnta Chances and l retr'ev.3, ~ orn 'tin of Resources I Construction of the proposed project would directly result in irretrievable commitment and use of energy and non-renewable resources for construction ~ and operation of future office, residential and retail uses, including such resources as sand and gravel, lumber and other forest products, asphalt, a petrochemicals and metals. The level and amount of commitment of such resources is commensurate with similar development projects undertaken in the Bay Area and throughout California and the nation. 6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project All EIKs must consider the potential growth inducement of projects- A project is r generally considered to be growth inducing if it will foster economic or population growth or will cause the construction of new housing, either directly or indirectly, within a given geographic area. Projects which remove obstacles to population growth are also deemed to be growth inducing. Increases in population may strain existing community services or utility systems, so consideration onust be given to this impact. The characteristics of a project that i; may encourage or facilitate other growth activities which could significantly affect the environment, either individually or curnuladvely, mast also be discussed. Approval of the proposed project could be considered growth inducing, since 1 additional employees, visitors and associated vehicular traffic would be attracted to the site. ]'•iowever, the proposed project represents an effort to provide an array of relatively dense complementary land uses close to a regional and cammuntty transit hub to promote non-automotive modes of transportation. Also, the type of uses proposed for the site would be consistent with the City's General Plan and 1. other regional planning efforts to promote relatively intense mixed-use development near public transit facilities to minimize use of auto transit. 6.3 Cumulative Impacts ~j Cumulative impacts are those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the otential to enerate more substantial im acts. CE~QA r uires that cumulative P g P e`1 l impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe w;: the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. Dublin Transit Canter PA OQ-013 Page t 98 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin ,r CEQA also states that the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an );IR need not be as detailed as that provided for the project alone. Cumularive imparts may be addressed using one of two methods: • a listing of past, present and. reasonable anticipated future and probable projects, within or adjacent to the community containing the project site, which could produce related or cumulative impacts; or t a summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning documents which evaluated regional environmental impacts of a number of projects within a given geographic arez. For purposes of this EIR the first approach has been chosen to address cumulative impacts. A listing of such projects is included in the Transportation and Circulation Section (Section 4.11), which includes a number of projects in adjacent cornznunities A summary of expected cumulative impacts Eollaws: • Aesthetics and Light and Glare: Limited cumulative imparts on aesthetic resources would occur, including incremental increases in light and glare. However, since the site is located. in a substantially urbanized area, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. • Air Qualihj: Cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.2. This section identifies that the proposed project would contribute pollutants to the atmosphere above Say Area Air Quality Management District standards. Such impacts could not be reduced to less-than- significant levels and would therefore be considered significant and unavoidable. • 8iologieal Resources:: Cumulative impacts of the project on biological impacts would be limited and would include minimal loss of Congdon's spilceweed and habitat for burrowing awl .These impacts can be mitigated ' to less-than-significant levels and would not cumulatively considerable. • Cultural Resources: Totential impacts to cultural resources are not considered cumulative. • Geology and Soils: Potential impacts to geology and soils are not considered cumulative. • Wafer and Hydrology: Cumulative impacts to flooding and stormwater runoff are addressed in Section 4.7. 13uildout of the proposed Transit Center project would contribute to cumulative stormwater runoff within the Tri-Valley area, however local and regional drainage facilities exist or have been planned to safely accommodate these anticipated increases. On- site measures would be included as part of the proposed project to ensure Dublin transit Center PA o0-013 Page 199 Drat! EnHronmental Impact Report ,iufy 2001 t City of Dublin surface water quality impacts would be less-than-significant. Therefore, water and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. • Hazards: Potential impacts to hazards are not considered cumulative. • Land Use: Cumulative land use impacts would result should the proposed Transit Center project be approved, however, these would be less-than-significant since the site is located in a substantially urbanized ' area. The type and density of use would be consistent with local and regional policies_to minimize automobile trips by promoting a mix of complementary uses near major transit hubs. • Noise: Cumulative noise impacts resulting from the project-are anticipated to be less-than-significant, since existing noise levels on the site caused by vehicles using I-580 keeway and BART operations would be greater than noise generated by proposed land uses. • PopuiaEion and Housing:: Cumulative impacts to population, employment artd housing is addressed in Secrion 4.10. Although the proposed project would add additional office space, with associated employment, to the Tri-Valley area, the project would also comply with local and regional agency policies to construct higher density, mixed-use ' ~ projects near major transit hubs, such as exist on the project site. • TransyortaEian, yanking and circulaEion: In 2025, the combination of project-related traffic and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would expexience congested conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, this 1 intersection would be operating at LOSE (0.97) during the AM peak hour and LOSE (1.00) during the PM peak hour. Another identified cumulative impact would be the addition of pro}ect traffic to I-580 that would exceed ' the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance for mainline freeway operations. Both of these cumulative impacts are considered significant and u~runitigatable. Future parking 1 requirements associated with the proposed project is not considered cumulatively considerable due to the provision of on-site parking spaces and the nearby available of public transit to serve future development. • tltrlities and Public Services: Cumulative impacts are anticipated with regard fo water, sewer, police, fire, education, solid waste services and future need for natural gas and electrical energy. Long-term water supplies are available to serve the proposed project, according to 1?5RSD representatives and adequate capacity exists to accommodate the project's anticipated cumulative contribution to wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Buildout of the proposed project would add to cumulative demand for electrical and natural gas energy, however, this need is being addressed on a regional and state-wide level and with the provision of an on-site power-generating facility. Cumulative impacts related to ' educational facilities can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 240 Oraft Environmental tmpaa Report July 2001 ' City of Dublin Although construction of the proposed Transit Center would add to the cumulative municipal solid waste stream, adequate Lang-term facilities exist to accommodate the project's contribution. in sum, there would be less-than-significant cumulative considerable impacts associated with the proposed project l • Recreation: Buildout of the proposed project would add to the cumulative needs for pazks and recreation facilities in the Eastern Dublin area, however the nature of the proposed high density housing component associated with the project and minimal occupancy by younger residents would result in aless-than-significant cumulative impact, 6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ' Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to aless-than-significant Ieve1. CEQA requires decision-makers to ' balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the underlying project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the project without reducing or eliminating a significant adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Qverriding Consideration supported by the information in the record. I Three impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: • Regional cumulative air quality impacts; • Cumulative (Year 2025} traffic impacts; • Mainline freeway operations near the project area. t' 1 1 1 1 Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 201 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ~ Clry of Dublin 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations £IR Preparers ' The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager) Patricia Jeffery, AICP, Placemakers, (assistant project manager) George Nickelson, P.E., Omni-Means {traffic) Peter Galloway, Omni-Means (traffic} t Donald Ballanti (air quality) James Reyeff, illingworth & Rodkin, (noise} Mike Porto, Stevenson, Porto & Pierce (hydrology) William Young, P.E. {hydrology} Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates (biology) Tim Lacy, LSA Associates (biology) Becky Sherry, LSA Associates (biology) Hope Kingma, LSA Associates (biology) Sigrida Reines, Treadwell & Rollo (hazardous materials) Miley Holman, Holman Associates (cultural resources) Chuck Cornwall Environmental Vision (visual simulation) Jane Maxwell, Blue Qx Associates (graphics} ' City of Dublin Staff ' Eddie Peabody, Jr., A.ICP, Community Development Director Kevin van Katwyck, P.E. ,Senior Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer Diane Lowart, Director of Parks and Recreation Rase Macias, Crime Prevention Officer Edward Laudini, lire Marshal Project Sponsors Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Other Agencies and Organizations Contacted Alameda County Zone 7- Alameda County Zone 7- Alarneda County Public Works Department-Rene Baile Dublin San Ramon Services District-Bruce Webb LAVWMA-Vivian Housen BART~Kathy Mayo Dublin Transit Center PA 00.013 Page 202 Draft Environmental impact Report July 2001 C+ty of Dublin ~ ~ East Bay Regional Parks District-Steve Fiala j Pacific Gas & Electric-Jerry O'Hara ' ~ Dublin Unified School District-Dr. John Sugiyama I 7.2 References t The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the preparation of this DEIR. ' Beedy, E. C., S. D. Sanders, and D. A. Bloom. 1991. Breedire status, distribution. and habitat associations of the tricolored blackbird fA~elaius tricoldrl. 1850-3989. June 21, 1991. Jones & Stokes Associated, Inc. QSA 88-187.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared #or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Brian Kangas Foulk. 1998. Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo, Alameda County, 1998. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Natural Diversi_h? Data Base CLNDDBI: special-status species occurrences report for the following U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quads: Niles, Dublin, Livermore, Hayward, Newark, Las Trampas [iidge, Diablo, Tassajara, and La Costa Valley. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Resources Division, Sacramento, California, 2000. California Native Plant Society (GNPs). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California {sixth edition, electronic version). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, CA, 2000, California Public Utilities Commission, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Re~rt, Tri-Valj~y 2002 Ca aci , In~rea_~g~, Aspen Environmenta] Group, 2001. Dublin San Ramon Services Dishrict, Urban Water Master Pian. 1999 O Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Collection Stern aster Plan: 1=inal Re~~rt, Montgomery Watson Engineers, 2000. ' City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Pl~r1, WRT Associates, 1998 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/Ggneral Plan. WRT Associates, 199 City of Dublin, Bastem Dublin Sce is Corridor. Policies and Standards, David Gates and Associates, 1996. City of Dublin, C; Herat Plan, 1985 {adopted), 1998 (revised) Dublin Transit Center PA 00-Of3 Page 203 flr"dtt Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ' City of Dublin Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., Results of Soil and Groundwater investigation and Screening Human Health Risk ~lSSgSCm ~Lf r Pr peri:ies_Located ~t_Hacien a Drive angj, Dublin oulevard i.n Dublin. California, June 19, 149$. . Environmental Science Associates, Environmental Baseline Ssudy: 47-Acre ' Paroel at Pass Re4grve Forces Training Area blin California September 1990. Grinnell, j. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacif. Coast Avif. 27: 608. Harding Lawson Associates. 2000. Preliminary Wetland Assessment: iron Horse Trail Extension, Alameda County, California, Prepared for Alameda County Public Works Agency. ~ ' H.T. Harvey & Associates, inc. 1999. Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H (Pao Yeh Lin Property) Ecological Impacts and Mitigation. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield, consulting civil engineer, Pleasanton, CA. H.T. Harvey & Associates, inc. 2000. Iron Horse Trial Extension California red- ' legged frog and California tiger salamander site assessment. Prepared for Alameda County Public Works Agency. ' Jones & Stakes Associates, Inc. 1995. Inventory of special-status plant and wildlife species at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. June 21, 1995, (JSA 93-240.} Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento ' District, Sacramento, CA. Kangas Foulk, Brian. 1998. Santa Rita Property Aerial Photo, Alameda County. 1 Kleinfelder, Inc., S,~Ifaco R~gture_Hazard Studysam_ n~ Parks 1Zublin. C lifomia. October 12,1999. ' Kleinfelder, Inc., ~alg~,y and oils Inf rmation to Address Items on the Protect ~EOA Checklist for the Dublin T ansit Center in Dublin Califomia December 4, ' 2oao. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA}, 1994. San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment, Gale Ranch, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, CA Prepared for ShapeU Industries, Milpitas, CA. 20 pp. + appendices. ' Mallette, R. D. and G. Gould. 1976. $a~tors of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Califomia, 1976. Palmer, R S. (Ed.). Handbopk of North American birds: di~lmal raptors ols, 4 and 51. Yale YJniv. Press, New Haven and London, 1988. Preston, R.E. PrPliminarrv rg~nort on e c ervafion status of Cong on's ' H isub nd t Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 204 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 ' City of Dublin EXHIBIT D constructing the Transit Center is unknown, the number and duration of construction jobs is nat known. Table 19. Transit Center Employment Projections Land Use Designation Sq. Ft. 5 q . Est. Jobs Et./Ern to ee Commercial 70,000 5~ I40 Cam s Office 2,000.000 2b0 769? 'Cotal 7 , 8 3 2 Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Pian EIR, Table 3.2-6 Impact 4.10-2 emR]oyrnent): The project si#e would generate approximately 7,832 jobs at full built out of the Transit Center, plus an unknown number of short- term construction jobs. This amount of employment growth has been generally accounted far in ABAG's regional employment projections. Since this amount of employment growth is being planned as part of a mixed use, transit-oriented project which can draw on the entire Bay Area region, aless-than-significant impact is expected {less-than-significant}. fobs-Housing Balance lm~act 4.10-3 (lobs-housin¢ balanS~: Although the proposed project would contribute to the ABAG-projected jobs-housing ialbalance in Dublin and eastern Alameda County, proposed employment growth would be sited near a major transit hub and would also contain a significant housing component to assist in reducing the transportation impacts associated-with a major employment center (Tess-than-signi~icarrt). Ml'TIGATION MEASURES None required. 411 TRANSPORTATION AND CIItCULATION ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following section includes an evaluation of key intersections in the study area, points of congestion, transit service, planned circulation improvements, overall parking characteristics, and City transportation and parking policies. I~ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ~I Existing Street 1Vetwork The proposed Dublin Transi# Center would be located in the southern part of Dublin, adjacent to the I-580 freeway. Streets that provide, or are planned to provide, access into and around the project study area include Dougherty Road, Hopyard Road, Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, DeMarcus Boulevard, Iron Dublin Transit Genter PA Qt)-013 Page 124 Dran Environmental Impact Report July 21101 City of Dublin Horse Parkway, Arnold Road, Hacienda Drive, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Pimlico Drive, Santa Rita Road, Digital Drive-(future), Campus Drive (future), and Altamirano Road {future). Due to the rapid growth and development of the surrounding area, many of the study intersections and streets are currently under construction. This includes intersection improvements, street extensions, and street widening. For these reasons, the following descriptions of existing roadways and. intersections are subject to change. A brief description of each roadway follows: Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road extends in a north-south direction west of the project area. A major arterial street, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. South of Dublin Boulevard, the roadway widens to six travel lanes as it passes over I-580. Afull-access interchange for eastbound/westbound traffic is located at Dougherty/I-580. In the study area, Dougherty Road provides access primarily to commercial-retail areas. North of Dublin Boulevard, the roadway provides access to residential areas as it approaches Amador Valley Boulevard. Dougherty Road is designated as a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadltiay by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). Hopyard Road. Hopyard Road extends south from Dougherty Road on the south side of I-580. Asix-Lane roadway, Hopyard Road provides access to cornrnercial and office development in the City of Pleasanton. Hopyazd Road is designated as an MTS roadway in the ACCMA's CMP. Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Boulevard is in various stages of improvement and widening between Scarlett Drive and Hacienda Drive in the project study area. Currently, the roadway has two travel lanes open.to traffic in this segment. However, with ongoing widening the roadway will provide 1 six travel lanes in each direction by Summer, 200I. >n addition, new or upgraded signals are also being installed at the Delvlarcus Boulevard, Iron Ecorse Parkway and Arnold Road intersections. An east-west roadway, Dublin ioulevard provides access to commercial] office and residential areas. Between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road,. Dublin Boulevard has been completely unproved, with three travel lanes in each direction and raised landscaped medians. Dublin Boulevard is designated as an MTS roadway in the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's CMP. Scarfetf Drive. Scarlett Drive is located west of the project area. Extending south from Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive has two travel lanes and provides access to automobile dealerships as well as light-industrial areas between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. DeMarcus Boulevard. DeMarcus Boulevard extends in a southerly direction from Dublin Boulevard through the project area and provides direct access to the East Dublin BART Station and parking areas. It currently consists of a four-lane roadway with raised landscaped tr?edians. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 125 Dratt Environmental trnpact Report July 2001 City of Dublin The directional flow of traffic to the BART station is generally inbound via DeMarcus Boulevard and outbound on Iron Horse Parkway to the east, lron Horse Parkway. Iron Horse Parkway extends in a southerly direction from Dublin Boulevard through the project area_and provides access to the East Dublin BART Station. Similar to f7eMarcus Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway has four travel lanes with raised landscaped medians. Iron Horse Parkway primarily provides access to BART parking lots. Through- vehicle access to the BART station entrance is prohibited from Iron Horse Parkway. All vehicles must access the BART surface parking lots or turn- around via a traffic circle. Arnold Road. Arnold Road extends in a northerly direction from Dublin. Boulevard. A wide, two-lane roadway, Arnold Road provides access to existing and planned office and high-tech businesses on the east side of the roadway. Currently, Arnold Road does not extend south of Dublin Boulevard as an improved roadway. The recently approved Commerce One project will extend Arnold Road south from Dublin Boulevard to the I-580 frontages Hacienda Drive. Hacienda Drive is a north-south arterial street extending from Gleason Drive to south of the I-580 freeway. South of I-58-, Hacienda Drive has six travel lanes. North of I-580, the roadway has four travel lanes to Dublin Boulevard and then three travel lanes continuing north to Gleason Drive. Haciehda Drive provides access to retail, office and residential areas east of the project area. Central Parkway. Central Parkway extends between Arnold ltoa.d and Tassajara Road, paralleE to Dublin Boulevard. Atwo-lane roadway, the street is closed to through-traffic at the Tassajara Creek overcrossing due to ongoing construction of adjacent residential development. With raised landscaped medians, Central Parkway provides access to residential development i.n the study area. Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive is an east-west roadway that eictends • between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road. This roadway has four travel lanes with raised landscaped medians and provides access to commercial and office development north of the project site. Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road extends north from I-580. Atwo-lane roadway, Tassajara i2oad primarily provides access to residential areas east of the project site. I# is noted that Tassajara goad is currently.being widened to provide four travel lanes between I-580 to north of Gleason Drive. Tassajara Road is designated as an MTS roadway in the ACCIv1A's CMP. Pimlico Drive. Pimlico Drive extends east from Santa Rita Road opposite the I-580 eastbound off-ramp. A two lane roadway, Pimlico Drive provides access to commercial-retail areas in the Ciry of Pleasanton. publin Transit Center PA QO-013 Page t26 Dratt Environmental Impact Repoli Juiy 20oS Ciry of Dublin Santa Rita Rvad. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane roadway that extends south from 1-580. Opposite Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road has raised la.ridscaped medians and provides access to residential and office development in the City of Pleasanton, Santa Rita Road is designated as an MTS roadway in the ACCI'vlA's CMl?. Digitai Drive (future roadway}. Digital Drive would provide direct access to the Dublin Transit Center. This roadway is plansted to be constructed south of Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and an extension of Arnold Road as a six-lane divided roadway as part of the recently approved Commerce C7ne project. As part of the proposed Transit Center, Digital Drive would be extended east to Iron Horse Parkway decreasing in width to four and then three travel lanes. Campus Drive (future roadway}. Campus Drive would extend south from Dublin Boulevard into the project area. Located between Iron Horse Parkway and Arnold Road, Campus Drive would provide access to office development as a two to four-lane road. Aitamirano Drive (ficture roadway}. Altamirano Drive would extend between Arnold Road and the proposed BART parking structure as a two- lane frontage road paralleling I-580. A]tamirano Road would also intersect Campus Drive before continuing west towards the parking structure. Regional access On a regional basis, major access to the project area would be provided by I-580. _ This is an eight to ten lane east-west freeway that provides access to the adjoining cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. Regionally, the freeway provides access east to Tracy and west to Hayward and Oakland. Nearby I-580 full-access interchanges are located at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road in the project study area. Interstate b80 (I-680) is a six-lane, north-south freeway that provides access north through Contra Costa County to south of Santa Clara County. CGn a regional basis, I-680 provides access to San Jose to the south and 1-80 (Cordelia} to the north. Nearby interchanges are located at Alcosta Boulevard, I-5$0, and Stoneridge Drive. Both freeways are designated as MTS routes in the ACCMA's CMP. Existing transit service Eus ervice The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, or "Wheels" provides the primary bus transit service through the Dublin and Tri-Valley area. Wheels routes that currently serve the project study area include 1A, 1B, 3, 4, l0, 10A, 12x, ACE. These bus routes provide access to both west and east Dublin as well as numerous outlying areas. Wheels bus routes are described in more detail below: Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 127 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Wheels Route 2A and 2B: This route serves the project study area both north, south, and east of the proposed Transit Center. From the Dublin BART station, route 1A accesses Dublin Boulevard east to Hacienda Drive. The route then extends north to Gleason Drive and Broder Boulevard before returning south to Dublin Boulevard. From Dublin Boulevard the route uses Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road, and Rosewood Drive until returning to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Route 7.B travels in the opposite direction on the same streets. Headways are every 30 minutes during the weekdays. There is no operation on weekends. Current monthly ridership averages 3,098 passengers- Wheels Route 3: This route serves fhe Dublin Boulevard corridor as we]1 as areas to the north in Dublin. In the study area, route 3 accesses the Dublin BART station, Dublin Boulevard, and Dougherty Road before continuing on to Wildwood Road, Stagecoach Road, Alcosta Boulevard, Davona Drive, witlage Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard, itegional Street, and back to Dublin Boulevard. During peak weekday service, headways are every hour. There is no operation on weekends. Current monthly ridership averages 2,852 passengers. Wheels Route 4: This route serves the Dublin Boulevard corridor and areas west of San Ramon Road before extending south into Pleasanton. In the study area, route 4 accesses the Dublin BART Station and. then follows Dublin Boulevard west all the way to Silvergate Drive. From there, the route accesses Peppertree Road, Shannon Avenue, and San Ramon Road before extending to Pleasanton and back to the BART station (via Owens Drive). During Beak weekday service hours, headways are every 30 minutes. There is no operation on weekends, Current monthly ridership averages 3,809 passengers. Wheels Route I0: This route serves the Dublin Boulevard corridor before extending south into Pleasanton. In the study area, route 10 accesses the Dublin BART Station and Dublin Boulevard in a westerly direction before turning south on San Ramon Road. During peak weekday service, headways are every t5 minutes. On Saturdays and Sundays, headways are every 30 minutes. On Sundays route l0A serves the Santa Rita Jail. From the Dublin BA.1ZT station, route l0A accesses Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, and Broder Boulevard to the jail. Current monthly ridership averages 90,869 passengers. Wheels Route 22X: This route provides service to/from the City of Livermore to the East Dublin BART Station. Route 12X serves the BART Station from Livermore via I-5$0, Tassajara Road, and Dublin Boulevard Monday through Saturday. Headways are every half hour. On Saturday service, headways are every 40 minutes to 1 hour. There is no Sunday service. Current monthly ridership averages 17,539 passengers. Ace/Santa Rita/BART Shuttle: The ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) route serves the project study area from the Dublin BART station via Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, Broder Boulevard, Gleason Drive, and Tassajara Road before traveling south into Pleasanton. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 12B Drag Environmental Impact Report Juty 200i City of Dublin All Wheels routes listed above connect with the Dublin BART station, In addition to Wheels bus routes, the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) or "County Connection" routes 121, 259, and 970 serve the Dublin BART station. These Counry Connection routes serve areas to the north in Contra Costa County. SA T Svstem The East Dublin BART Station north parking lots are accessed via DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway from Dublin Boulevard. Frain DeMarcus Boulevard, through-vehicle access is provided to the BART station and related parking areas with vehicles continuing in an outbound direction on Iron Horse Parkway. Private vehicles cannot tz•avel under the freeway at the BART station ` to access the southerly BART parking lots in Pleasanton, although buses are permitted to use this route.- During the AM and PM commute periods, BART head~vays are every 15 minutes. Currently, peak ridership at the Dublin BART station occurs during the AM and f'M peak hours. Specifically, during the AM peak hour of 7:30-8:30 AM 1,3$8 riders access the BART system (1,863 entries, 325 exits}. During the PM peak hour of 5;30-6:30 PM there are 1,266 riders at the station (399 entries, 867 exits), Based on conversations with BART staff, there is currently excess ridership capacity on the BART system at the Fast ~ Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Existing Traffic flow conditions A potential impact of the proposed Dublin Transit Center is the amount of traffic increase that would occux on the surrounding street network. The following sections describe the project study intersections, Level-of-Service concepts, and exisring intersection capacity on the surrounding street network. Exhibit 15a shows existing AM peak hour traffic near the proposed Transit Centex and Exhibit 15b shows existing PM peak hour traffic, Critical Interter e~ctions Intersectipn operatior? is Usually considered the key factor in determining the traffic handling capacity of a Iocal roadway system. Based an discussions with City of Dublin Engineering staff, the following 20 intersections were selected for evaluation of operational characteristics: Kev^ Pro' ct Stu Area Intexsections; Intersertian Control •Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive (future} Signal (assumed) •Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal •Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound off-ramp Signal •Hapyard Roa.dJl-580 Eastbound off-ramp Signal •Dublin $oulevard/Scarlett Drive Stop-sign. (Scarlett Dr.} •Dublin Boulevard/DeMarcus Boulevard Signal •Dublin Boulevard/Iron Horse Parkway Signal •Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Stop-sign (Arnold Rd.} • lirnold Road /Central Parkway (future) Signal (assumed) •Hacienda DrivelGleason Drive Stop-sign (Hacienda Dr.) Dublin Transit Center PA Ot}-013 Page 129 Graft Environmernallmpact R$porl Juty 20oi City ai Dublin ~ i i •Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway Signal •Hacienda DrivelDubl.in Boulevard Signa! •Hacienda Drive/Digital Drive (future) Signal (assumed} •Hacienda Drive/7-5$0 Westbound off-ramp Signal •Hacienda Drive/t-5$0 Eastbound off-ramp Signal •Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Stop-sign (Gleason Dr.) . •Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Stop-sign (Central Parkway) •Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal +Tassajara Road./1-580 Westbound Off•ramp Signal •Tassajara Road/I-5$0 Eastbound off-ramp /Pimlico Si.gna.l Dt~btin Transit Genter PA f}0-013 P'a9e DraSt Environmental Impact Report July 200t City o1 DubNn r r ~ b ~ ~ ` a 270 + ~ SB+ .mi ° ° 518 i 79 i i 17 i i D iVi 0 4 ~ P ~ r r? 77 ! ~r 1 r r07 . a P ~ 815 } ~i~v a8 } 2 8 } 208 + oco 80 } s'~ 0 G} ~i~.r0 lbt~ yv~ to °-r. 7 t{ r~' PS ZIP N D Q ~ ~m0 irrl'7lfS 1i+.iti? J8}^N ~4l~4~{gg~' T~{a,~n s mi:id 0 }I ~`r °~n° p .ri~riD ~ z ° ~ G ! ~ + is S~ ~ l 687 a x, 782 0+ o h o i i31T +,?~SB9 0 ~ n 8ft~+?~ pt ~ i qq .~iyrD ~ m ~ ~ g r 15lif~ ~ 0+ NgPo Z CEarRAI PKyW. ~ ~ i r ` 75 i~d4 4 P w ~ ! ~ f r + ! _ ~ s t0~28 } i~~' ~ • , DuBU++ Bow. r + i 73T i i ~ ;rig, ~ 183 r. ~ i ' ; r+ i 70a « a i x r ,r .ri4P577 ~ I ,sue ?5! f~ s' ~ ~ i + ? r? ` ~ ,r6s } ~ X SOURCE. OmN-J+~Brrs Exhibit 15a ~ EXISTitrtG AM PEAK HOUR N Cfl'r of aui3t.IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES F DUt3t_1N TRANSIT CENTER t~lYlR0ii51ENTAt 1MPAt:1 REPORT ' S e t ° J ~ o t o _ 33 r gb2 5T9 4 1356 ~ 4 r 370 F 7t + F 32 i 7g i 0 S r i p 7z . ~ t 023 + ~ B02 i ~ d Bge • o a 9439 rl o a a ~ 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 r 33 i $i ~ 90 i~~ t i ~ 0? ~ n 0 ~+Qtii~ 7 g T~omo 5 79~~}A ~ii~ j7i a~ 1 y i 40 t550 ~~c + y s;a - g io 1031fi4r? 0~ ome ono 0 7~8.~ ~ i6~~ 0 i ~ + 0 r+t?f0 7 ~ 17 OJT}t? o~ 12I p ? or~o n ~ 551 6 +yf sg of { ~ + i 324 79 ! 1 } +fi x ~ iyFO t !~}t' 9a + ' ~ ~ t~+7rru na<.wr i y ~ srs ~ j ! , f If 391 t } ~ ~ ~ it pr O N ' F h 1St { tS23i 14x , ' r,,, oue~w gl,% ~ } + i~ I ' +r {1~' ~ ro i i f 21? gn i . ~:i 8 Y` ':•+i II{'! 2341 ^ r+t?it51 7~! ! t? ~ ~i•S 210+ rho zes i S a ~4 SOtJRG~: t?7nn1•Meens I Exhlbii 15b FJCISTING ~ PM PEAK Hf)UR ~ CITY of dueuN TRAFFIC VC?~UMES DURUN TRANSIT CENTER ENVlRONME MTAI IMPACT REPORT Intersection Levels of Service iy~et~hodolog}+ In order to measure and describe the operational status of {oral roadway networks, traffic engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called Level-of Service {LOS}. The LOS grading system typically involves a rating scale from LOS A, indicating relatively free-flowing conditions with minimal delays (zero to five seconds) at intersections, to LOS E, representing unstable flow condi.tians with traffic volumes at or near intersection design capacity. lntersections operating at LOS E or F will have major peak hour delays for vehicles crossing the intersection (~10-60 seconds), resulting in long peak hour queues extending back on all intersection approaches, At signalized intersections, LOS is determined by calculating the volumes of conflicting vehicle turning movements during aone-hour period a.nd dividing that total by the intersections design capacity to accommodate such turning movements. The resulting calculation yields avolume/capacity (v/c) ratio that indicates the Level of Service rating. Intersection L05 computations have been made for project study area intersections following the accepted City of Dublin practice; peak hour LOS has been calculated using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology for signalized intersections. This methodology uses a variation of the Transportation Research Board's "Circular ZI2 Planning Method" with operational capacities. It is acknowledged that the City of Dublin is in Alameda County. However, the City has consistently used the CCTA methodology to be compatible with other surrounding cities (Pleasanton and San Ramon). For unsignalized intersections, peak hour LOS has been calculated using the Transportation Research Board, ~ighwa~ Cap~rcitzr Marrital--S,p~al $~Ort 20~. 3rd Edition, Chapter 3Q, LInsignalized Intersections {Part. A), 1998. Vehicle delays at unsignalized intersections represent the delays experienced by the stop-sign controlled minor street traffic. Exis 'ng,_Intersection Levels-of-Service Both AM (7:00-9:00) and PM (9:00-6:00) peak period fuming movement counts were either obtained from other recent transportation analyses in the study area or counted by Omni-Means Engineers and Planners. From these counts, existing peak hour intersection turning movement counts have been identified. Existing AM and PM peak hoax intersection LOS results are presented in Table 19. As shown, the 15 signalized project study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the Dougherty/Dublin intersection, the calculated LOS is D (0.81) during the PM peak hour, This intersection experiences heavy northbound and eastbound traffic volumes coming .ta/from 1-5$0. Three of the five currently unsignalized intersections are operating at LOS E-F during the PM peak hour. Specifically, the Dublin/Scarlett, Dublin/Arnold, and Tassajara/Gleason locations are operating at LaS F, E, and E respectively for the minor street outbound left-turn movements. These three locations have been. assumed to be signalized under the existing plus approved Dublin Transit Center PA Oo-013 Page 133 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 200 Ciry of Dublin plus pending scenario because future approved but currently unbuilt projects are required to signalize these intersections. Table 19. Existing Intersections Level of Service (LOS}, AM and PM Peak Hours' Intersection LOS-V/C LOS-V/C AM PM 1. Dou er /Scarlett z 2. Dou herty/Dublin B 0.65 D 0.81 3. Dou her /I-580 WB off A 0.58 A 0.52 4. Ho and II-580 EB off A 0.56 B 4.62 5. Dublin/Scarlett C 20.4 F 50+ ' b. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0.55 B 0.64 7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.29 B 0.61 8. Dublin /Arnold C 18.1 E 39.5 9. Arnold/Centxal2 10. Hacienda/Gle.ason B 10.7 A 9.8 11. Hacienda/Central A 0.27 A 0.38 12. lacienda JDublin A 037 A 0.42 13. Hacienda/Digital Dr. 14. Hacienda/I-580WB o f A 0.27 A O.15 15. Hacienda/I-580 EB off A 0.50 A 0.33 lb. Tassa'ara/Gleason C24.4 E~.2 17. Tassa'ara/Central2 1$. Tassa'ara/Dublin A 0.42 B 0.69 19. Tassa"ara/I-580 WB off A 0.30 A 0.35 20. Tassajara/I-580 EB A 0.60 B 0.70 off f Pimlico motes- (i) Signalized intersection L05 is eased on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. LOS for unsignalized lntersectlons is based on the 1998 krghway Capacity Manual and represents average vehicle delay in seconds for stop•sign controlled minor street trdfiiC. (2) The Dougherty/Scarlett, Arnold/Central, and Hacienda/Digital intersections currentry do not exist. Central Parkway is currently closed ofl behnreen Tassajara Aoad and Tassajara Creek. These intersections will be analyzed in future base scenarios with approved and pending development and/or Year 2025 cumulative development. Source: Omni-Means Interim Roadway and Intersection Circulation Improaements Local roadway and intersection conditions in the project study area are in a state of change due to ongoing roadway construction. This is evidenced by current widening of Dublin Boulevard between DeMarcus Boulevard and Hacienda Drive and the widening of Tassajara Road between the, I-580 westbot.tnd off-ramp to beyond Gleason Drive. In addition, signals are being installed at the Dublin Transit Center PA 00-Ot3 Page i34 Draft Environmental Impact Reporl duly 2001 City of Dublin Dublin/Arnold and Tassajara/Gleason intersections. For these reasons, the description of existing traffic flow conditions is dynamic. All approved and pending roadway and iat.tersectivn improvements will be described in detail in Section B: Future Base Conditions. Other current local and regional roadway and intersection circulation improvements have been based on discussions with City Engineering staff as well as the City's Transportation Element of the General Plan. Circulation improvements can be categorized as short-term {within two years} or long-term .improvements and are as follows: Short-Term Circulation lmproverr~ents: • 1-680/T-580 Interchange: As part of the overall interchange improvements, the new northbound I-b80 on-ramp from Village Parkway (south of Dublin Boulevard) and southbound off-ramp from I-b80 to Amador Plaza ' Raad were recently completed and opened to traffic. • Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard. has currently been widened to three travel lanes in each direction between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Widening the roadway to six lanes between Village Parkway and Sierra Court is scheduled to begin in 2001. Tong-Term Circulation Improvements: • Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard wo~xld be widened to #hree trove! lanes in each direction between Sierra Court and Dougherty Road. • I-680/X-580 Interchange: As part of the overall interchange improvements, anew southbound I-680 on-ramp from Amador Plaza RoadlSt. Patrick Way {south of Dublin Boulevard} and a southbound "flyover connector" from I-6$0 to 1-580 are under construction. Vehicle Parking The Transit Center site currently has approximately 1,2500 an-site, surface Barking spaces which serve the Eastern Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. The main parking area is located immediately north of the station and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority recently completed a second and interim parking lot northwest of the station. Currently, parking lots are full during weekdays and BART patrons typically park on streets adjacent to the station. The Ciry of Dublin's transportation goals, policies, and programs can be found in Section 5 of the Circulation and Scenic Highways Eiennent of the General Plan While the majority of these goals and policies would apply to the proposed Dublin Transit Center, some of the key goals and policies have been highlighted below: Dublin Transit Genter PA QO-Oi3 Page 135 Draft Environmental impact Reporl July 2af}t City of Dublin Additional Design Criteria A. Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow streets to accornrnodate projected vehicular tzaffic with least friction. B. Far streets defined as Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council's Trr-Volley Transportation Plari/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (]~ereinafter referred to as "the TVTC Action Plan"), the City of Dublin is.required to make a "good faith effort" to maintain LOS D (v/c < 0.91) on arterial segments and at intersections. Jf this Transportation Service Objective (TSO) is violated, the City can implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve LOS, If such improvements are not possible or are not sufficient, the City may refer the problem to the TVTC for }Dint resolution. In the event the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, Dublin may modify the LOS standard, but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted. C. The Routes of Regiona) Significance within the project study area are as Follows: Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, Hapyard Koad, Santa Rita Road and I-58{1. D. For streets .that are not defined as Routes of Regional Significance in the TVTC Action Plan, strive to phase development and road improvements so that the operating LOS for intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D. E. Use the TVTC Action Plan as a guideline for making transportation policy decisions. Freeway Access: . A. Improve freeway access. Transit: A. Support downtown West Dublin BART station. B. Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environment; particularly foz residents who do not drive. Southern Pacific Railroad Transportation Corridor: A. Support preservation along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between bast Dublin BART station and Dougherty Road and along the east side of Dougherty Road hom the Southern pacific right-of-way to the northern City limit as a potential transportation corridor. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 136 Draft Environmental lmpacl Report July 2001 City o1 Dublin B. Consider potential recreational use in conjunction with transportation use. Bikeways: A. Provide safe bikeways along arterials. Truck Routes: A. Designate and accommodate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential arterial streets. Scenic Flighways: ` A. ]ncorporate Cot.~nty-designated scenic routes, and the proposed Fallon Road extension in the Genera] Plan as adapted City-designated scenic routes, and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. Financing Improvements: A. Continue the City's program of requiring developers to contribute fees andfor improvements to help fund off-site improvements related to their projects. For the City's other goals, guiding policies, and implementation policies regarding tran~sportatian, please refer to the Circulation and Scenic Highway element, The City of Dublin's Off-Street Parking and Loading- regulations can be found in Chapter 8.76 of the City of Dublin Zoning Qrdinance. ©ff-street parking requirements range from oree space per 50 to one space per 1,000 square feet for corntnercial and industrial type uses. Some of the general off-street parking xequirements that may apply to the Dublin Transit Center project include the following: • Multiple Use Projects. Where a project contains more than one use type (and typically multiple tenant spaces) such as offices, restaurants, and retail sales, the amount of parking to be provided shall he the total of that required by Section 8.76A80, Pazking Requirements by Use Type, for each use type, except as otherwise provided by Section 8.76.050 (rounding to higher space). • New Buildings or Development Project Without Known Tenants. If the type of tens-nts tlta~t v~ill occupy a non residential building is not known at the time of the development entitlement or building permit approval, the amount of parking to be provided shall be the minimum number of arking spaces required b~Section 8.76.080 for a mix of use types typical of Dubin Transit Center PA 00.013 Page 137 Draft f_nvPrgnmental {mpact deport July 2001 City at Dublin comparable buildings or development projects in that zoning district as determined by the Director of Community Development. The intent of this section is to ensure sufficient parking by anticipating a typical use type mix which is appropriate to the design and nature of the building or development project. • Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan Required. All uses which require a building permit, site development review or conditional use permit shall be accompanied by an Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan (which may be included in the Site Plan for those permits) unless waived by the Director. The contents of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Cammunity Development. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan may be incorporated into the Site Plan for the Site Development Review or Canditiona] Use Permit. No building permit, site development review or conditional use permit will be approved unless its Off-Street and Loading Plan complies with the ordinance. Future base traffic conditions This section describes the anticipated future operation (Year 2005} of the study intersections under approved and pending conditions. These conditions represent existing traffic plus anticipated traffic generated by approved and pending projects (reasonably foreseeable development in the area}. Future base traffic conditions do not include traffic volumes generated by the proposed Dublin Transit Center. In addition, future base traffic conditions assume currently planned roadway modifications would be in place, funded by either the City of Dublin Capita] Improvement Program (CIP) or bonded by individual project developers. Future base circulation improvements Current and planned roadway and intersection improvements for the project study area include the following: Roa dw~~ Dublin Boulevard Widenrng: Dublin Boulevard is currently being widened to six travel lanes between Scarlett Drive and Hacienda Drive. The roadway is also planned to be widened to six lanes between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. Tassajara Road Widening: Tassajara Road is currently being widened to four travel lanes bettiveen I-580 and north of Gleason Drive. Ultimately, Tassajara Road will be eight lanes between I-580 and Central Parkway, and six lanes north of Central Parkway per the City's Transportation Element. Central Parkway Extension: Central Parkway is currently being extended between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive. In the interim, Central Parkway would have two through lanes. Ultimately, this street ti~ould consist of four through lanes. Central Parkway is currently closed to through traffic at Tassajara Creek. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page i38 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 Gty o1 Oubtin Arnold Road Extension: Arnold Road would be extended in a southerly direction from Dublin Boulevard to just north of 1-5$0. The roadway width will vary korn four travel lanes to two travel lanes depending on the segment. Digital Drive. Digital Drive would be a new east-west street constructed parallel to Dublin Boulevard and I-580. The Digital Drive roadway segment between the southerly extension of Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive would be constructed as part of approved and pending development, Intersections Dublin/DeMarcus: The northbound approach of DeMarcus Boulevard . would be reduced in width to include one {1) left-turn lane and one (1) right-turn lane. Dubtin/Iron Horse: The northbound approach of lion Horse Parkway would be reduced in width to include one (3) left-turn lane and one (1) right-turn lane. tfACienda/Central: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved in the interim to include one (1) left-turn lane, two {2) through lanes, and one tight-turn lane (two left-tum lanes are currently in place but not being used). The eastbound and westbound Central Parkway . j approaches would each have one (l) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1} right-turn lane for the interim condition. Ultimately, these approaches would be improved to include an additional through lane. Hacienda/Dublin: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved in the interim to include three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one {1} right-turn lane. The westbound approach of Dublin Boulevard would be improved to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. (The additional through-lane is in place but not being used). Ultimately, these two approaches would be widened to include an additional northbound and westbound through lane. Hacienda/I-580 Eastbound off ramp: 'the eastbound off-ramp approach would be unproved to include two (2) left-turn lanes and two (2) right- turn lanes. Tassajara/1-580 Westbound off-ramp: The westbound off-ramp approach would be improved to include two (2} ]eft-turn lanes and two (2) right- turn lanes. Tassajara/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp/PimIico: ?he eastbound off-ramp approach would be widened and re-striped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, one {1} through lane, and a free right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 139 Ot8f1 Environrnentai Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Pimlico Drive approach would be improved to include two (Z) left-turn lanes and two (2) right-tuxn lanes. The northbound Santa Rita Road approach would be improved to include four. (4} lanes, with the two left most lanes leading to the overpass, the second right most lane leading to the overpass or I-580 eastbound on-ramp, and the right mast lane leading to Pimlico Drive or the I-580 eastbound on-ramp. Approved and pending projects Based on discussions with City Transportation staff, the following projects were assumed .for the }afore base conditions. Approved projects are developments that are under construction, built but not fully occupied, or unbuilt but nave final development approval. Pending projects would be developments that are currently proposed or are in the approval process at the tizrte of this study. ~Ppr.~Sl-1? • Hacienda Crossings (opus): 469,000 stfuare foot retail center (partially occupied) • Villas at Santa Rita Property, Sites l1A and 118 (Su.rnrnerhili and Jefferson Residential Development): 368 apartments and 341 single family homes • Casterson: 106 single family homes • Creekside Business Park Ill (Opus): 590,000 square feet office development • Genera] Motors: 75,b60 square feet of new automobiles and service • Dublin Ranch Phase 1 Residential Development: 847 single family homes • Tassajara Meadows Residential Development: 96 single family homes • Emerald Glen Residential Development: 193 single family homes and 152 townhomes • Koll Dublin Corporate Center: 590,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail • Yarra Yarra Residential Development: 257 single family homes • Dublin Ranch Area G Development: 1,42b apartments and 230,000 square feet of commercial development Dublin Ranch Area A Residential Development: 562 single family homes and 1$ hole golf course • Emerald Glen Village Apartments Development: 390 apartments and 132,235 square feet of commercial development • Sybase Dublin Headquarters: 420,000 square feet of office space • Marriott Hotel Project: 214 hotel roacrzs • Commerce C~e'C~ffice Project: 760,000 square Eeet office of space • Downtown Dublin Specific Plans: Multiple use project with commercial, residential, and transit uses (please see referenced document below). In addition to specific approved projects i,n the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton 1 approved development was also considered. Based on the City of Pleasanton travel demand forecasting model, approved projects are expected to generate 9,661 AM peak hour trips and 10,584 PM peak hour trips. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes from the above projects in. Dublin and Pleasanton were taken from a recent traffic study conducted by TJtcrvt Transportation Consultants. For a complete description! of the approved project location and trip generation, please Dublin Transit Center PA Oa-013 Page 149 !}raft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 CIry of Dublin refer to TJKM Transportation Consulta.nt's Final: A Traffic Studv for the r aced M rri otel. City of Dublin, October 25, 2000. J~ending projects • Silveria Residential Project: 214 single family homes • Cisco Systems Office Project: 66?,000 square .feet office of space The re-location of the Camp Parks main gate would also occur within the next five years. Based on discussions with Carnp Parks staff, it is anticipated that a new roadwayJgate connection will occur at the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection to form the north Ieg of the intersection (the roadway is currently under construction}. Various military activities related to the facility are expected to be mast concentrated on the weekends when reservists report for training duties. Summer weekends would be most active with possible convoys corning to/from the Camp Parks area. With weekend Camp Parks activity expected to generate the most intense traffic volumes, existing and future base peak hour weekday volumes would experience lesser increases in traffic volumes related to the re-location of the Camp Parks main gate. However, peak period vehicle counts were conducted at the existing Camp Parks train gates at Dougherty.Road to quantify weekday traffic that would transfer to the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection. Peak hour volumes related to Camp Parks have been added to the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection to account for increased traffic volumes at this locatian. Approved and pending project trips were added to existing AM and PM intersection volumes to create a future base Year 2005 scenario. Exhibit Iba shows Alvl peak hour traffic associated with existing, approved and pending projects. Exhibit 36b shows PM peak hour traffic under the same conditions. Jrttersection Leve! of Service- future base conditions With future base traffic added to existing volumes, AM and I'M' intersection LQS have been re-calculated and are shown in Table 20. With future base volurnes, calculated intersection LOS contain the planned circulation improvements for roadways and intersections in the study area listed under future base circulation improvements}. With these circulation improvements, one study intersection would still experience significant congestion during the AM and PM peak hours with the planned improvements in place. In response, the. following roadway and circulation improvements are recommended to_accomznodate existing, approved, and pending traffic volumes, without the proposed Transit Center project; • Dougherty/Dubtin: Northbound Dougherty Road would need to be widened to provide three {3) left-tum lanes, two (2) through lanes, are (1) shared through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. The southbound Dougherty Road approach would need to be widened to Dublin Transit Genter PA 00-013 Page 1+31 Drab En~ironmentat frnpact Report JuSy 2001 t City of Dublin 3 . 87a : ~ a71 Np~ is s a~ ~ { 17 ~ { 216 i 118 + V { ~ i ~ ~ 1 t619 •1 1211 i r 1 IAA N o S17 ~ ~ ~ f08 3 ~ e 0 ~ oi~.r~ I s~f~ : 7 al ws ~ .~~>.~saa 3e z atal~Qfg~~ 1~lwf ~ 175 ~ 7v~i 79 ~ F~~~ ' m'h a 20 5fiD r ~ V { 110... ~ 194 ~ 7 ! f t ~~t'vi i91 < am^ Q~ viri~ sad ~o i i 511 e7s~ ~ zvs + " _ f K ~ ~ 20B ~ a~ 169 1 ~ ~ ~o t e7j` ~ ~ - ~ 0 ]5 N I'1 ` ~a d;1aP 73 319q ~m~1 `v ~ 6t~f A' ~ ~ p!i 47 ~ ~ mN 6d2 44t8 ? $ ~ Dusan e~vo. ~ ~ + { 737 t t1 ~ i~ I J. i 758 r~ ~ II r i { 1458 w a Ev,~x - 1~ qp~ AN'f ~ ~.v ~S1 ~M{1H7 S~aS ~ rn 112+ v1 611- 1091 ! f 1~ ~ O 1818 1 a sOiJRCE, OmntNuea?S Exhibit 168 i EXISTING, AQPI~~VED, AND PENDING 4 N AIN PEAK NOUR cnY os` QuE3~iN TRAFFIC VOLUMES. DUeLINTRANSIT CENTER ENVIRQNME1~iIAL II~AC7 REPORT 1 1 ~ + 1912 s ~ 170 ' ,.,see `y SiM i + 1]0 ~ r iz ~ r ~ .18~r + f r 13Ji °w~ 73~i '`.a' 1J78i 14~+~~m~ 122-} Q~ 0 gg{~ iJ ~i~;0 7'~7STi ~ ~~N~o S 184 !+i 4 r' ?4S m 4 0+ i~ o ~I A L P 70Q i!~, f~ t 55 i m 100 ! +I i ~ 13 79391 287' av~g t~^$~ 10 41 ~ ~i+.d~ i ~ ~N r. t2 4l~1 d' e89 ~e~i s~Q 20 ogN r~ r324 141'291 10 ~~i f,? Z37sarl? a ~ ..r 1~ ~ x$c ' msa 5 K BLVC ~ °a t 80 ~ I? P 139 7+ ~ Cer+ PMm~ ~ a~i i ST9 754 v ~ ~ j t 841 ! 77 f i•~ is n ezs.~ ~ s+: + b~~ ~ ear .r:. I fay . ;t. ; I ~j Ot16uM BLVD ~ + i 611 340 ~ti ~ usvraer v f i 3t0 ' ~ '~I~n i ' ,',~..''.,.L,'I. i. r ~ ~ ~ ^ m - 365 i N W II;181 ~ y r ~ ~ 230 + ~ ~ i d f 245 ~ +1 930 + ~ 3117 i n g~ SOURCE- Qmr1r-Means r ExhibEt 16b EX~STING~ APPROVED, AND PENDfNG N PM PEAK HQUR CITI( Of DUBLIN TRAFFIC VOLUMES CUBLIH TRANSIT CENTER @NYIROIVMENTAR IMPACT AEP~RT J r ¦ provide two {2} left-tum lanes, three (3) through lanes, ar:d one (1) right- tum lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should. be widened to provide three (3} left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn late. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to widened to provide one (1) left-turn lane, twa {2) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. With these measures, intersection 1-OS would improve from LOSE (0.94} to LOS C (0.73} during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from LOS F (1.03) to LOS D (0.$5}. These improvements are called for in the City of Dublin Cixculation LJernent and will be funded by the Ciry's TIF fee program. Table 20. Existing Plus Future Base (FBI Intersection Level of Service (LOS), AM and PM Peak Hours1 Intersection Existing Existing + Future Base LOS-V/C LOS-V/C LO5-V/C LOS-V/C A M P11rI A,M PM 1. Dou he /Scarlett 2 2. Dougherty/Dublin B 0.65 D 0.81 E 0.97 F 1.03 C 0.73 D 0.85 3. Dougherty/I-580 Wl3 A 0.5$ A 0,52 B O.fi$ A 0.60 off 4. Ho and/I-580 EB off A 0.56 B 0.62 A 0.57 B 0.64 5. Dublin/Scarlett C 20.4 F 50+ A 0.36 A 0.43 6. DublinlDeMarcus A 0.55 B 0.64 A 0.50 A 0.51 7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.29 B 0.61 A 0.32 A 0.41 8. Dublin/Arnold C 18.1 E 39.5 A 0.42 B 0.66 9. Arnold/CentralZ A 0.22 A 4.38 10. Hacienda/Gleason B 10.7 A 4.8 A 0.25 A 0.15 11. Hacienda/Central A 0.27 A 0.38 C 0.71 C 0.79 12. Hacienda/Dublin A.0.37 A 0.42 A 0.60 C 0.73 13. Hacienda/D' Dr. A 0.40 A 0.57 14. Hacienda/I-580'~JB A 0.27 A 0.15 D 0.89 A 0.44 off 75. Hacienda/I-580 EB A 0.50 A 0.33 D 0.$9 B 0.66 off 16. Tassajara /Gleason C 24.9 E 44.2 A 0.59 B 4.64 17. Tassajara/Central2 - - A 0.51 B 0.62 18. Tassajara/Dublin A 0.42 8 0.69 A 0.54 8 0.66 19. Tassajara/I~580 WB A 0.30 A 0.35 A 0.49 A 0.60 off 20. Tassajara/1-580 EB A 4.60 B 0.70 8 O.bb D 0.87 off/Pimlico i i?ublin Tn3nsil Center PA 00-013 Page ~ 4`+ Qreft Environmental Impact Aeport July 2Q01 City of Dublin Motes: (~}Signalised inlerseclion LOS is based on C4ntre Gosta Transportation Authority {CCTA) methodology. LQS for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and represents average delay in seconds tar stop-sign controlled minor slraet trattic. (2) Oue io p{anned roadway improvements, some study intersections' LOS will improve from existing conditions. This is particularly true along bublin Boulevard where the roadway would be widened from two to six travel lanes between Dougherty Road and HBCienda Drive. (3} The Dougherty,'Scarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus tutu re base oonditians. This intersection will be anafy2ed in luture base scenarios with Year 2025 cumulative development. {4) Italicized type represents suture mitigated inlerseclion conditions Source: tJmni-Means STAI~tDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .9lameda Cor~nty Congestion Management Agency The Alameda County Congestion Managerrtent Agency (ACCMA} has established significance criteria guidelines for proposed projects within the County that have the potential to impact the CMP roadway network. Specifically, the County has identified a specific Congestion Management Plan (CMP} system of freeways and roadways that must conform to the agency's LOS standards. These roadways, identified as Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS} routes are designated as "key routes" and include highways and principal arterials, Far arterials, the following criteria must be met: +Must carry 30,000 vehicles per. day for at feast one mile; •Must be a four lane (or more) roadway; •Must be a major cross-town connector; •Must connect at both ends to another CMP route. As stated in the Setting Section, in the project study area these MTS routes have been identified a.s I-584, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, Hopyard Road and Santa Rita Road. The County's LOS standard is Ir, except where F was the level of service originally measured, in which case the standard shall be F. In addition to LOS roadway standards, CMA guidelines also specify that any proposed project generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions must conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model, for the base years 2045 and 2020. However, the guidelines also allov+r for other transportation models/projections to be used Ear this process. For this process to occur, transportation volume projections used for the proposed Dublin Transit Center and Year 2025 must be compared to the Countywide Transportation Model to ensure that the more conservative of the two traffic projections are used Eor CEQA purposes. Discussions with Alameda CMA staff indicate that the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is appropriate ro use Year 2025 analyses for this project. City of Dublin Dublin Transit Center PA 00-Oi3 Page ta5 Draft Envirortmerrtaf impact Report Jufy 2001 City of Rubfm Based on the Ciry of Dablin's General Plan circulation element, the fallowing criteria would apply to City roadways and intersections: • Far streets defined as Routes of Regional Significance (see below) in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council's Tri-Valley Transportation PlRn/Actio~t Plan for Routes of Regions! Significance (referred to as "the TVTC Action Plan"), the City of Dublin is required. to make a "good faith effort" to maintain LOS D (v/c < 0.91) on arterial segments and intersections. If this Transportation Service Objective {TSO} is violated, the City can implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve LOS. If such improvements are not possible ar are not sufficient, the Ciry may refer the problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, Dublin may modify the LOS standard, but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted. • The Routes of Regional Significance within the City of Dublin are as follows: Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, and San Ramon Road; • For streets that are not defined as Routes of Regional Significance in the TVTC Action. Pion, strive to phase development and road improvements so that the operating LOS far intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D. Roadways are defined as Routes of Regional Significance if: • They connect to two or more "regions" of the county; • They connect across county boundaries; • They serve significant amounts of through-traffic; • They provide access to a regional highway or transit facility (e.g. a BART ® station or freeway interchange). ¦ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Project trip generation Daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed Dublin Transit Center has been based on three different sources: 1) The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) research on office, residential, and retail development, 2) discussions with Dublin Transportation and Alameda County staff, and 3) peak period counts conducted at the existing Dublin BART station. fior proposed office development, a XS percent discotiu~t was applied to trip generation rates to account for residential/employment interaction and increased use of transit due to the proximity to the East Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station. Residential development trips were also discounted by 25 percent due to the proximity to the East Dublin BART Station. Retail uses have been described as "ancillary" to the office development and are intended to serve the internal office populations. Project trip generation rates_are included on Table 3 of the traffic report (see Dublin Transit Genter PA 00-413 Page 146 Drag Environmental Impact Report July 2001 Ciry of Dublin appendix). As calculated, the proposed Dublin Transit Center would generate 29,252 daily trips with 4,155 AM peak hour trips and 3,970 PM peak hour trips. Proposed project trip disfribiition Peak hour vehicle distribution for the Transit Center has been based on previous studies conducted for proposed projects in the vieiniry. For office uses and the BART parking structure, vehicle distribution is estimated as follows: !-lacienda Drive to/from the south: 55% Hacienda Drive to/from the north: 3% Dublin Boulevard to/from the east: 10% Dublin Boulevard to/from the west: 3Q% Arnold Drive to/hom the north: Total: 100 For residential land use, peak hour vehicle distribution is estimated as follows: Hacienda Drive to/hom the South: 45% Hacienda Drive to/from the north: 3% 1 Dublin Boulevard toJfrom the east: 1Q% Dublin Boulevard to/from the west: 40% Arnold )rive to/from the north: ' Total; 100% As stated previously, the retail component of the proposed project would be considered "ancillary" uses to the proposed office space. For this reason, retail uses are provided to primarily serve the needs of the adjacent office workers, residents and BART patrons and a.re not expected to generate externa! vehicle taps The proposed BART parking structure would not add any additional parking spares to the existing East Dublin BART station. Currently, there are approximately 1,700 existing permanent and interim surface parking Sot spaces .for the BAYZT station in the Ciry of Dublin. These surface spaces would be largely replaced by the proposed 1,68t} permanent space BAi{T parking structure, with a small number of surface spaces remaining. Therefore, proposed BART trips are merely existing vehicle trips that have been re-distributed based on the proposed street network serving the BART parking structure and the proposed Dubti.n Transit Center. 1?raposed BART parking structure vehicle trips would not result in additional traffic volumes on the surrounding street network. ' Based on the expected vehicle distributions, AM and PM peak hour project trips have been added to existing plus future base (2005) conditions. Impact on external project intersections With proposed Dublin Transit Center traffic added to existing plus future base traffic vatumes (2005), study intersection LOS have been re-calculated and are shown in Table Zl. Peak hour AM traffic volumes for existing plus pending plus approved plus the proposed praje~ct are shown on Exhibit 17a. Exhibit 17b shows Dublin Transit Center PA DO-Ot3 Page 147 draft Ernironmentel Impact Report July 2001 City of Dubtin PM peak hour volumes under the same conditions. With proposed project traffic, two of the study intersections would be operating at uc~acceptable levels of ' service during the AM or PM peak hour. These include the Dougherty/Dublin and Hacienda/I-580 Westbound off-ramp intersections. r e r t i r Dublin Transit Canter PA 00-013 Page t48 Draft Environmental Impact Report ~u~Y 2oot City of Dublin Table 27., i~utuze Base (FB) Intersections Plus Project Level of Service (LOS), AM and PM Peak Hours ' intersection >Existin + Future Base £xistin + Future Base + g $ ' ~ Project LOS-V!C LOS-V/C LOS-V/C LOS-V!C A M PM A M PM 1. Dou he /Scarlett ~ _ - - _ _ _ B 0.63 C 0.78 2. Dougherty/Dublin C 0.73 D 0.85 E .97 E p,9g C 0, 7~ D 0.86 ' 3. Dougherty/I-580 WB B 0.68 A o.6a 8 0.69 B 0.61 off ram 4. Ho azd/I-580 B off A 0.57 B O.b4 B 0.63 B 0.68 5. Dublin/Scazlett A 0.36 A 0.43 A 0.54 A 0.59 80, 63 A 0.59 1 6. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.60 B O.b6 7. Dublin/Iran Horse A 0.32 A 0.41 A 0.51 C 0.74 8. Dublin/Arnold A 0.42 B 0.66 A 0.52 C 0.75 9. Arnold /Central2 A 0.22 A 0.38 A 0.24 A 0.39 ]0. Hacienda/Gleason A 0.25 A 0.15 A 0.29 A 0.18 ' 11. Hacienda/Central C 0.71 C 0.79 C 0.77 D 0.81 I2. Hacienda/L7ublin A 0.60 C 0.?3 B O.b7 C 0.80 t3. Hacienda/Di ital Dr. A 0.40 A 0.57 C 0.74 D 0.88 14, hacienda/I-580WB D 0.89 A 0.49 F 1.17 B 0.61 off ram D 0.89 A 0.57 15. Hacienda/I-580 EB D 0.89 B 0.66 D 0,90 C 0.73 off ram I6. Tassajara/Gleason A 0.59 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 0.70 I7. Tassajara/Central2 A 0.51 B 0.62 A 0.53 B 0.64 ' 1$. Tassajaara /Dublin A 0.54 B O.db A 0.57 B 0.58 19. Tassajara/I-580 WB A 0.49 A 0.60 A 0.50 B 0.61 a off rare 20. Tassajara/I-580 EB li 0.66 D 0.87 $ 0,6b D 0.87 off/Pimlico Notes: (1)Signallzed Intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA} methodology. LOS for unsigndtized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capecity Manual ' and represents average delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic. (2) Due to planned roadway improvements, some study intersections' LOS w+lt improve from existing conditions, This is particularly true along Dublin Boulevard where the roadway would be ' widened from two to six Travel lanes between Dougherty Road and FEaciertda drive. (3) The Dougherty/Scarfett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus future base conditions. This intersection wa1 be analyzed in future base scenarios with Year 2025 cumulative development. (4) Italicized type represents future improved intersection conditions by others Source; Omni-Means Dublin Transit Center PA 00-073 Page t49 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin i 1 o t ~ j ~ l w ~ 77 ~ 23 ~y i_n ! ~0 r 178 ~ 885 n ~ t 744 f 474 ~ 790 ~7 IIS f ~f16 i f 17 ~I r f t9 f 127 + i' 388 i 4 f ` ZSSS + e 2231 + 7020 + H 743 o n 106 i N ~ ~ a 0 ' ~ f5 JSN ~ i 170 i ~ 327 ij ~ 0 ~:~ro s ~ a 1 ~ o N 7 99 aia x o o + ~a i4P301 .liyi432 38i~ l~~t• 70 i ~i~9P It"~v' D m m ~i4 ftt0 ' n u~ ISa 24 f~~l' ~h e~ N~~ a99 < + ~~h i f517 iy S59 18 ~ ~1 102 f ~ 1' FO~ ~ ~ 377 + ~ ~ ~I v> g~w. 306 ~ m ~ ~ ^ Zas i f zsz ~ ~ ~ ~ E° z 100!+. }i" ,I i ~ ~ ` ~ ~NTAK rKwr i y f 73 3J? ~ m ' ~ ~ ~ g.14s+~ t731 ~ dig ~ 0 $g ^ I ~j'" 1078; ~ 298 ni~~i roF,' - b87 ~ OVBUN 81W r i f i ~ I~t~ ~ r i f 14x6 a d: : eou~cvwro ~ i j _ R ~ e~ S r N- t X31 ~fV ft87 ~ 'b+ 0 548 d f r? 1/? + n r 1 6t1 ~ g~ t ~ 1711 ! i ~ tal4 ~ i ' SOURCE: Omni•Mesns i 1 ~ Exhibit 17a EXlST1NG, APPROVED, K PENDING, ANO PROJECT cITY 0~ 3)US1.IN AM PEAK HOUR DUBItNTRANSt7 CEI~tTER TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOpT m j ' ~ t SO e~W 14 • C~O t 36 . ~ x766 ~ ~ sa64 ~ 1739 ~ y t057 is r 84 i 1r 1s d 1? i 101 r a2 f r a7 i l? i 2x1 ~ f ~ SO h t• 1 9D ? f r~ 123 + w ~ ,y t930+ m 1481 n 1521 + ~ 1738 +1 o 122 ~ ~ 0 i N 33 ~ ~ 0 147 ~ ~ 00 ~ 7 ~ N 38 ~ i+L ~ m Ci ~ - $ 0 ~ i dit?f 0 ~ ~Om 8i0 IIN mO ~ I~ y W * Q ~ iy IOS diti~ 1M t5S ~ 107f1f r' ~13 ~'bfl+ 634y 0+ ~utm t nmR l5 93Y 267 i ~ ^ ? r 10 ~ .!i4r'H ' ~ H ~ 12 4t+,fP ~3 ! BEB g43 10 i ~ i f 324 d i i 291 l 1r' 293.1~tr m -r 1545 + W 4 1 N~ r' 3 ~ ~ g 81w. 650 m~m mo ~ / .,i~.rt30 a° ~Ai W an ' ~f•~ 10 I26y~11x!" i ~ c~rgK wcvw. ~i 4 ~ 579 eon i 747 4N 1! Di OO~ ~o v e1i \ 1 1716 ~ ~ b m Ce 650 N OUBt.w 8tw ~ d i 611 to A f t 490 eTi +1i r310 S~ ~r f ' i o ~ 1 frft6l j 1 S ~ ~ 78t f r 11 230 + ' n ~ ~ 1 I45 i ~ : J 310 * n SOURCE. Omrn-A4eans t Exhibit 17b. EXISTING, APPROVED, PENDING, AND PROJECT ' CITY OF DUBLIN PM PEAK HOUR DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER TRAFFIC VOLUMES j ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FEPQRT - J lf~act 4 ~ -1 (gate jnters~~ion i acfs~: Increased levels of peak Maur traffic associated with the proposed project would result in significant and unacceptable levels of service at the Dougherty T{oadlDubIin Boulevard (AM and PM) and Hacienda Drivell-580 westbound off-ramp (A11~) intersections (sigrriftcant?. 1 Internal and perimeter intersections In addition to impact analysis for 2r? external study intersections adjacent to the project area, nine internal and perimeter intersections have also been evaluated for peak hour operation. A schematic diagram showing the proposed internal street network, internal study intersections, and existing pl~~s future base plus 1 project volumes is contained in the complete traffic analysis for the project (Appendix 8.7). Internal and perimeter intersections included in the analysis include the following: a, DeMarcus Boulevard/Digital Drive b. Iran Horse Parkway/Digital Drive c. Campus Drive/Digital Drive d. Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard ' e. Arnold Road jDigital Drive f. Commerce One Access,/Digital Drive g. Hacienda Drive/Digital Drive h. Commerce One Access/Arnold Road i. Arnold Road/Altamirano Road Roadway lane geometries have also been assessed. Specifically, the future roadways of Arnold Drive (southerly extension), Digital Drive (between DeMarcus Boulevard and Hacienda Drive), Campus Drive, Altamirano Road ' and the existing roadways of DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway have been analyzed for minimum lane requirements. Based on projected daily and peak hour volumes at these study intersections and o.n roadway segments, t recommended lane configurations are detailed in the full traffic impact prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix 8.7~. With recommended circulation improvements, key project study intersections along Arnold Road and Digital Drive have been analyzed for peak hour operation. Specifically, the intersections of DeMarcus/Digital Drive, Iron Horse/Digital Drive, Campus/Digital Drive, Arnold/Digital Drive, Commerce One AccesslDigital Drive, Commerce One Access/Arnold, and Arnold/Altamirano have been analyzed for peak hpUr operation. As outlined.iri Table 22, the seven of the nine internal access intersections would operate at LOS S ar better, representing very stable conditions. (Please refer to Table 21 for AM and PiV1. peak hour operation of the Dublin/Arnold and Hacienda/Digital Drive intersections.) As part of the proposed project, DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway would be significantly reduced ion size and scale as a result of the proposed project, and the existing circulation adjacent to the BART station entrance would also be modified. DeIUlarcus Boulevard, currently afour-lane divided street, Dublin Transit Center PA Ot3-013 Page 152 Draft Environmsnla! Impact Report July 2001 City at Dublin would be reduced to a two-lane divided street.. Iron Horse Parkway would be madifsed ham afour-lane divided street to a three lane (7 southbound 2 northbound) street with na median. DeMarcus Boulevard adjacent to the BAR?' station would be modified from cone-way street to a two-way street, although the existing separated bus lanes would remain. These improvements are anticipated to accommodate projected Transit Center development traffic while creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Table 22. Projected AM and PM Peak Hour Operation of Internal Access Intersections Intersection LOS-VlC I.OS-V/C A M FM DeN[arcus/Di ital Dr. A 0.29 A 0.23 Iron HorselDi ital Dr. A 0.28 A 0.3I. Cam us/Di 'tat Dr. B O.bl A 0.42 Arnold /Dublin Arnold/Di 'ta] Dr. A 0.45 A 0.55 Commerce. One/Di 'tat Dr. A 0.38 A 0.52 Hacienda/Di 'tat Dr. Commerce Qne Arnold A 0.32 A O.Sb Altarnirano/Arnold A 0.29 A 0.20 Notes: ('i7 The Arnold/Dublin and Hacienda/Digitai Dr. intersections' LOS have been analyzed as pan of the external intersection and stress network. Please reler to Table 21, Source: Omni-Means Im~ast 4 Y1-2 tinternal irrtersectiQa~ im~ctsl: ppgiroval and construction of the proposed Transit Center would increase traffic on local streets, however, Wane of the internal intersecti~nns would experience significant levels of traffic especially during peak morning and evening hours (less-than-significant}. Transit operation impacts RT The effects of tl~e proposed project have been quantified in terms of potential increases in daily ridership. Discussions with BART staff indicate that BART has not performed detailed analyses regarding the impacts of adjacent office and/or residential development adjacent to existing BART stations. However, other independent studies have been conducted which attempt to quantify the impact of adjacent development in and around existing BART stations. Specifically, a study conducted by the University of California Berkeley has evaluated the effects on increased ridership of development immediately adjacent to existing BART' stations. Proportional BART ridership data for both residential and office uses could be quantified as follows: Dutifin Transit Center PA 00-013 taage 153 Drag Envirpnrnenta~ Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin Residential: 1,SD0 households {units) x 1 Adult/household x 32.1% x 2 trips per day* = 463 riders (481 out during the AM peak and 481 in during the PM peak). This assumes a minimum of 250 working days/year, Office: 2,000,00Q s.f. office 1200 s.f per employee x 17.1% x 2 trips per day* 3,420 riders (1,710 in during the AM peak and 1,710 out during the PM peak). As shown above, during the peak commute hours the proposed project has the t potential to generate 481 riders from proposed residential development and 1,710 riders from proposed office development (one-way trips), The office BART riders would be in the reverse cornnnute direction {eastbound) m*ning tv the proposed project. Based on current BART rider&hip data, 1,3$8 riders enterlexit the Dublin!Pleasanton BART Station during the AM peak hour (1,063 entering [westbound) and 325 exiting [eastbound]), Currently, BART provides four 8-car trains toJfrom the station during the peak hours. Each train has a capacity of 560 seats which would equate to 2,240 seats (560 seats/train x 4 trains) during the peak hour. However, BART assumes a ridership load capacity of 1.35 per train during peak commute periods. Tlus load factor allows for riders in the seats as well as standing in the aisles. For this reason, total peak hour capacity would increase to 3,024 seats for the four peak hour BART trains. In the eastbound or reverse commute direction, the addition of 1,710 riders to the existing 37S riders would total 2,035 BART riders. This would be well within the carrying capacity of the current system in the Dublin!Pleasanton area which BART serves. In addition, . ~ in the westbound AM peak commute direction, the proposed project would be adding 481 new riders for a total of 1,544 riders during the AM peak hour. Again, this is well within the carrying capacity of the current DublinlPleasanton BART system. During the PM peak hour BART, existing BART ridership is lower with 1,266 passengers. Therefore, project impacts would be less during the PM peak hour. It is noted that the calculations used for the proposed project to quantify BART impacts are likely to be conservative. These calculations assume that all potentia] riders from the proposed project would use BART during the AM or PM peak hour. BART studies indicate that there are AM and PM peak periods where BART riders access the system. These hours are between 6:30-9:30 AM and 4:30- 7:30 PM. It is likely that riders from the proposed project would not all access the -BART system during just the AM and PM peak hours and would be dispersed throughout the AM and PM peak periods. Ln addition, the BART percentage splits for residential and office BART use may be high. This is based on overall Bay Area transit usage, which rarely exceeds over 10 percent of all travel mode splits. V The effects of the proposed project have been 4uantified in terms of potential increases in monthly bus ridership. Based on discussions with LAVTA staff, Wheels routes lA and 1B, 3, and 4 have ample capacity and could absorb increases as high as 20-30 percent in monthly ridership. Wheels routes 10 and 12 Dublin Transit Genter F'A 00-013 Page 154 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City at Dublin are nearing capacity. Projected monthly ridership data assumes 2-3 percent mode split for bus ridership. Based on proposed residential and office uses, monthly ridership data could be quantified as follows: Residential: 1,500 households tunics) / 1 Adult/household x 2-3% transit ridership x 2 traps per day x 20 working days per month = 1,200-1,804 monthly riders Office: 2,pOD,000 s.f. office / 25DD s.f per employee x 2-3%x 2 trips per day x 20 working days per month = 8,000-12,000 monthly riders Ridership calculations for proposed residential and office uses indicate that there - ~ could be an increase of 9,20D-13,500 monthly riders on LAVTA bus routes in the project study area: Based an an overall monthly ridership of 118,167 passengers on Wheels routes 1A and 1B, 3,4,7.0, and 12, this would et]uate to an 8-Il percent increase in monthly ridership. This increase would not be considered significant for the subject Wheels routes witl~ the exception of routes lU and 12. LAVTA is in the process of updating their Transit Plan and will be re-timing routes 10 and 12 to allow for more monthly capacity. With projected increases from the proposed project, there may be standing (seats and aisles full} on routes 10 and 12 but this would riot be considered significant with respect to overall monthly capacity. Impack 4.11-3 (public transit irnQacts): Use of BART and LAVTA facilities is anticipated to increase, primarily due to the close proximity of residential and ennployment opportunities adjacent to the eastern Dublin-l'leasanta:n BART station, however, the majority of BART trips are expected to be in reverse directiorss. Certain LAVTA bus trips may be full during peak hours, however, this is considered less-than-significant in relation to overall monthly capacity (less-than-significant impact). Vehicle parking The proposed Transit Centex project includes removing most of the existing BART surface parking lots and replacing these spaces with afive-level parking garage that would contain approximately 1,700 spates. The garage would be located on approximately 4~.1 acres of land adjacent to 1-580, including the site of the existing BART Traction Station. The Traction Station would be incorporated into the ground floor of the parking garage. 13ased on information supplied by the applicant, the garage would be designed to accon~rnodate an additional floor in the future; that could accommodate approximately 250 additional parking spaces. The proposed garage and adjacent surface parking would include a mix of standard and handicap-accessible spaces as well as parking for 13AS~T staff. As described in the Project 13escriptian, proposed Transit Center development would rely primarily on structured parking incorporated into individual development projects. The precise amount of parking provided far each individua! project would be determined during the Stage 2 Rezoning and Site Development Review process. The. project applicant is proposing that Transit Center residential development provide parking at a lower rate than the 2 spaces Dublin Transit Center PA 40-013 Page 155 Drat Environmental Impact Report Juiy 2041 City at Dublin per residential unit required by the Dublin Zoning. Ordinance, based. on the proximity to the $ART station. Similarly, the ancillary ground-floor retail uses 9 ~ are proposed to have less parking than typically required under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because these retail uses will primarily be used by pedestrian residents, office workers and BART patrons. Approximately 200 additional on-street parking spaces would be provided on Iron Horse Parkway, DeMarcus Boulevard, around the Village Green, and on Digital Drive and Campus Drive to serve as a reservoir of short-term parking far r residential and office visitors and retail customers from outside the area. Curbside parking on these streets is also proposed to increase their appeal to pedestrians by providing an additional buffer between sidewalk areas and vehicle travel lanes. Even though. the proposed Transit Center project will increase the permanent supply of BART parking by 540 spaces and have the potential to expand the BART parking garage by additiona1250 spaces in the future, the. existing BART surface parking lots generally fill up by $:00 am, indicating that a potential demand for even more BART parking: While it is anticipated that the recently approved West Dublin BART station will reduce the demand for parking somewhat at the East Dublin BART station, it is likely tha# BART parking spaces will continue to be at a premium. -Unless properly managed, on-street parking spaces and nearby residential and office parking stntctures could be used by BART patrons, precluding parking for residents and visitors. ~gpact 4.11-~.(parkin,g.): Due to anticipated parking demand, BART patrons could ~ ~ utilize on-street and nearby private residential, retail and office parking, ' resulting in insufficient parking for these uses (significant impact and mitigation is required). Cumulative impacts Cumulative traffic .conditions with and without the proposed Dublin Transit Center have been evaluated for the horizon Year 2025. This analysis is consistent with Caltrans guidelines for future roadway improvements and is also consistent with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency guidelines for MTS street network evaluation. Methodolo for year 2025 base ye r,~a traffic pro~~ctz'a_~ Cumulative year 2025 traffic volumes have been based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. Specifically, the Tri-Valley transportation model's land use assumptions were updated using the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 98 land use data. Since ABAG projections only extend to the horizon year 2020, a trendline was developed starting at the Year 2400 and extended every live years to 2005, 2010, 2415 and 2020 to determine land use trends and growth patterns. A five year average growth rate was determined by land use type and applied to Year 2020 land use data to generate Year 2025 land ' Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 156 Draft Environmental impact report July 2001 Giry of Dublin use growth projections. These projections include major land development projects in the Tri-Valley region. j ~ In addition to genexating `fear 2025 land use projections, the Tri-Malley Transportation Model's street network was updated using the recent Alamo Creek Transportation Model developed by Dowling Associates. The updated street network reflects the exterzsions of Dublin Boulevard ~to Hacienda Drive as well as the Scarlett Drive between Dubl"in Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Base Year 2Q25 model projections. for the A,M and PM peak hour were also adjusted to reflect existing and base mode] traffic volumes. This involved manually adjusting specific turning movement volumes to be consistent with other future base traffic studies conducted in the area. Lastly, specific future year 225 base model volumes for the Dublin/Dougherty and Santa Rita/I-584 Eastbound off- ramp/Pimlico intersections were reviewed by I?ublin Transportation staff prior to inclusion ist this study. dear 2025 street nelwark improvement Circulation iznprovernents for the Year 2025 would be beyond those impravernents currently planned with existing plus future base plus project impacts. These future improvements are addressed in the Dublin General Plan Circulation Element. Specific roadway and intersection circulation improvements which would affect the project study area include: i 1 Roa~~Qy$: _ t • Tassajara Road: Tassajara Road would be widened from four to eight travel lanes from I-580 to Central Par3cway, and from four to six lanes north Qf Central Parkway. I-580: I-5$0 would have one eastbound and one westbound auxiliary lane added between. the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita interchange and the Fallon Road interchange. Hacienda Drive: Hacienda Drive would be widened from three to four ` through lanes north of Central Parkway, pending traffic growth. lntersectian s • Dougherty/5cariett: The northbound Dougherty Road approach would be widened to include one (1) left-tum ]one, three (3} through lanes and one (1) free right-turn lane. The southbound Dougherty Road approach would i be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. • Dublin/Scarlett: The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would be constructed to include two (2) Left-turn lanes, one (1) tkuough lane, and one (1) right-turn lame. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened and restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1} right-turn lane. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened and restriped to include one (I} left-turn Iane, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) shared through/ri ht- Dubiin Transit Ganter PA OQ-013 Page t57 Draft Ernironmental Irnpacl Report July 2U4~ Gity o! Dublin j turn lane. It is noted that these improvements are a part of what is being recommended for existing plus future base plus project conditions with the recommended construction of the Scaxlett Drive extension. f • Tassajara/Gleason: The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and. restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, three {3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The southbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include one (I) left-twin lane, ~ ~ three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound ; f Gleason Drive approach would be restriped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound Gleason Drive approach would be constructed to include two (2) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1} right-turn lane. • Tassajara/Central Parkway: The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two (2) left-tum .lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one {I) right-turn ]ane. The southbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened and restriped to include two left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Central Parkway approach would be restriped to include one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1} right-turn Lane. The westbound. Central Parkway approach would be constructed to include two (2} left- , ~ tum lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1} right-turn lane. • Tassajara/Dublin: The southbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened to include two (2) left-turn lanes, four (4} through lanes, and one (2) tight-turn lanes. The northbound Tassajara Road approach would be widened to include tluree (3) left-turn lanes, four (4) through lanes, and one {1) right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened to include two (2} left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would be widened to include three (3} left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one {I} right-turn [ane. Base ~ ar 20 yvithQU~,~ro~ Year 2025 project study intersection I,QS without the proposed Transit Center have been calculated in Table 23. As calculated, one project study intersection, would experience significant congestion during the AM and/or PM peak hour. This would be the Dougherty/Dublin study intersection. In addition to road improvements identified for existing plus future base plus project conditions, the following improvements are suggested for this intersection to accommodate non-project cumulative traffic. It is anticipated these improvements will be i ~ funded through the City's CIP, by traffic impact fees or from other sources: 1 Dougherty/Du61in: The southbound Dougherty Boulevard approach should be modified to include two (2} left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) shared throu,ghlright-turn lane. The northbound Dougherty Road approach should be widened and re-striped to include three (3) Ieft-turn lanes, three (3) throu h lanes and two (2} right-turn Dublin transit Center PA Oo-0~3 Page 158 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be modified to include theee (3) left-tum lanes, two {2} through lanes, and one (1} shared through/right-turn lane. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from LOS F (1.01} to D (a.89} during the AM peak houx and from LQS 1? (0.94) to D (0.9~) during the PM peak hour. In addition, the section of southbound Dougherty Road between Dublin Boulevard and I- 580 would need to be modified to accommodate four (4) travel lanes. These lanes should be configured so that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the I-5$0 westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the overpass or the I-58fl westbound an-ramp. These improvements would require widening and re-striping the 1-58i? westbound diagonal on-ramp. Base year 2025 with project AM and PM peak hour Dublin Transit Center project trigs were manually added into base Year 2025 transportation mode! volumes to ensure the most conservative analysis, With proposed project traffic, study intersection LOS have been calculated and. are shown in Table 23. Calculated intersection LOS reflects planned and recommended cixculation improvements (mitigation measures) used for Year 2025 base volumes without the proposed project. As shown in Table 23, with proposed project traffic the Dougherty/Dublin intersection would experience congested conditions during the AM and PM pea[c hours. Specifically, Dougherty/Dublin intersection would be operating at LOSE (0.97) during the AM peak hour artd LOSE {1.06} during the PM peak hour. Exhibits 18a anal 18b show cumulative traffic conditions with the proposed project, under AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 159 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin 2025 With and Without Prv'ect Level of Service Table 23. Curnulafxve Year } (LOS), AM and PM Peak liours2' z Intersection Yeaz 2025, lYo Project Year 2025, With Project Los-vic Los-vic Los-vic LOS-vrc AM PNC AM PM 1. Dou he /Scarlett z A O.b2 B 0.71 A 0.64 D 0.81 ~ ~ 2, Dou her /Dublin D 0.89 D 0.90 E 0.47 F 1.06 3. Dougherty/I-580 WB C 0.77 D 0.$1 C 0.77 D 0.83 j off ramp 4. Hapyard/I-580 EB off B 0.69 D 0.88 B 0.70 D 0.90 ram 5. Dublin/Scarlett A 0.59 A 0.51 B 0.81 A 0.64 6. Dublin/DeMarcus A 0.46 A 0.4 B 0.74 B 0.59 . ~ 7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.44 B 0.47 B 0.66 D 0.82 8. Dublin/A.mold B 0.69 C 0.74 C 0.74 D 0.83 ~ 9. Arnold/Ce~ntral2 A 0.1$ A 0.10 A 0.19 A 0.32 10. Hacienda/Gleason A 0.22 A 0.15 A 0.26 A 0.18 11. Hacienda/Central A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.54 A 0.52 I2. Hacienda/Dublin B 0.65 C 0.73 C 0.?4 D 0.88 13. Hacienda/Di 'ta Dry A 0.40 B 0.62 C 0.74 ~ D 0.88 14. Hacienda/I-580WB B 0.75 A 0.38 D 0.89 A 0.57 off ram 15. Hacienda/I-580 EB D 0.89 B 0.65 D 0.90 C 0.73 off ra.m 16. Tassajara/Gleason A 0.57 A 0.60 B 0.61 B 0.61 ' 17. Tassa~ara/Centralz A 0.60 B 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.62 18. Tassajara Dub in C 0.74 D 0.82 C 0.77 D 0.82 19. Tassajara/I-580 WB A 0.58 C 0.78 A 0,58 C 0.80 off ram . 20. Tassajara /I-580 EB D 0.83 D 0.87 D 0.83 D 0.88 off/Pimlico Notes: (1} 5ignafited intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. (2) Year 2025 no pro}ect base year volumes based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model updated with ABAG Projections 98'. Floe year growth factor applied to Year 2424 land use projections to obtain Year 2x25 volumes. Assumes A{amo Crests Transportatton Model street network (Dowling Associates, Inc. Dublin Transit2025 LSnd Use P'96, November i5, 2000). Source: Omni-Means Itnpac~ x,11-$ ~rumulative traffic impacts}: In 2025, the combination of project- related traftic and cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard - intersection would experience congested conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, this is><tersecHon would be operating at LOSE (0.97) during the Dublin Transit Center PA 40.013 Page 160 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin AM peak hour and LOSE (1.06) during the PI~vI peak hour with proposed prajeci traffic {significant and urravoidable impact, full mitigation trot feasible). All other project study intersections would be operating at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with Year ZQ25 plus project traffic volumes. Rortdway segment impacts Based on discussions with City Transportation staff, a daily traffic analysis was conducted for selected roadway segments in the project study area. The following twelve segments were analyzed for daily traffic volumes: a. Hacienda Drive between I-580 and Digital Drive b. Hacienda Drive between Digital Drive and Dublin Boulevard c. Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway d. Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive e. Arnold Road between Altamirano Road and Digital Drive E. Arnold Road between Digital Drive and Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway h. Arnold Road between Central T'arkway and Gleason Drive i. Central Parkway between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive Central Parkway between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Raad k. Dougherty Road bet~n?een [-580 and Dublin Boulevard 1. Searlett Drive Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Consistent with previous analyses conducted in the study area,. average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were generated by assuming that AM peak hour volurnes represent 14 percent of ADT volumes for future base, proposed project, and Year . 2025 base volumes. These projected ADT volumes were them added to existing daily volume traffic and. have been shown in Table 24. j a Dublin Transit Center PA fl0-013 Paga 181 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2i?Ot City of Dublin Table 24. I'zojected Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Selected Roadways Segments Road Segment Exist. E+P'B E+FB+ 2025 (No 2425 Proj. Pro',} (w/Proj.) Hacienda Dr. I-580/Digital 15,400 44,150 61,690 95,125 62,625 Dr. Digital 15,400 34,630 37,430 34,875 37,687 Dr./Dublin Blvd. Dublin 12,600 •27,300 2$,200 27,300 28,200 ' Blvd./Centro! Pk . Central 10,650 15,960 16,860' 15,960 15,860 Pk . JGleasan Amold pad Altamirano- 0 3,870 8,425 3,87p 8,425 The Boulevard The Boulevard- 0 4,370 7,975 4,370 7,975 Dublin Blvd. Dublin 81vd.- 3,730 7,050 7,990 7,050 7,490 Central Pk Central Pkwy- 3,730 5,640 6,240 5,640 6,240 Gleason entra Pkwy. Arnold- 0 6,540 6,875 6,540 6,875 Hacienda Hacienda- 1,150 b,450 6,900 6,450 b,900 Tassa'ara Dou her Rd. I-580-Dublin 40,680 52,660 57,730 75,420 80,060 Blvd. Scarlett Drive Extension Dublin- 0 0 14,000 lI,b00 14,000 Dougher Source: Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, ~sultants Resort: Transportation Impacts Far the Proposed Dublin Transit Center. City of Dublin, Administrative DraN Report, December 15, 2000. 1. The southbound volume estimate on HeCienda Drive between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway would total 970 vehicles during the PtVI peak hour with existing plus luture base plus project traffic. Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 'f 62 Draft Environmental Impact Reporl July 2001 City of Dubtin i I.t ~ 480 a ! 180 ^ t T7 t t 25 ~ r+ t t 178 ~ ~r ~~~t 1668 tiro ~?-1457 t 1981 ltWe iZ5 f 703 • '?1 i 1? f ~ r f 1? P t7 ,7 ! 10 i 127 r 1 4 t J88 + r t27S + ~ ' 78 J ~ ~ 5 ! ~ f r• 77 ! ~ p ~ i? 378 !!1 f r~ } ~ S06 ry 75t i 7$ ?IBS a xoR 3108+ ~a 2 ~ y Avg 1088 i~ ~nn_ N' 1 A$ no`_' 739 i ~ .+irf e i 71-on ~ 83 ! h } A~ t61 ~x 55 9 • g~~ .1i4 ~ yiMl432 1311 27n 48! 4yQ1~} 10 + ~ ~$g 79 a~~ 70 i Aeo 30. _ r{+~i~ nm 7 nt~~ 131 20 ~ ~!!f~~ i~ t ~ nv~ 483 3 + n$~ ibiSJ~ 151 i ~t ~ } ~ apt ! ~ f ~ I 940+ ~m$ 25~ ~ ~ ecw 7BQ $o~ "i~•' •1t83 . ~ qG~ ~ 1. i •34S ~ ~ Q u ~ 0 2 app ! ~ f ~ CElnak asctvr, i 4 i 73 a14 r} + ' 6t+if 5170 ~ 83e~ p~_ ` ~ rY ~ ° 685 1135 i ~ ,..-'11;'.~ DUBUH BLW. v ~ i 777 ~ ~ w ~f ~ S t 1289 f 1? ii 1 ° ~ ~1 + f. 1456 ~ m 7 ~ ~f ~~rr o g '"t~ SS~ ea~v$ 451 RG ~+~ir Ilt7 ' 0 798 ! } A ~ N~ ttl+ C } ~ ~ $ jj'' } 7t 5 ~ } ~ 1878 i R• M, SOURCE' Qenni•Ms+ans Exhibit 18a J cuMU~.aTIVE (YEAR 2a2s} ) pND PROJECT C1T1' OF DUBLIN AM PEAK HOUR ausur~r~arvs?t CENTER TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENV(RONMEHTAL IMPACT pEPORT ~ e R g ss ~ ~ ~ ebo ' ~ ~ ago t so ' ~ N ~ 1} ~~t}950 ~-232tl r }178 ~ rtffix ~ 237 { a+ .rib{ ~ i4{ 1x ; 101 _ ; ~ .Jib{ aT i'+{ } O l b ~ ~ S J 4 ? I? 50 ! ~1 ~ ~ P pg ! 4 ? ~r 123 c n n S t ~ ~ ra }Sb t y 1890 ~ 2073 ~ v 2112 1?? i n ;p °rR Q4 ,`R ~ ~ i ^ N 33 ~ e~.~ li7.i 40 ~n 36 '41 ed ~''•o S.ei ~i i~ i. r 14 ~rNV o- S 358 J M i~ • o ~ ~ 95? _ i V { t0a 350 ti ~ ~ A j .i i 4 1t0T5 i3 ~ ~ i I4k t70! w 4 i' t5 ~v+~ ' nr~ !S IONS Y 00 aaT 7 T- s v^^ r 10 ' ~~vf .Hn IZ ls2 J ~1 } I~' ! 73? OI ~ n yI3 J2 y 3 ~ n ~ i f tle2 v i b{ 2GS 385 ~ 1917-? mho ~ ~yy~ tQ2 g n 856 v+ . ~ 33 a 578 ^ ~ ~ ~ V0. r~bf 9I 8 o toe9 ~ R v ~ ~ a i b 574 +~90 ~ v_ ~ i i ~ CEAIR~I. PKYN. - - _ ` 77l~ i r~ I f 0• m ~'1 ~ e t~ nn i:.~ ~ 1T7a ~ am~ ^ ~ 450 P v i~ ~ i v +~f ouetw tnw. ~ i F 6t1 ~ ~ ~j ( ~ i ; 310 n : { NMO ~ `YA ~r ~ ~ n ~4~- 385 ti .diVit61 n ~ 7at ~ 1 r' r i x~a i R Io1 ~ • O~ 340 i ~ N~ I Exhibit 18b • . ~ CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2025) N AND PROJECT CITY OF f3UBLiN PM PEAK HOUR DUBLIN TRANSIT Ct:NTER TRAFFIC VOLUMES E.NVIRONAIEIiTAL IMPACT REPORT The City has established maximum ADT thresholds for two-lane, four-lane, and six-lane roadways and arterials based on the Transportation Research Boards 1994 Highway Capacity Manua! and the City of Dublin General Plan. This includes 15,600 ADT for atwo-lane roadway, 30,000 ADT for afour-lane. arterial, and 50,OOQ ADT for asix-lane arterial to maintain LOS D, Based on these nnaximuzn thresholds, all selected roadway segments would be operating at acceptable levels of service with the exception of one roadway segment. Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the 7.5,600 ADT volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. Also, anticipated traffic volumes on the Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Raad would approach the Cit}>'s threshold of 15,604 ADT with existing plus future base plus project traffic. Tntpact 4.11-6 froadwa~~e~ment im~aetsl: All roadway segments would operate. at satisfactory and less than-significant levels wit}tin the Transit Center area, however, the segment of Hacienda Drive bet~tnreen Central Parkway and Gleason Drive would exceed the 15,600 ADT volume with existing plus future base plus project traffic. The #ukure extension of Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road tivould approach maximum average daily traffic volumes and would also carry a significant number of peak hour turning movements (significant impact). I-S80 mainline freeway opern.tion Y ar 20 ~ Without Protect Mainline AM and PM peak hour directional volumes on I-580 have been evaluated Eor the Year 2025 without the project. As shown in Table 25, four I mainline freeway segments were analyzed along I-5$0 in the project study area. These include the following segments: • I-680 to Dougherty Road • Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive • Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road • Tassajara Road to Fallon Road As shown in Table 25, all four segments in the westbound commute direction are projected to operate at 1.OS F during the AM peak hour with Year 2025 no project volumes. During the PM. peak hour, the 1-680 to Dougherty and Tassajara to Fallon segments would be operating at LOS F in the eastbound commute direction. The Dougherty to Hacienda and Hacienda to Tassajara segments would be operating at LOS D and F, respectively. Yea~2025 With Prni,_ect With proposed Dublin Transit Center traffic added to Year 2fl25 no project mainline freeway volumes,. projected LUS for eastbound and westbound segments would remain unchanged. However, with a protected LOS of F in the AM westbound commute direction, proposed project trips would be adding to an already deficient condition. Darin the AM peak hour, project trips would also be Dublin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 165 DtBtt Environmental Impact Report .tiny 2001 city of aubfin i ~ adding to a deficient condition between I-b$0 and Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. These specific segments would not meet the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's rninimusn .freeway LOS staz?dards. This would be true without proposed project trips. For this reason, the addition of project trips to mainline I-584 peak hour direc#ional volumes would be i ~ considered a significant, unavoidable impact, As partial mitigation, individual development projects within the Transit Center project area will be required to pay regional Transportation Ympact Fees, a portion of wluckt will ESe used to fund freeway improvements. Im act 4.11-7 a ree a 'o acts : In 2025, without the Transit Center project,.I.580 mainline conditions will exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's threshold of significance. The addition of Transit Center traffic would worsen this condition fsignificant and unavoidable Y impact, mi.tigat`iore is xot feasible since freewaf improvement is riot under the jurisdiction of the City of Dub~ia). Ta61e 25. Year 2025 I-580 Mainline Freeway Operation, AM and PM Peak Hour LOS { ~ Year 2025 (No Project) Year 2025 (W! Project i Location Capaci ( AM I3M AM PM Vol. LO5 Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS t i-580,1-680 to Dou he Eastbound 9,200 6,537 D 10,270 F 7,439 E 1OS41 F Westbound 9,200 30,315 F 8,072 F. 10,535 F 8,840 E I-584, Dougherty to Hacienda ~ Eastbound 13,800 6,783 C 9,714 D 7,339 C 9,678 D Westbound 4,200 10,279 F 8,126 E 10,41a F 8,600 E T-580, Hacienda to Tassa'ara Eastbound 11,50Q 5,5G3 C 9,735 E 5,661 C 10,150 E Westbound 9,200 14,590 F 7,174 D 11,177 F 7,318 D 1 1-580, Tassajara to ' Fallon i Eastbound 9,200 5,557 C 9,945 F 5,7015 C 10,395 F Westbound 4,200 10,019 F 5A94 D 10,549 F bbS6 D I ~ 'Notes: (1) Transportation Research Board, f-fiahwav Capacity Manual 1997, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, L05 E Criteria For Basic Freeway Sections, December 1997. Assumes maximum service llow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane. Dubfin Transit Center PA 00-013 Page 166 Draft Environmental impact Report July 2001 City of Dubfin s i I. ~ (2) Year 2025 vase year no project volumes based on the Updated Tri-Valley Transportation Model using ARAG Projections 98'. Proposed Dut~in Transit Center peak hour trips were then manually added into these base volumes to generate Year 2025 with project volumes. Source: Omni-Means MITIGATION MEASURES ' Mitigation Measure 4.11-1,(external intersection impacts: The fvllawing impraveuients shall be undertaken to reduce impacts to external intersections to a less than significant level: (a) The Scarlett Drive extension between Dougherty Iload and Dublin " Boulevard shall be constructed to relieve the Dougherty/Dublin intersection of sauth and east bound AM peals hour traffic and west and north bound PiVI peak traffic. (b) DoughertylDubliia intersection. The eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard at this intersectian shall be widened to include an additional through lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have one 4I) left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and ~o {2) right-turn • ~ - lanes. The westbound left-turn lanes from Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty Road shall be lengthened to accommodate additional traffic demand safely and efficiently. As part of these intersection improvements, Daugherty Road should be four (4) lanes in the southbound direction between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound on-ramp. These lanes should be configured sa that the right most lane would lead exclusively to the I-580 westbound on-ramp, with the second right most lane leading to the ovezpass or the 1-580 westbound an-ramp. These improvements would require widening and re-striping the I-58© westbound diagonaX on-rarxip. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from E (0.97) to LOS C (0.74) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from E (0,99) to LOS D (0.86}. (c) Hacienda/!-580 Westbn:crcd Off-Ramp: 'The northbound flaeienda Drive approach (overcrossing) shall be widened to three (3) northbound travel lanes. This improvement would require some alignment modifications to the I-580 westbound loop on-ramp. In addition, the I-580 westbound off-ramp approach would need to be widened to include three (3) left- turrt lanes and two (2) right-turn lanes. With these improvements, intersection LOS would improve from Y= (i.17) to LOS D (0.89) during the t#M peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS would improve from B (D.61) to LC}5 A (0.57). (d) Dougherty/Scarlett intersection: The southbound Dougherty Road approach shall be widened and re-striped to include two (2) left-turn Lanes, two {2} through lanes, and one {1) free right-turn lane. The two . left- turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound approach should be widened and re-striped to include one (1) left-tum lane, two (2} through lanes, and one (1) free right-turn lane. The westbound Scarlett Drive .Dublin Transit Cerster PA 00-013 Page 167 Draft Environmental impact Report July 2001 City of Dublin approach should have two {2) right-turn lanes and one (1) shared through/Ieft•turn lane. The two right-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, inteis.ection L4S is projected to be B (0.63) during the AM peak hour and LOS C {0.98) during the PM peak hour. {e) Dubi~~lSearlett intersection: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach shall be ~rnodified to include one {7} (eft-turn lane, three {3} through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane, The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened to include one (1) Left-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and two (2) right-taro lanes. The two right-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on projected PM peak hour traffic volumes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include one (1) left-turn lane and one (1) shared throughfright-turn lane. The southbound ScarXett Drive approach would include two (Z) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane and one {1) right-turn lane. The two left-turn lanes on this approach would be required based on: projected AM peak hour traffic volumes. With these improvements, intersection LQS is protected to be B (O.b3} during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.59) during Ehe PM peak hour. lYfitigation Measure 4.11-2 (parking): ['ost ail on-street parking within the Transit Center for short-term (2 or 4 houz) use. Through the~Site Development Review process for individual development projects, ensure that on-site parking lots and structures discourage unauthorized BART patron use through security, validation or other means. Mitigation Measure 4.17.-3 {cumulative traffic impacts): The southbound Dougherty Raad approach shall be modified to include two {2) left-turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and one (1J shared throughlxight-turn lane. The northbound Daugherty Road approach shall be modified to include three (3) lef!- turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and two (2) right-tune lanes, The westbound Dublin >Boulevard approach shall be modified to include Ehree (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and one (1) shared through/right turn lane. With these improvements, the intersection would operate at LQS E (0.7} during the AM peak hour and LOS F (7..06) during the PM peals hour. Additional improvements are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dougherty/Dublin intersection. ]t is recocrtaiended that the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e. Year 20251. In addition, current and future j phases of the 1-584 Smart Corridor 1?rojecE would likely relieve some congestion at the J7ougherty/Dublin intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the heeway due to congestion or incidents, Mitigation jVleasure 4.11-4 (roadway segment impacts): The road segment of Hacienda Drive between.Central Parkway and Gleason Drive should be widened from three to four travel~lanes and the Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road shall be constzucted with four travel lanes prior !o buildout of the proposed Transit Center. Dublin Transit Ger~ter PA d0-013 Page 168 Draft ~n~uonrnental Impact Report July 201 Gry o1 Dublin IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATIpN With the exceptions of cumulative traffic and mainline freeway operations, all traffic impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. For cumulative traffic impacts, additional roadway widening or improvements beyond that identified in this EIlZ is infeasible due to lack of sufficient roadway widening. Improvements to the I-80 freeway would not be feasible since any such improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. ~.12UTILITIES AI~dD PUBLIC SERVICES T;NV IIZOIVMI;NTAI:. ISSUES This section of the EIR discusses provision of community services, including fire and police services, schools, solid. waste disposal and utility systems, including water, sewer, natural gas, electricity and telecomrnunicadon systems. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fire i?roEecEr'on Fire service in Dublin is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, which is under contract ~ to the City of Dublin., to provide fire suppression, inspection to ensure development conformity with: the Uniform Fire Code, and emergency medical response. The Department maintains one fire station near the project area. Station 15 is located behind the Santa Rita jail cornplex~approximately one mile, north of the proposed Transit Center. This station will be replaced. by anew-fire station (Station 17) to be constructed nearer the project on Madigan at Brodex. Station 17 is anticipated to be completed and operational in 0002 and will house both an engine and truck company with a staff of 6. Both stations will be staffed by Fire Department personnel on a 24-hour basis and would have a response time of 5 minutes or less to the project area. The stations will be assisted in responses to calls for service by Station 16, located on Donohue Drive. mince Station. 17 becomes operational, Station 15 will transition to a volunteer station. The Alameda County Fire Department maintains existing mutual aid agreements with surrounding fire departments in San Ramon, Pleasanton, Livermore, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Camp Parks and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The City of Dublin currently levies a fire protection fee for new development to offset the cost of providing new stations, equipment a,nd personnel. Fees are paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance based on square footage of the. respective building(s). Dublin Transit Censer PA Oo-013 Pa9g 1'69 Draft Envlranmental Impact Repari July 2001 City of Dublin EXHIBIT 6 State Housing Element Law Page 2 balance the need for growth, including the need for additional housing, against other competing local interests. Housing element law promotes the State's interest in encouraging open markets and providing opportunities for the private sector to address the State's housing demand, while leaving the ultimate decision about how and where to plan for growth at the regional and local levels. While land-use planning is fundamentally a local issue, the availability of housing is a matter of statewide importance. Housing element law and the RHNP process requires local governments to be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated. The process maintains local control aver where and what type of development should occur in local communities while providing the opportunity for the private sector to meet market demand. In general, a housing element must at least include the following components: ~ A Housing Needs Assessment: Existing Needs -The number of households overpaying for housing, living in overcrowded conditions, or with special housing needs (e.g., the elderly, large families, homeless), the number of housing units in need of repair, and assisted affordable units at-risk of converting to market-rate. • Projected Needs -The city or county's share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNP prepared by the COG. The allocation establishes the number of new units needed, by income category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the housing element. The RHNP provides a benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land and opportunities for housing development to address population growth and job generation. ~ A Sites Inventory and Analysis: The element must include a detailed land inventory and analysis including a site specific inventory listing properties, zoning and general plan designs#ion, size and existing uses; a general analysis of environmental constraints and the availability of infrastructure, and evaluation of the suitability, availability and realistic development capacity of sites to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need by income level. ff the analysis does not demonstrate adequate sites, appropriately zoned to meet the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need, by income level, the element must include a program to provide the needed sites including providing zoning that allows owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses "by-right" with minimum densities and development standards that allow at least 16 units per site for sites. State Housing Element Law, Page 3 ~ An Analysis of Constraints on Housing: • Governmental -Includes land-use controls, fees and exactions, on-and off-site improvement requirements, building codes and their enforcement, permit and processing procedures, and potential constraints on the development or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. ~ Housing Programs Programs are required to identify adequate sites to accommodate the locality's share of the regional housing need; assist in the development of housing for extremely low, lower- and moderate-income households; remove or mitigate governmental constraints; conserve and improve the existing affordable housing stock; promote equal housing opportunity; and preserve the at-risk units identified. ~ Quantified Objectives Estimates the maximum number of units, by income level, to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period of the element. 12/26/D7cc