HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Downtown Dublin SPOF
Ill 4 �Ir 111
1'3 � =�, 82
DATE: May 6, 2014
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager J
SUBJECT: Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDS )
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CITY CLERK
File #420 -30
The City Council will consider General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for changes
proposed to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and an Addendum to the DDSP EIR.
The proposed changes include increasing the number of residential units permitted in the
Downtown by 1,200 units and decreasing the amount of commercial square footage permitted
by 773,000 square feet, creating minimum density thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail
Districts, and restricting residential development on the west side of San Ramon Road in the
Retail District. Other minor amendments are also included. No specific development is
proposed as a part of this project, and Site Development Review approval will be required
before any new construction could commence. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared
which concludes that all potential environmental effects were adequately addressed in the
original EIR.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
1► •C7iL�
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and take the
following actions:
a) Take a straw vote regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment;
b) Adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-
residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin; and
c) Adopt a Resolution amending the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to allow an
increase in the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP by 1,200 units,
decrease the amount of non - residential square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet,
create minimum density thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, and
restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District.
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 6.1
Submitted By
Community Development Director
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Z"Zwx,
"Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
On February 1, 2011, the City Council adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) (City
Council Resolution 9 -11) and certified the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (City
Council Resolution 8 -11). The Specific Plan was developed with the intent to incentivize
residential and commercial development in Downtown Dublin and represents a vision of the
future development for the Downtown area that provides flexibility to respond to market
conditions.
A map of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is shown in Figure 1 below, and in
Attachment 1.
The DDSP established three distinct
districts (shown in Figure 1), each
including its own set of development
standards tailored to the envisioned
uses. The Transit - Oriented District
embraces the recent opening of the
West Dublin BART station and is the
district where a vast majority of the new
residential development in Downtown
Dublin is envisioned to take place. The
Retail District includes much of the
existing retail core and aims to
stimulate infill development and
revitalization of aging buildings and
large parking areas. The Village
Parkway District embraces the
existing successful service and retail
uses along a "Main Street" corridor with
an aim to reutilize and re- tenant existing
buildings with more intense uses such
as restaurants, service retail, and other
local- serving businesses.
Figure 1: DDSP Districts
, err—]- � �—i. �.� ,_ , .,:•h`�.., . � � .�,� �.
S'r`, �r1.. -. lei `.' —iJti •,.: i:�f.�'—.' � J
Retail District
-
��'� �,•: fit. = -_• =; -: �,
Transit Oriented
District
"\
Village Parkway
District
Since the adoption of the DDSP in 2011, Downtown has seen several new development
projects come to fruition and more that have been approved, but not yet built. New businesses
have opened in existing buildings such as Sports Authority, Savers, Sprouts Farmer's Market,
new buildings have been constructed for new commercial tenants such as REI, Freebirds, Habit
Burger, new residential projects have opened (Connolly Station), and other residential projects
have been approved, although construction has not yet started (former Crown Chevy site,
Veteran's Housing project). Capital improvements have also been made (Golden Gate
Page 2 of 8
Streetscape Enhancement Project) and Downtown Dublin continues to enjoy a successful
resurgence.
When the DDSP was written, the development potential envisioned was a maximum of 1,300
residential units in the three districts (in addition to the 53 units already existing at Wicklow
Square at the Dublin Senior Center) and over 3 million square feet of potential commercial
development that could include retail, office, and other non - residential uses. The development
potential currently allowed in the DDSP is as follows:
Table 1: Development Potential in the DDSP
Retail District
Transit - Oriented District
Village Parkway District
Total
Non - Residential (SF)
737,100
2,202,710
(plus 150 hotel rooms)
20,730
3,035,540
(includes hotel room square footage)
Residential (Units)
100
1,100
100
1,300
Since the adoption of the DDSP, there has been continued interest in the development of
additional residential units in Downtown — particularly in the Transit - Oriented District, where
1,003 of the available 1,100 residential units are already entitled. These units are accounted for
in the completed Connolly Station apartment project (309 units), the AMB /Prologis /Corovan
warehouse site (308 units), the former Crown Chevrolet site (314 units), and the Veteran's
Housing site (72 units).
In 2011, the City engaged the Urban Land Institute Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to review
the DDSP and provide an assessment on priorities for implementation, which were contained in
a final report (Attachment 2). The report contained several suggestions on incentivizing
development in Downtown, one of which was to remove the residential unit cap to let the market
dictate how much housing in Downtown Dublin could be accommodated. Although City Staff is
not recommending to remove the cap altogether, given the high demand for residential units in
Downtown and, in particular, near the West Dublin BART station, the City is proposing to raise
the limit for residential development from the current 1,300 units to 2,500 units throughout the
three districts. To offset potential impacts resulting from an increase in residential development
Downtown, the proposal also includes reducing the non - residential (commercial) development
potential from 3,035,540 SF to 2,262,540 SF, also throughout the three districts.
The proposed amendment will allow the area to capture market demand for housing Downtown
(which is one of the guiding principles of the DDSP to create a vibrant downtown) and it will also
provide opportunities for the City to meet the obligations of the Housing Element and the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that have been assigned to Dublin by the
State of California.
Page 3 of 8
There are two RHNA - related challenges that the City is facing: 1) Meeting the current Housing
Element RHNA obligation; and 2) Meeting the future Housing Element RHNA obligation for
2014 -2022. Recently- initiated General Plan Amendment studies for the East Dublin Transit
Center Site A -1, SummerHill /DiManto Parcels 3 and 4, and the FrederichNargas properties
have the potential to impact the Housing Element and the City's ability to meet its current RHNA
obligation. All of these projects, in addition to other projects that are moving forward but do not
require General Plan Amendments, such as Wallis Ranch, are proposing to decrease the
development densities on each site. If these projects to reduce densities are to be considered,
the units that are being "lost" need to be accounted for elsewhere in the City to satisfy the
current Housing Element cycle.
After taking all of the City's potential development sites into account, the City is expecting to still
have a deficit of 1,075 below market rate housing units to meet the future Housing Element
RHNA obligation for 2014 -2022. This issue was discussed by the City Council at the meeting
on July 16, 2013 and, by consensus, the City Council directed Staff to study an increase in the
residential development capacity in the DDSP, which City Staff has identified as an area that
could accommodate residential development. The Planning Commission also discussed the
Housing Element and RHNA obligations at the meeting on February 25, 2014 where the
concept of increasing the development potential in the DDSP was considered.
ANALYSIS:
It is important to maintain a proper balance of land -uses in Dublin to provide for economic
growth, quality jobs, and a balance of residential choices to support the long -term interests of
the City to have a diverse, robust and high - quality community. Identifying viable sites for
residential growth, while maintaining a sufficient reserve of land for future commercial -
development, is always a challenge in any growing community. However, increasing the
residential development capacity within the DDSP area is considered a viable option. Interest in
residential development opportunities in Downtown has proven to be strong, and it is recognized
that having more residents in Downtown will create additional opportunities for restaurant,
entertainment, and other commercial uses. Even with the potential increase in residential units
in the DDSP and the corresponding decrease in commercial square footage, there remains over
two - million square feet of commercial development potential available for future non - residential
projects.
Allowing additional residential development in Downtown could compensate for reducing the
development potential and density on several residential sites in Eastern Dublin for the current
Housing Element cycle and could accommodate future requests to reduce project densities on
other project sites for the next Housing Element cycle. Furthermore, a strong, vibrant residential
base in the Downtown could provide opportunities for additional economic development and
attract entertainment, retail, and restaurant activities long sought by the community.
In addition to increasing the overall number of units permitted in the DDSP, two other proposed
amendments focus on ensuring that future residential development is focused in the key areas
of Downtown and that future residential development enables the number of units hoped for to
the Downtown. These proposed changes are described in more detail in the following sections.
1. Increase residential development potential in the DDSP
In order to accommodate the additional residential growth without creating new impacts, the
proposal is to increase the residential development potential of the area while reducing the
Page 4 of 8
commercial development potential. All other development standards and design guidelines
currently in the DDSP that affect development (such as maximum FAR, building height,
setbacks, etc.) are proposed to remain unchanged unless specifically noted.
The main impact of adding residential units to Downtown would be to the transportation and
circulation system. An analysis completed by RBF Consulting (the group that prepared the
original DDSP Environmental Impact Report) assessed how much commercial development
potential would need to be removed from the DDSP to ensure that the impacts of adding 1,200
residential units could be negated. The results of the analysis indicated that the equivalent
commercial reduction should be 773,000 square feet to ensure that the impacts to the
circulation system and traffic flow in Downtown (and throughout the City) would be no greater
than what was already anticipated in the DDSP EIR.
The proposed changes to the development potential in the DDSP are as follows:
Table 2: Net New Development Potential in the DDSP
Existing Proposed
Ebm
T �
Non- Residential oResidenl
District Residential (Units) Residential
(SF)
Retail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) +300
Transit- 2,202,710 1,622,960
Oriented ( +150 hotel 1,100 ( +150 hotel 1,900 (579,750) +800
rooms) rooms)
Village 20,730 100 20,730 200 -- +100
Parkway
3,035,540 2,262,540
Total (includes 150 1,300 (includes 150 2,500 (773,000) +1,200
hotel rooms) hotel rooms)
Table 3 -4 (Net New Development) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to increase the total
residential units to 2,500 and decrease the Non - Residential square footage by 773,000 square
feet and Table 6 -1 (Development Pool) is proposed to be amended to make the same changes
as noted above.
2. Establish minimum residential densities in the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts
Currently, the DDSP does not specifically identify a minimum density for any of the districts,
although the DDSP notes that Medium to High Density development is appropriate. The
proposed amendment provides more specificity and certainty for future developers and will allow
the City to comply with our RHNA obligations by establishing a minimum density for residential
development in the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts. Due to the urban nature of these two
districts and their close proximity to the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART station, the ULI panel
recommended, and Staff concurs with, ensuring that development of a certain minimum
residential density occurs. The proposed minimum density in the Retail District is 22 units per
net acre and the proposed minimum density in the Transit - Oriented District is 30 units per net
acre.
Page 5 of 8
Table 3 -4 (Net New Development) of the DDSP is proposed to be amended to identify minimum
residential densities in both districts.
3. Allow residential development in the Retail District core area only
Residential development is currently allowed throughout the Retail District. Staff is
recommending focusing future residential development and mixed use projects in those areas
that are closest to the BART station. The proposed amendment would allow residential
development in the Retail District only in the core area east of San Ramon Road. There are a
finite number of units allocated to the Retail District. The intent of this amendment is to focus
the limited residential development in the optimal location to achieve the goals of creating a
vibrant, walkable downtown that is accessible to the BART station and that preserves the
viability of existing commercial uses on the perimeter of the Retail District. Those properties in
the Retail District west of San Ramon Road would remain available for all types of non-
residential uses currently permitted in the DDSP, but new residential development would be
prohibited. Similarly, residential development was not permitted in this area prior to adoption of
the DDSP. Figure 2 illustrates those properties in the Retail District that will be affected by this
change.
Table 3 -1 (Land Uses) of the DDSP is
proposed to be amended to allow residential
units in the core of the Retail District only.
Additionally, Table 3 -1 will be modified to
allow Live/Work units in the Retail District of
the DDSP. Currently, the DDSP allows
Live/Work in the Transit - Oriented District, but
not the Retail District. This modification
would allow them in both districts.
The exact amendments to Table 3 -1, Table
3 -4, Table 6 -1, and the text sections of the
DDSP are detailed in the Resolution adopting
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, which is included as
Attachment 3 to this Staff Report.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
Figure 2: Affected Retail District Properties
The amendment to the General Plan is fairly limited in scope. General Plan Table 2.1 (Land
Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area) will need to be updated to reflect the
increase in allowable residential units and also the decrease in maximum non - residential
development potential.
State law limits General Plan amendments to four per General Plan Element per calendar year.
This approval would be the second amendment to the Land Use Element for Calendar Year
2014. In order to avoid amendments in excess of the number permitted by State Law, General
Plan amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted by one resolution.
Therefore, this proposed General Plan Amendment will be grouped together with several other
proposed General Plan Amendments for other projects. These General Plan Amendments will
Page 6 of 8
be considered by the City Council as a separate item on a future agenda and approved under
one resolution. All approvals related to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment will not
become effective until the General Plan Amendment item is approved and effective later this
year.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address potential environmental
impacts of the DDSP. The DDSP EIR (SCH# 2010022005) was prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was certified by the City Council on
February 1, 2011.
An Initial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of allowing an
increase of 1,200 residential units in Downtown while decreasing the amount of commercial
square footage by 773,000 square feet. All of the environmental impact sections were
examined, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial
increases in the severity of previously- identified impacts were discovered. The Initial Study
included a detailed analysis of the traffic impacts of additional residential units and determined
that there would be no net impact if the amount of commercial development in the DDSP were
reduced by enough to offset the increase of residential units. The analysis determined that the
equivalent to 1,200 residential units is 773,000 square feet of non - residential (commercial)
development potential, and therefore the Initial Study concluded that there were no new impacts
to transportation and circulation in the DDSP area beyond those identified in the 2011 EIR.
To document the findings of the Initial Study, an Addendum was prepared, which concludes that
the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the prior EIR,
notes the project changes, and notes their relation to the analysis in the prior EIR.
The Resolution adopting the Addendum is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At a meeting on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the
proposed amendments. After considerable discussion and deliberation, on a vote of 4 -1, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -12, recommending that the City Council approve
the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan amendments with the following
modifications:
1) Recommend that the City Council consider a meeting with the DUSD regarding potential
school district impacts, prior to adopting the Amendments.
2) Recommend striking Footnote #6 of Table 3 -1 regarding the properties west of San
Ramon Road.
The March 11, 2014 meeting minutes are included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report,
Resolution 14 -11 (recommending adoption of the CEQA Addendum) is included as Attachment
6, and Resolution 14 -12 (recommending approval of the General Plan and Specific Plan
amendments with the modification noted above) is included as Attachment 7.
Page 7 of 8
Staff's recommendation to restrict residential development west of San Ramon Road remains
and the Draft Resolution for City Council consideration (Attachment 3) includes Footnote #6 of
Table 3 -1.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff met with representatives from the Dublin Unified School District in September and
December 2013 to review the proposed increase in residential units in the Downtown. Although
the District initially expressed concerns about the potential impacts resulting from an increase in
students generated by the additional units, the District did not provide any formal comments on
the proposed DDSP amendments.
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Tri- Valley Times and mailed to all property
owners and tenants in the Specific Plan area, those within 300 feet of the existing Specific Plan
boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings
related to this project.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. DDSP Boundary Map
2. ULI Technical Advisory Panel report dated July 2011
3. Resolution amending the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to
allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in the
DDSP by 1,200 units, decrease the amount of non - residential square
footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, and restrict
residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail
District
4. Resolution adopting an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and
decreasing the amount of non - residential square footage permitted in
Downtown Dublin, with the Initial Study /Addendum included as
Exhibit A and the Statement of Overriding Considerations included
as Exhibit B
5. March 11, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -11
7. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -12
Page 8 of 8
ze
cc
V) U CL
.� •.:ter.
C)�4 Rog)
to
o
CP •
Urban Land
Institute
Eh u
D, w - kI\T
J � r �.
Technical Assistance Panel
July 2011
About ULI's Technical Assistance Panels
ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel Program (known as "TAP ") is an
extension of the national Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Panel Program.
ULI's Advisory Services Panels provide strategic advice to clients (public agencies
and nonprofit organizations) on complex land use and real estate development issues.
The program links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership.
Established in 1947, the Advisory Services Program has completed over 500 panels
in 47 states, 12 countries, and on 4 continents. The Advisory Services Program has
been successful due to its comprehensive, pragmatic approach to solving land use
challenges.
Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their
time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and screened to
ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at
development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience
chairs each panel.
Local San Francisco Bay Area TAPS are held over the course of two days in the
client's community. A detailed briefing book is given to each TAP participant prior
to the day of the TAP. The TAP begins with a tour of the study area either by bus and
on foot, is followed by a briefing by the client and others, and then transitions into
private interviews and panel discussion regarding the client's issues and questions.
At the end of the TAP, the panel provides a Power Point presentation to the client and
invited guests summarizing the panel's observations and recommendations. Within
ten weeks, a final written report is delivered to the client. The final report presents
highlights of the panel's independent review and contains a diverse set of ideas and
suggestions that may or may not ultimately make sense for the community for which it
was prepared.
About ULI
The Urban Land Institute's mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of
land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Founded in 1936,
the ULI is a non - profit organization of land -use professionals with 27,000 members
in 95 countries (www.uli.org), including 1.800 in the greater San Francisco District
Council (www.ulisf.org). ULI San Francisco serves the greater Bay Area with pragmatic
land use expertise and education.
Team Assignment and Process
The City of Dublin, using their recently passed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(Specific Plan) as a guide. aims to improve the vitality of their downtown. The panel
was asked how to prioritize the execution of the Specific Plan. The TAP process
consisted of a day of site tours, stakeholder interviews, a panel discussion, and a
presentation the following morning.
Site Context
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is bounded generally by Village Parkway
on the east, Amador Valley Boulevard on the north, San Ramon Road on the west,
and Interstate 580 on the south. The Specific Plan is an aggregate of all or a major
portion of five existing plans: San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Dublin Downtown
Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan. West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan,
Collectively, these plans are zoned for the additional development of nearly 3.2
million square feet of non - residential development, 740 dwelling units, and 150
hotel rooms. Since 2000. when a majority of these plans were adopted, 258,734
square feet of non - residential development and 54 residential units have been
constructed. In addition, 617 multi - family residential units have been entitled and
309 of the units are currently under construction.
This Specific Plan focuses on strengthening the development standards and design
guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses, creating three
distinct districts in the Plan — Transit - Oriented District, Retail District and Village
Parkway District. Most of the attention has been directed to the Transit - Oriented
District south of Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, transit - oriented developments are
encouraged within walking distance of the recently opened West Dublin /Pleasanton
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station.
At present, Downtown Dublin largely functions as a regional retail area comprised
of a number of large- format "power centers" with ancillary smaller specialty
retail sales and services. These retailers (such as Target, Ross, and Marshalls)
represent a unique niche in the regional marketplace and attract patrons from the
entire Tri- Valley region which includes the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
San Ramon, and Danville. The Specific Plan encourages new development
and improvements to existing developments to create a more walkable. urban
environment and to enhance the City's tax base.
Proposed New Development
Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the
Specific Plan Area. The most significant development is the opening of the West
Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station. The station is located within the median of
Interstate 580, with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the
freeway. By 2013, the project is projected to accommodate 8.600 users per day.
Within the City of Dublin, a 713 -space parking garage has been constructed at the
southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART
project, a joint development project with a 150 -room hotel and 7.500 square feet
of retail space has been planned (Stage I Development Plan), in addition to the
309 multi - family residential units (Essex) which are under construction west of
Golden Gate Drive. Adjacent to and west of the BART station project is an existing
225,500 square feet one -story warehouse facility (the Prologis site, formerly
AMB). This property has been entitled for development of 308 multi - family
residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square feet office building. Associated with
these developments, St. Patrick Way will be extended, providing a vehicular and
pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.
Other various residential, office and mixed -use developments have been
conceptually discussed with the City of Dublin, but no formal applications have
been submitted.
The Vision
The goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is: Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed -use center
that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living and entertainment in a pedestrian - friendly and
aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents.
LMND
.M. ; L J Soadic Pion Boundary
�� ." 511n et Hdr'ed (Atrrs)
0.01 .0.25
0.26 -0.50
s Z �.� 1 1.00
0.5 -
- 1.01 -2-00
2 -01 _ 5.00
Jt� i
i
r;
City Of
I'te48af11or%
Parcel Size and Building Footprint — Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
TAP
Stakeholder Interviews
The immediate area has a number of institutional
stakeholders and individual property owners. Due
to the time constraints of this process, individual
resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP,
but local retail experts and property owners were
interviewed. Stakeholders engaged by the TAP:
• Councilmember Don Biddle
• Mike Costa, Terranomics
• John Eudy, Essex Development
• Mayor Tim Shranti, City of Dublin
• Michael Schafer, Burlington Coat Factory
• Felicia Studstill, Mayfield Gentry, Dublin Place
• Sandra Weck, Colliers
Issues to Be Explored
The panel was asked a series of questions by the City of Dublin
during the process that helped to guide the analysis and final
recommendations. The City posed four specific issues for the
panel to address:
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in -lieu
funds to attract business and customers.
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make
Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract business and retail) and
pedestrian friendly.
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and
provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the
vitality of the downtown.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether
the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown
Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc)
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program (CBP) in -lieu funds to
attract business and customers.
Currently, the CBP is structured to apply to development that is in excess of the permitted amount. The panel suggested the City
consider application of the program to all development, including development in East Dublin, The funds could be best invested on
catalytic projects preferably within the TOD subarea first. While a movie theater would be a good nighttime use, it is very expensive
to construct, and the panel suggested that the funds could help incentivize a theater or other entertainment venue perhaps through
the subsidy of development costs. Another good use of funds would be a downtown park or outdoor event space located on or
adjacent to Golden Gate Drive as it leads to BART. Funds could also be used to subsidize small tenant improvement through grants
or loans. Lastly, CBP funds could help clean up store fronts and facade improvements.
LM
TAP on Site
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant
(attract business and retail) and pedestrian friendly.
The City should explore how to create a community activation point downtown in addition to the existing senior center, preferably
in partnership with Chabot -Las Positas College, a major downtown land owner. The community center could be funded using park
and recreation fees and may be a joint venture opportunity with Chabot -Las Positas College.
I
b 'f f9 VZ; 12
-7.15 1 5
too` F-.o -V j
Potential Configurations for Dublin Blvd. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Friendly Design
%0 (
0 1EjI'
- bl7gL..ls�1 UtJ�.�l+°�O
loci .0. W
e lam' Yl�o�, Clot -�2 nv�t��
2 x 12'
o � X ion �11C'C l�'� LFr- 0�2��CAJ
e
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide
suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown.
The panel recognizes that the current big box retailers are valuable to the City. At the same time there are a lot of opportunities
to create variety with regards to the size of retailers. Similar to what was done with the REI, Sprouts and Elephant Bar parcels,
integration of large format and smaller scale retail would provide more variation. The panel recommends bringing in an economic
firm or retail broker to conduct a detailed gap analysis or, at minimum, explore potential entertainment and dining uses.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of
technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc).
The panel supports implementing free WiFi in the downtown. The panel also feels that the City should introduce a requirement
that developers of new projects implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) reducing minimum parking
requirements and traffic congestion. Aspects of the TDMP should include City Carshare or Zipcar (with development incentives
or reduced parking requirements granted to projects incorporating such car - sharing programs), electronic vehicle preferred
parking and charging stations, and potentially BART ticket and Clipper card validation at the point of sale at various local retailers.
Mobile smart phone applications similar to "DashMob" or "Punchd" could also help drive traffic to local retailers. These mobile
technologies will help supplement and could be synced with the existing upgraded electronic signage for Tri- Valley Transit bus and
BART services that shows real time transit information,
West nublinlweasamun URT
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Strengths
The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the
implementation issues that need to be tackled. The panel was
particularly encouraged by the fact that the City recognizes that
accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise. A
willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize
the vision of a vibrant downtown.
The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately
adjacent to the intersection of two major freeways, 1 -580 and
1 -680. The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly
built West Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station.
The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from
an income and education standpoint. Furthermore, the City's
budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of
existing tenants in the downtown area. The re- tenanting that has
come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has
retail strength. The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens
in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish.
Opportunities
Opportunities abound in response to these challenges. The City
benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners
and few buildings. While the abundance of parking is part of the
retail area's success, some of this "sea of parking" has the potential
for development into new structures (some of which may contain
parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan). Several opportunities
for public - private partnerships with various principals are currently
at play. The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin
BART Station has the most immediate potential for development, in
contrast to the rest of downtown, such as the Village Parkway area.
Weaknesses
One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific
Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different
motivations. Furthermore, the Specific Plan covers a large and
more diverse area than a traditional downtown, meaning a single
set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area. The creation
of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character
will be beneficial in the long run,
While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the
area, garnering city -wide buy -in to the notion of public investment
as a catalyst may be challenging. The challenge of the Community
Benefit Program is timing. If the program is relied on to fund
some of the key improvements that need to take place it may
take too long or never happen because the money won't come
in until development is well underway. The challenge remains:
How can desired new development get underway without the
required infrastructure? If there is a sincere city -wide desire to
see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources
to get it going, including consideration of the appropriate use of
debt to finance up -front infrastructure. Lastly, this is an infill area
and how it is approached from a development standpoint is very
different from the greenfield development that has occurred on
the east side of Dublin.
Threats
The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self- sufficiency, requiring
a different approach to public finance, specifically one that
includes up -front public investment and a closer look at some of
the available toois including debt financing, which the City has
historically been averse too. The panel also believes that there is a
need for more collaborative engagement with developers.
City -wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic
given the perceived east and west division. Finally, real estate
capital markets are currently fragile. While there is financing for
multifamily and other projects, that window of opportunity may
close soon so there is an impetus to act now.
Strengths
• Progressive Specific Plan
• Recognition that traffic should not be a constraint
on market opportunities
• City aware of implementation issues
• Great location
• At the intersection of two freeways
• Two BART stations
• Mircoclimate conditions in downtown are conducive
to recreation and outdoor activities
• City in strong financial condition
• Higb °income area: sales tax revenue and high median
income households
• Strong, diverse and long - standing tenants
• Perceived as being business- friendly
• Low vacancy
• No or little resistance to development in the
Downtown area
Opportunities
- Low density and surplus parking creates development
opportunity sites
• Many public- private partnership opportunities
• Accelerate the potential for TOO District as a near -term
transit village with horizontal mixed -use
• BART - oriented residential development
• Interested owners in district
Weaknesses
• Multiple property owners with dif ter ent motivations
• Lack of public funding/investment
• Community Benefit Program issues
• Tuning: funds build over time. but investment is needed
up front
• No redevelopment agency
• Potential concerns over deploying public resources city-
wide specifically to the downtown area
• Multiple and fragmented ownership could pose
challenges to developing public-private partnerships.
infill development and revitalization of the area
Threats
• City's reluctance to issue debt for public improvements
can inhibit redevelopment — a revision to this policy may
be required to achieve the vision
• City -wide buy -in and financial support (e.g. fees) may
be required to achieve downtown vision
• Division between East and West Dublin reflected in
planning effort
• Slow to capture current market opportunities
• Fragility of economic conditions can impact
development opportunities
Recommendations
After the consideration of the stakeholder questions, SWOT analysis, site tour and interviews, the team identified what they felt were the
most pressing issues and resulting recommendations. Many of the panel's ten recommendations focus on improvements needed in the
transit - oriented district and uniting the City's vision with the property owners'.
Focus on TOD District, especially
4 -5 key parcels as a catalyst
The City should take a step further than specific planning and
actually bring together the property owners and interested
parties to try and generate a coordinated plan for key
catalytic properties. These owners include Essex, BART,
Chabot -Las Positas and Safeway. The City should play a
proactive role in creating a unified design vision by funding
the design plans for these blocks and by helping address
how financial implementation will occur. The City will need to
go beyond what is spelled out in the Specific Plan to create
successful projects that advance the vision for downtown.
The panel suggests the City sit down and have some design
exercises with the owners of the key parcels to try and
paint a shared vision. As part of that, the City may have to
think about public investment that goes along with private
investment, as well as flexibility from a regulatory standpoint
in order to stimulate the private sector's desire to invest.
2. Leverage current opportunities
for Public- Private Partnerships
The City should continue to work with BART to explore
alternative near term uses for the BART hotel /restaurant
site as part of a shared vision. BART's focus on a hotel
for that site does not match near -term market potential; it
would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be
developed sooner rather than later. The panel also suggests
discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage
with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the
upgraded Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way TOD, for
example a movie theater.
3. Simultaneously work on
redevelopment of Dublin Place
The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and
believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their
property. The City should simultaneously be talking with
them and offering the same type of collaborative planning
effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District (see
Recommendation #1).
-twti..,►� r�ac�
TOD District Essentials
�r7
GxAI
4Lod:
TOD District Essentiais
X
°e
Downtown Dublin BART
Downtown Dublin
4. Explore opportunities for
entertainment and civic center to
animate public realm and activate
night -time activity in TOD District
The City should investigate future opportunities to activate
the area with additional civic (City, County, other agencies,
etc.) and entertainment options. Evaluate partnership
options with Chabot -Las Positas College District on the
Crown Chevrolet site to create a public plaza /gathering
space which could be jointly used. Additionally, if and when
the City needs to expand its own footprint, it should consider
the downtown first.
5. Focus first on residential and
horizontal mixed -use developments,
then retail and office
The City should focus on residential and horizontal mixed
use on Golden Gate Drive and 5t. Patrick Way to provide
more residents to support diversified retail. Current limits
on the allowable number of housing units within the TOD
area should be removed. The Prologis (formerly AMB) site
should be allowed to increase its residential count, with office
development, given the surplus of office space along the 680
corridor, being optional or driven by market needs. In the
panel's experience, vertical mixed use can be problematic,
particularly in the early phases of transforming an area
through TOD. Too often "4- over -1" (4 levels of residential over
1 level of retail or commercial) scenarios maintain their for -
lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years.
I— 6. Undertake streetscape redesign
_ for Golden Gate Drive to enhance
the pedestrian experience and for
sal '
- ..' calming traffic
On Golden Gate Drive allow for one 12' travel lane and bike
lanes in each direction, add on- street parallel parking and
increase the 4' sidewalks to a 10' minimum. Village Parkway
Entrance to Dublin Place can serve as a pilot project by reducing travel lanes to one -way
in each direction and simply re- striping to allow for diagonal
parking.
7. Assess downtown public
improvement financing strategies
More public improvements and public investment are
needed on the front end. To do so the City needs to identify
and weave together a multiple range of funding sources.
Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts
or Infrastructure Financing Districts, which may evolve
under California law to replace redevelopment project areas.
The City has had discussions in the past about Business
Improvement Districts but should also explore how to
restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are
more targeted into the downtown area, including potentially
capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them
into downtown.
8. Further reduce fees for targeted uses,
especially restaurants, in downtown
The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown
area as an incentive. however even at reduced levels they
can be too high and create an impediment for some uses
especially restaurants and dining uses. The City should
further reduce fees to attract restaurants.
0�,—
o app R O w -
a t n 12' "Yrz+.�nil. II..Xc mow- o5u�7tW
• t x a �acx�c,.g, �� � c+oa
4' -Taker 1 o. t- fu' UW&4U.x vp- sscx?
15 4 a� i2 yz ask s.s
(co' SZ.o -L,3-
5 k 52• -�v�r�CL Us.li �A tnu�2c�tW
i Y if r� --)nz UWX '2d btn c.Zcp
9. Dedicate staff to manage
Capital Improvement Plan
Redevelopment agencies often implement capital
improvements in a very efficient way by identifying
capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning
a dedicated project manager to implement the various
capital improvements (CI's) within their individual project
area. Improvements include streetscape improvements,
undergrounding of utilities, extending trolley lines, building
pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure, making
way for future development. The panel recommends the City
create a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources,
i.e. a project manager potentially housed within the Economic
Development Department, to implement the CIP. Once a CIP is
approved, this person would function independently from the
City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the
capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area.
10. Exempt residential development
from CBP payments
Exempting residential development downtown from the CBP
payments could help further incentivize housing where it is
needed most, thereby providing more retail customers within
walking distance.
Z"Ob\m nV6244UT4
Paa� u+SES F4sws w�,o,t�
r? {S
_ II
A 4 r ti 4' b' i 2' 75 7 -4 I i tf t a s 4 b
_.� _l00 Ralr1. . 15 r5ceukw� f c�+.srtne nnnoe
I X a'S gSrPE 1/6uC Erb. C� CZ Q•1
t; t.� .mop
4� -m"WuA t ti So•t4�a�( Asa s.o�
Relevant Case Studies
Milipitas Transit Area Specific Plan
The City of Milipitas, CA's Transit Area Specific Plan, adopted
in June 2008, is a 437 -acre mixed -use plan area that calls for
up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1AM square
feet of commercial space built over four phases. Phasing will
depend on residential market factors. The City staff and their
consultant worked extensively with property owners, public
agencies, community members and other stakeholders in the area
to develop a long -term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in
market reality.
Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to
ascertain each owner's goals and constraints. Contentious issues,
about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines,
and the distribution of land uses and densities, were resolved
through ongoing discussions.
Piper /Montague Subarea
The Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation
chapter that outlines every capital improvement, the department
responsible, the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits
from the improvement. Studies were completed to identify all
road and utility improvements and public services. Detailed
infrastructure plans for sewer, wastewater, storm - water. recycled
water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed
financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate
impact fees. This implementation strategy ensures funding for
capital improvements will be available and provides confidence
to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully
implemented.
Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even
before it was adopted, suggesting that they had enough
confidence to submit project applications. Together, the City
and project sponsors were able to identify issues and propose
refinements to the Specific Plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
- Transit - Oriented Development
• Property owner buy -in
MrC,atulless Drivc
Before and After — Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan
Station Park Green, San Mateo
Adjacent to the hayward Park rail station, Station Park Green
is a 12 -acre transit - oriented development with open space, 590
units, 10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of
commercial /retail.
A pedestrian - friendly street grid connects the different uses,
much the same way that the intersection of Golden Gate and St.
Patrick's could be at the Dublin TOD district. Stakeholders worked
closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through
public workshops and meetings, ensuring community consensus
and timely approvals of the master plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
• Similiar area to site
• Mixed -use "green" transit- oriented development
fu
r:�
Participants
Panel Chair Ron Golem of BAE Urban Economics specializes in
project management for complex assignments, including real
estate transaction support. transit - oriented development. strategic
business planning, and pragrann development for public purposes.
Prior to joining BAE, Ron served as Real Estate Specialist for the
National Park Service. formulating strategies for public /private
partnerships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area. Ron has also worked for private real
estate development companies as an Asset Manager, completing
successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases. He has
managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties
totaling in excess of two million square feet.
David Cropper. Managing Director, joined TMG Partners in 2000
He has 25 years of direct real estate experience in finance,
construction, and entitlements. He is responsible for TMG
Par tner s' finance and development activities in the greater Bay
Area and is a member of the firm's Investment Committee.
He most recently directed The Crossing I San Bruno. an
award- winning $250 million dollar mixed -use transit- oriented
development, as well as 650 Townsend, TMG's mixed -use office
and retail project in San Francisco. He has financed over $1
billion of real estate including construction loans, permanent
loans. CMBS facilities as well as tax - exempt bond and tax credit
structured financings.
David Johnson formed Christiani Johnson Architects with
Richard D. Christiani in 1994 and has been the lead designer for
many of the film's residential and mixed -use projects. including
Bridgeview. Oceanview Village, The Potrero, 555 Bartlett. 4th
and U, Bryant Place and University Village for the University of
California, Berkeley. He has developed particular expertise in
planning high- density urban infill development featuring housing
over retail.
Keri Lung Senior Development Consultant for MidPen Housing
Corporation. has over 20 years of experience in the fields of
affordable housing. economic development. and urban planning
Keri has been responsible for strategic acquisitions and business
development at MidPen Housing Corporation over the past five
years, initiating nine transit - oriented urban infill projects with over
800 units in construction in San Mateo. Sunnyvale. San Jose.
South San Francisco and Alameda County. Keri . -.as instrumental
in helping MidPen win highly competitive tax credits and other
scarce public funds. resulting in record growth for MidPen at a
time when most developers are struggling,
Patrick O'Keefe is the City Manager for the City of Emeryville. and
Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency. He
is responsible for the oversight of eight departments including
Police. Fire. Public Works. Community Services, Economic
Development & Housing. Administrative Services. Planning &
Building and Gity Clerk. Prior to the 2006 appointment as City
Manager. he served as the Director of the Emeryville Economic
Development and Housing Department since 1995. Mr. O'Keeffe
currently oversees a staff of 185 and a 564.4 million annual
operating budget. including a 534.4 million annual Redevelopment
Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital
Improvement Programs.
Gerry Tierney. Senior Associate with Perkins t Will. has 30 years
of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on
housing and other institutional projects that have requried deep
expertise in and understanding of regulatory processes and
procedures, as well as code and entitlement issues. His portfolio
features a range of projects that demonstrate innovative, client -
focused solutions across varying project types. Gerry brings
flexibility and experience to each new project, creating individual
designs tailored to the specific needs of the client. user and site.
Iman Novin Assistant Project Manager /Sr. Project Analyst.
joined BRIDGE /BUILD in 2007 and works on both investment
and nevv construction projects. conducting project due diligence
and providing ongoing support for the redevelopment of the
MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland. CA. Prior to joining BUILD
Iman assisted the Real Estate and Planning Divisions of CCDC
downtown San Diego's redevelopment arm, with numerous
redevelopment and affordable housing projects. including the
management of CCDC's ArcGIS operations. He also has previous
t perk experience v!ith Kayser Marston Associates' San Diego
office, Iman holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Structural
Engineering and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Urban Studies and
Planning from the University of California San Diego
ULI San Francisco District Council Chair
Michael Jameson. Managing Director of Prudential Mortgage
Capital Company
ULI San Francisco Panel Staff
Xiomara Cisneros. Director
Kate White Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO. xx - 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200
UNITS AND TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
PERMITTED BY 773,000 SQUARE FEET, CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR
THE TRANSIT - ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS, AND RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WEST OF SAN RAMON ROAD IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT
PLPA- 2013 -00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09 -11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08 -11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated
with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional
residential and non - residential uses; and
WHEREAS, In 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project "; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February
24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP
Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -11
recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-
1
residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, which Resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -12
recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and
decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create
minimum density thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, and including other
minor amendments, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for
review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 6, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2014 DDSP
Amendment on May 6, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above -
referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project; and
WHEREAS, the 2014 DDSP Amendment shall not take effect until the corresponding
General Plan Amendment, to be considered by the City Council at a later date, is effective.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following
amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan:
Table 3 -1 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3 -1: Land Uses
Allowed
Prohibited 2
Prohibited
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed 3
Allowed 3
Allowed 3
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Prohibited
Allowed
Prohibited
Allowed 6
Allowed
CUP /PC 4
Allowed 6
Allowed
Allowed
2
Allowed
Allowed 6
ZC or MUP /ZA
CUP /ZA
CUP /PC
Allowed
Allowed
ZC or MUP /ZA
CUP /PC
CUP /PC
Allowed
Allowed
ZC or MUP /ZA
CUP /ZA
CUP /PC
Civic, Cultural, • Institutional CUP /PC CUP /PC CUP /PC
Temporary TUP TUP TUP
Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director.
2 Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
3 Assuming accessibility (ADA) standards can be met.
4 May be permitted with a CUP /PC in a mixed -use development.
5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of 1 -580 or 1 -680.
6 Allowed throughout the Retail District except on those properties west of San Ramon
Road.
CUP — Conditional Use Permit PC — Planning Commission
TUP — Temporary Use Permit ZA — Zoning Administrator
ZC —Zoning Clearance MUP — Minor Use Permit
Table 3 -4 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3 -4: Net New Development
Table 6 -1 shall be revised as follows:
Table 6 -1: Development Pool
Retail 175,170 4 • •
Transit - Oriented • • •
• rooms)
V• • •
543,850
400 22 units /net acre
Oriented
1,622,960
( +150 hotel rooms)
1,900 30 units /net acres
Village
Parkway
20,730
200 No minimum
IN
2,26
150 hotel
hotel
2,500
(includes rooms)
Notes Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet
constructed
Table 6 -1 shall be revised as follows:
Table 6 -1: Development Pool
Retail 175,170 4 • •
Transit - Oriented • • •
• rooms)
V• • •
Page 44, Section 3.4.8 Multi - Family Residential, shall be amended to read as follows:
3.4.8 Multi - Family Residential
Multi - Family Residential development is generally in the form of stacked flats (apartments
or condominiums) and attached townhouses. Minimum residential density is 22 units per
net acre in the Retail District and 30 units per net acre in the Transit - Oriented District.
The Village Parkway District has no minimum density requirement. Higher density
residential uses are appropriate and strongly encouraged, especially in the Transit -
Oriented District near the BART station.
Page 47, second and third paragraphs after Table 3 -3: Base and Maximum FAR Per
District shall be amended to read as follows:
This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 2.2 million square feet
of non - residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units.
Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500
square feet per hotel room), this represents 5.26 million square feet under this Specific
Plan.
Page 57, Building Design Table (Retail District) Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be
amended to include the following (all other portions of Section 2 shall remain the same):
Not permitted west of San Ramon Road.
Residential Allowed at a minimum density of 22 units per net acre
Units 0 Permitted within a residential development or mixed -use development if
designed based on the following standards:
Page 66, Building Design Table (Transit- Oriented District) Section 2, "Residential Uses"
shall be amended to include the following (all other portions of Section 2 shall remain the same):
Permitted within a residential development or a mixed -use development if
designed based on the following standards:
The residential density shall be a minimum of 30 units per net acre
and shall not exceed 85 units per acre.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
12
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00073 DDSP Amendment Residential IncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 3 - Ex A - CC Reso SPA and GPA.docx
RESOLUTION NO. xx -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED
TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE
AMOUNT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN
DUBLIN
PLPA- 2013 -00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09 -11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08 -11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated
with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional
residential and non - residential uses; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project "; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated
herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, to determine if additional
environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially
significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR
shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been
proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require
major revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been
identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts were
discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February
24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, was
prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the
DDSP EIR; and
1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -11
recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
EIR related to increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of non-
residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin, which Resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -12
recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan to allow an increase in the number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and
decrease the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create
minimum density thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retails Districts, and including other
minor amendments, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for
review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 6, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2014 DDSP
Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment, on May 6, 2014, at which time
all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above -
referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of
Appeals decision Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002)
103 Cal. App. 4t" 98, 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council has reviewed and considered the
Addendum and Initial Study, both dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit A) and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) prior to taking action on the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Addendum to
the DDSP EIR, including the related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the 2014 DDSP Amendment project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B.
2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00073 DDSP Amendment Residential IncreaselCC Mtg 04.15.20141Att 4 - CC Reso Addendum. docx
Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment (2014)
Addendum and Initial Study
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
WF
A Company
February 24, 2014
Table of Contents
Addendum
Initial Study
Attachments
Attachment A: Source List
Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location
Figure z: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts
List of Tables
Table 1: DDSP Amended Net New Development
Addendum and Initial Study
5
11
Community Development Department 13
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
4 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Addendum
Community Development Department 1 5
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan (certified February 1, 2011, City Council Resolution o8-»)
February 24, 2014
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PRIOR CEQA ANALYSIS:
On February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution og -11, adopting the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). At the same time, the City Council adopted
Resolution o8 -11 certifying a Program Environmental Impact Report for the DDSP,
hereinafter referred to as the DDSP EIR (SCH 20100022005). This Environmental Impact
Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284
acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non - residential uses.
The DDSP EIR identified the environmental impacts of implementing the DDSP and
concluded that even with feasible mitigation measures, impacts to transportation and
circulation were significant and unavoidable and could not be lessened to a level of less than
significant. On February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council certified the DDSP EIR via Resolution
08 -11. Certification of the DDSP EIR included the adoption of mitigation findings, findings
regarding alternatives, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was also approved.
In 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the number of residential
units permitted in Downtown by 1,20o and decrease the amount of commercial square
footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density thresholds for the
Transit- Oriented and Retails Districts, to restrict residential development west of San Ramon
Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter referred to as
the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project ".
The Prior Approvals (including the approved DDSP and the certified DDSP EIR) noted above
are incorporated herein by reference and available for public review at Dublin City Hall
during normal business hours.
CURRENT CEQA ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION THAT AN ADDENDUM IS APPROPRIATE
FOR THIS PROJECT:
In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present
with the Project that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the DDSP
EIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014 and
incorporated herein by reference, determined that the potentially significant effects of the
Project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR, and that no substantial changes have
been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be
undertaken which require revisions of the previous EIR. This Addendum to the DDSP EIR has
6 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
been prepared, which notes the difference in the 2014 DDSP Amendment and previously
analyzed DDSP and their relation to the certified DDSP EIR.
The 2014 DDSP Amendment varies from the original DDSP as follows:
Existing DDSP
Non- Residentiald
District Residential (DU)
(SF)
Retail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) 300
Transit- 710 1
202
2,, 60 1 00
Oriented 100 1 622 ,9 ,9 (579,750) 800
Village 20,730 100 20,730 200 -- 100
Parkway
Total 3,035,540 1,300 2,187,540 2,500 (773,000) 1,200
The Initial Study determined that an additional examination of potential impacts to the
traffic and circulation section of the SEIR should be completed to ensure that with the
additional residential units (and corresponding decrease in commercial square footage),
increasing the minimum development density in the Retail and Transit - Oriented Districts,
and restricting residential development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, no
new significant environmental impacts could be identified and no increase in the severity of
the previously- identified impacts would be discovered.
SUPPLEMENTARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
RBF Consulting completed a supplementary traffic analysis to analyze how the traffic
impacts of the 2014 DDSP Amendment (with the additional residential units but a lesser
amount of non - residential square footage) compared to the development potential of the
original DDSP. The analysis concluded that the traffic impacts would not be substantially
different. The traffic analysis is attached to this Addendum and Initial Study as Attachment
B, and incorporated herein by reference.
The highlights of the traffic analysis are included in the sections below.
In assessing whether the 2014 DDSP Amendment creates significant impacts that were not
present or that were substantially more severe than the original DDSP, the traffic analysis
examined three main measurements:
1. Overall trip generation rates of the 2014 DDSP Amendment;
Community Development Department 1 7
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
z. Revised trip assignments to the roadway network; and
3. A traffic queuing analysis for critical movements at the intersections of Amador
Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard , both of
which were operating at Level of Service E.
A new trip generation analysis was conducted to compare trip generation estimates for the
2014 DDSP Amendment to estimates for the original DDSP. As shown in Attachment B:
Traffic Generation & Distribution, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in
project trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. This analysis indicates that:
• The proposed project is projected to result in a net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and
1,232 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the DDSP, the proposed project would
generate six percent fewer daily trips, and 17 percent fewer PM peak hour trips. The
reason for this reduction is that commercial development generates a greater
number of trips than residential development when compared on a similar square
footage basis.
• The 2014 DDSP Amendment would generate a zero net increase in AM peak hour
trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP.
Based on the project trip distribution prepared for the DDSP EIR, the proposed project trips
were assigned to the roadway network and compared to the DDSP. The change in trip
assignment between the DDSP and the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours
are illustrated in Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution. No significant increases
resulted, and in many cases, the peak hour trips decreased.
Traffic queues were also analyzed under proposed project conditions for critical movements
at the intersections of Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin
Boulevard. These two intersections were analyzed because the City's threshold of
significance is greater than 50 trips if the intersection is already operating at LOS E or lower,
which applied only to these two intersections. The maximum left -turn queues for the
southbound and westbound approaches would remain unchanged with the proposed
project during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are shown in Attachment B: Traffic
Generation & Distribution.
Forecast AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project would be equal to or
less than the trip generation forecast for the DDSP and no additional traffic impacts were
identified. Therefore, the traffic analysis concludes that no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts will result from the 2014 DDSP Amendment, and no additional mitigation
measures are required.
8 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
NO SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162:
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes
have been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be
undertaken which require revisions of the DDSP EIR. No new significant environmental
impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts has been discovered.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and
clarifications as outlined in this Addendum, the DDSP EIR will continue to adequately
address the significant environmental impacts of the 2014 DDSP Amendment.
CONCLUSION:
The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the determination to adopt an
Addendum. As provided in Section 15164, the Addendum need not be circulated for public
review, but shall be considered with the DDSP EIR before making a decision on the proposed
project. The Initial Study (with the traffic analysis) is included below and the DDSP EIR is
available for review in the Community Development Department at the City of Dublin, loo
Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
Community Development Department 1 9
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
io I City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY
Community Development Department 111
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
12 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
City of Dublin
Initial Study / Environmental Checklist
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (2014)
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
loo Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
(925) 833 -6610
Project Location
The City of Dublin is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, approximately 27 miles east of
the City of San Francisco; approximately 26 miles north of the City of San Jose; and
approximately 15 miles south of the City of Walnut Creek. The Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is
approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to
the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley
Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those
roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley
Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specific Plan area. See Figure 1: Project
Location.
Community Development Department 1 13
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Figure is Project Location
Project Applicant's /Sponsor's Name and Address
City of Dublin
loo Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designations
Downtown Dublin —Village Parkway District
Downtown Dublin — Transit - Oriented District
Downtown Dublin — Retail District
Zoning
DDZD — Downtown Dublin Zoning District
14 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Project Description
Background and Intent
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) was adopted by the Dublin City Council in
February of 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the Downtown area
that would be more conducive to a more walkable, mixed development, and vibrant
community. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village
Parkway Districts), with separate development standards for each.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the DDSP in September 2010 to
analyze environmental impacts of potential development associated with the DDSP in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Subsequent to the adoption of the DDSP and certification of the DDSP EIR in February 2011,
the City decided to increase the total allowable net new residential dwelling units in the
DDSP area. To accommodate these units without causing any new significant impacts,
particularly as it relates to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, the total
allowable net new non - residential development potential was proposed to be reduced
commensurately.
Proposed Project
As shown in Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts, the DDSP is divided into
three districts: Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village Parkway. Table 3 -4: Net New
Development of the DDSP defines specific land use development limits for each of these
districts for both residential and non - residential development.
The proposed project includes shifting some of the allowable development in each district
from non - residential to residential uses. For residential development, the total allowable
development in all three districts would increase from 1,30o dwelling units to 2,50o dwelling
units; a net increase of 1,200 units. Conversely, total non - residential development (retail,
office, services, etc.) would decrease from 3,035,540 square feet (SF) to 2,262,540 SF, for a
net decrease of 773,000 SF. Amended development limits for each district is shown in Table
1: DDSP Amended Net New Development.
Community Development Department 1 15
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts
N
�- o sso soo i,aca
y .
LEGEND
9 �
l
ED Specific Plan Boundary
o -
',� �City Limit Line
Specific Plan Districts
RGAT DRIVE _ Retail District
Transit - Oriented District
- - - Village Parkway Dished
\, . li5�P5E 5B0
Table is DDSP Amended Net New Development
Existing DDSP Propose
Awt
District Residential Residential
(SF)
(DU)
Retail 737,100 100 543,850
Transit- 21202,710 1,622,96o
Oriented
(+15o hotel 1,100 (+15o hotel
rooms rooms
Village
Parkway 20,730 100 20,730
3,035,540 21262,540
Total (ind.15o hotel 1,300 (ind.15o hotel
rooms ) rooms
16 1 City of Dublin
City Of
Pleasanton
400
(193,250)
300
1,900
(579,750)
800
200
--
100
2,500
(773,000)
11200
Addendum and Initial Study
The proposed net increase in residential DUs and decrease in non - residential development is
proposed to further enhance the City's on -going effort (and recent success) of encouraging
more transit - oriented residential development in the vicinity of the West Dublin- Pleasanton
BART station and to further incentivize a more vibrant and active downtown.
Apart from this change in allowable development limits, three other minor amendments are
proposed to the DDSP: allowing Live/Work units in the core of the Retail District (they are
currently only allowed in the Transit - Oriented District), restricting the development of
residential uses in the Retail District to the core area east of San Ramon Road, and
establishing minimum residential density requirements in the Retail and Transit - Oriented
Districts (none currently exist). All other existing development standards that regulate
building height, setback standards, floor area ratio, parking, etc. would remain unchanged.
Similarly, all design guidelines that regulate the urban design and preferred aesthetic
character would remain the same, as would mobility and infrastructure plans and
administration and implementation requirements.
The DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2010022005) was certified by the Dublin
City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011. This modification of the DDSP
would require a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, both of which would have to be
reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Dublin City
Council.
Proposed General Plan Amendment:
The proposed text amendments to the General Plan consists of edits to Table 2-1 (Land Use
Development Potential: Primary Planning Area) with deletions shown in strikeout and
additions shown as underline. Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is
shown here:
Table 2-1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area
Downtown
Dwelling
Persons /Dwelling
Dublin Specific
Acres
Units /acre
Dwelling Units
Unit
Population
Plan Area
Meth
Meditirn High-,
230.2
6.1-25.1+
1300 2.500
2.7
3,51 e 6,750
Downtown
Dublin
Downtown
Maximum
Maximum
Dublin Specific
Acres
Floor Area
Potential
Square
Jobs
Plan Area
Ratio (Gross)
Square Feet
Feet /employee
Village Parkway
e�� 115
District
32 9
35
-.5-G o5 1�5�3
200 -450
2,508
Community Development Department 1 17
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Retail District
113.1
.60
-2-.* 2,762,7324
200-450
6,578 14,800
6,139- 13,814
Transit
Oriented
District
84.2
1.2
4:4e 3,821,5524
200-450
o8
1 x,108
8.4g?
Allowed
Total:
230.2
Allowed
7:86 7,o85,877
°r �Allowed 6
17,mow
15.746 - 35,430
CUP /PC 4
'Maximum Development Potential in the Retail and Transit - Oriented Districts were modified by the 2014
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (City Council Resolution xx -xx)
Proposed DDSP Amendments:
The proposed text amendments to the DDSP include the following proposed modifications
(with deletions shown in strikeout and additions shown as underline):
Table 3 -1: Land Uses
Office 40
18 1 City of Dublin
Allowed
Prohibited 2
Prohibited
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed 3
Allowed 3
Allowed 3
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Prohibited
Allowed
Prohibited
°r �Allowed 6
Allowed
CUP /PC 4
Allowed 6
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed 6
Allowed
Allowed
ZCorMUP /ZA
ZCorMUP /ZA
ZCorMUP /ZA
CUP /ZA
CUP /PC
CUP /ZA
CUP /PC
CUP /PC
CUP /PC
CUP /PC
CUP /PC
CUP /PC
TUP
TUP
TUP
Addendum and Initial Study
Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director.
2 Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
3 Assuming accessibility (ADA) standards can be met.
4 May be permitted with a CUP /PC in a mixed -use development.
5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of I -58o or 1 -680.
6 Allowed as aFt of a mixed use developme^+. Allowed throughout the Retail District
except on those properties west of San Ramon Road.
CUP - Conditional Use Permit
TUP - Temporary Use Permit
ZC - Zoning Clearance
Table 3 -4: Net New Development
PC - Planning Commission
ZA - Zoning Administrator
MUP - Minor Use Permit
7300- 543,85-
+0-0-40_0 22 units /net acre
o- i.622,g6o
+,400-1,900 30 units /net acres
( +iso hotel rooms)
20,730
40e -200 No minimum
3,035,54-G-42624540
j60 2.500
(includes 15o hotel rooms)
,�
Notes Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet
constructed
Table 6 -1: Development Pool
368,420-175,170 +0-0-400
1,724,,8E)E) 1,145,050 11100 -1.900
( +iso hotel rooms)
0 100 200
Page 44, Section 3.4.8 Multi - Family Residential, shall be amended to read as follows:
3.4.8 Multi- Family Residential
Medium to high density Fesident Multi- Family Residential development is generally in the
form of stacked flats (apartments or condominiums) and attached townhouses. Minimum
residential density is 22 units per net acre in the Retail District and 30 units per net acre in the
Community Development Department 119
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Transit - Oriented District. The Village Parkway District has no minimum density requirement.
Residential densities in the Genema Plan a „ 6- , +., , A ., nits n „ f ^r Medium Density
Residential, Residential, and 25.0 1 fO
High Density Residentiat
Residential uses -,hove ,f „nits/-„ r^ Higher density residential uses are appropriate and
strongly encouraged in the downtown area, especially in the Transit - Oriented District near
the BART station.
Page 47, second and third paragraphs after Table 3 -3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District:
This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 3.-G2.2 million
square feet of non - residential development and 1,300 2.5oo residential dwelling units.
Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500
square feet per hotel room), this represents c 6 million square feet under this
Specific Plan.
Page 57, Building Design Table (Retail District):
Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to add the following language:
Not permitted west of San Ramon Road.
Allowed at a minimum density of zz units per net acre
Permitted within a residential development or mixed -use development if
designed based on the following standards:
Page 66, Building Design Table (Transit- Oriented District):
Section 2, "Residential Uses" shall be amended to add the following language
(Underlined text is new):
Permitted within a residential development or a mixed -use development if
designed based on the following standards:
The rnax*rnurn residential density shall be a minimum of 30 units per net
acre and shall not exceed 85 units per acre.
The remaining language in the DDSP would remain unchanged.
Other public agencies whose approval is required
None.
20 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
III. Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Instructions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question (see Attachment A: Source List). A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -
specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially
Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies
where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program El R, or other
Community Development Department 1 21
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology / Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population / Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation / Traffic
Utilities / Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Instructions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question (see Attachment A: Source List). A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -
specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially
Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies
where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program El R, or other
Community Development Department 1 21
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier El
or negative declaration. Section 15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, the checklist entry will
be "No New Impact" and a discussion should identify the following on attached
sheets:
a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
22 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 23
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
�. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
X
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
X
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
(a)
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area,
and therefore there would continue to be no impact.
(b)
The project area is fully developed and there are no natural or built features that are considered scenic
resources.
Portions of the project area are visible from Interstate -68o (an officially designated State Scenic
Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate -58o (a highway eligible for designation as a
State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon Road (a locally designated
scenic route).
As described in the DDSP EIR, all proposed projects visible from Interstate -68o and Interstate -580
would be subject to design review per polices of the General Plan. Furthermore, specific projects
would be required to comply with the development standards and be consistent with the design
guidelines as identified in the DDSP, which remain substantively unchanged. Therefore, no new
impacts have been identified.
(c)
The project area is located in an urban built -out area and is adjacent to two major interstate freeways.
The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts to the existing visual character would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not change the allowable building heights and all new development
projects would be requirement to comply with the existing development standards and be consistent
with the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP. Therefore, the proposed revisions would cause
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the existing visual character beyond those
Community Development Department 1 23
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
24 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
identified in the DDSP EIR.
(d)
The project area is located within an urban area that produces considerable light and glare. Newly
proposed development projects would be required to comply with the DDSP which includes a number
of specific design guidelines that address light and glare.
The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts from light and glare would be less than significant. The
proposed project would continue to require that all new projects comply with the design guidelines
regarding light and glare and therefore the proposed revisions would cause no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to light and glare and no additional review is required
beyond the DDSP EIR.
z. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
X
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
X
4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of
X
forest land to non - forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which due to their location or
X
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
24 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 25
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non - forest use?
Discussion
(a -e)
The project area is located in an urbanized setting where there are no agricultural or forestry
resources, and therefore there would be no new impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
X
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
X
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
X
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
X
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people?
Discussion
(a -c)
As described in the DDSP EIR, short -term air quality impacts associated with construction would be
anticipated with future development projects; however, all development within the project area
would be required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) control
measures identified in the DDSP EIR.
Additionally, the EIR concluded that the DDSP is consistent with population growth assumptions in the
BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and it anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled due to the DDSP guiding
principles to create a walkable, transit - oriented, and mixed -use community.
As all future development projects under the proposed amendments would be required to comply
with the design standards in the DDSP and the mitigations identified in the DDSP EIR, the project
would not conflict with or obstruct the air quality plan, violate air quality standards, nor result in
cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. The proposed amendments were
designed to ensure that vehicle trips, and related emissions, would not exceed trips /emissions from
Community Development Department 1 25
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
26 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
the existing allowed land uses. As discussed in the transportation section, both total trips and peak
hour trips are considerably less under the proposed land uses than the existing allowed land uses.
Similarly, related emissions will be reduced compared to the project analyzed in the DDSP EIR. As
such, the proposed amendments will not cause any new or more severe significant air quality impacts
than identified in the DDSP EIR and no additional review is required.
(d)
As described in the DDSP EIR, future development project which generate toxic air contaminants
(TACs) are required to comply with BAAQMD rules, regulations and permitting requirements. All
projects are also required to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and implement
any applicable toxics control measures (ATCMs). As such, there is no new impact identified with
respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No additional review
is required beyond the DDSP EIR
(e)
As described in the DDSP EIR, odors to be expected within the project area include construction and
operational (e.g. odors from restaurants or waste receptacles). Construction odors would be
temporary and are not generally considered offensive. Future uses would be required to comply with
City regulations in the Municipal Code (Chapter 8.24: Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64:
Home Occupations Regulations, and Chapter 8.2o: Residential Zoning Districts) which minimize
operational odors. Therefore, there is no new odor impact from the proposed amendments. No
additional review is required beyond the DDSP EIR.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special- status species in local or
X
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
X
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
X
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
X
26 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 27
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
X
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
X
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
(a -f)
The project area is located in an urbanized setting and is fully built out. As described in the DDSP EIR,
biological resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an "effect found not to be
significant." Therefore, there would continue to be no impact on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
X
in CEQA Guidelines section 15o64.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
X
pursuant to section 15o64.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
(a -d)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located in an urban setting and has been disturbed
through prior development. There are no identified historic resources within the project area and
therefore there would continue to be no impact.
While the likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low, measures identified within
the DDSP EIR with respect to the discovery of potential cultural resources during construction would
continue to apply, and therefore no new impacts have been identified. No additional review is
Community Development Department 1 27
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
28 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
required beyond the DDSP EIR.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
X
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
c) Seismic - related ground failure, including
X
liquefaction?
d) Landslides?
X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
X
topsoil?
f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
X
on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
X
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater.
Discussion
(a -c)
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are three faults within six miles of the project area and future
development projects may be subject to liquefaction. Mitigation measures identified in the DDSP EIR
with respect to ground shaking and liquefaction would continue to apply, reducing these impacts to
less than significant levels. There are no new impacts identified.
(d)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is relatively flat, lacks steep slopes, and is not within a
seismic hazard zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake, and therefore there
28 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 29
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
would continue to be no impact.
(e)
As described in the DDSP EIR, future development could result in soil erosion or loss of top soil during
construction. Mitigation measures identified within the DDSP EIR with respect to soil loss and erosion
during construction would continue to mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels and no
new impacts have been identified beyond those in the DDSP EIR.
(f)
As described in the DDSP EIR, soils within the project area do not exhibit characteristics of expansive
soils; however site - specific soil evaluations and adherence to City and State building codes would be
required as part of any proposed development. Thus, there are no new impacts identified.
(g-h)
As described in the DDSP EIR, soils within the project area do not exhibit characteristics of expansive
soils and wastewater sewers would be available to the entire project area, and therefore there would
be no impact.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
X
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
X
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
(a -b)
As described in the DDSP EIR, California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases,
emitting over 400 million tons of CO, a year and that it is not anticipated that any single development
project would have a substantial effect on global climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would include emissions from area sources and
mobile sources associated with new projects. With the proposed increase in net new residential
development and the decrease in non - residential development, the projected daily traffic volumes
were analyzed and projected to decrease from volumes projected for DDSP buildout as analyzed in the
DDSP EIR.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
X
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
Community Development Department 1 29
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
30 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
X
substances, or waste within'/ mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? (V.13)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
X
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
X
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
X
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
(a -b)
As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects could involve the transport, use, disposal, and release of
hazardous materials during construction and may result in the demolition and removal of structures
which may contain asbestos and /or lead based paints. Mitigation measures within the DDSP EIR would
continue to apply, requiring compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Additionally, prior to demolition of
structures constructed prior to 198o (when asbestos and lead based paints were commonly used), a
qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the buildings to determine presence of asbestos and /or
lead based paints. If found to be present, subsequent permits and approvals would be required along
with the appropriate disposal of the contaminated materials. With implementation of the mitigation
30 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 31
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
measures in the DDSP EIR, there will be no new impact.
(c)
As described in the DDSP EIR, Nielsen Elementary School (75oo Amarillo Drive, Dublin) is located
within a quarter mile of the project area and new businesses that locate near residential areas or
schools may expose these sensitive uses to greater risk of exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, or
emissions. However, as further described in the EIR, all new projects would be required to comply
with regulations established by federal, state and local regulatory agencies, and therefore there will no
new impacts to sensitive uses.
(d)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant
Government Code Section 65962.5; however, there are seven sites within the project area that are
currently being monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation
measures described in the DDSP EIR would continue to apply to new projects and would require the
preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and subsequent testing. There will be no new
impact.
(e -f)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within
the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore there would be no new impact.
(g)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and therefore there would
be no new impact.
(h)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located in an urbanized area and would not be subject
to potential wildfire hazards, and therefore there would be no new impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level (for example,
X
the production rate of pre- existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
pattern of the site or area, including through
Community Development Department 1 31
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
32 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
X
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off -site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
X
quality?
g) Place housing within a loo-year flood- hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
X
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a loo -year flood- hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
X
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Discussion
(a)
As described in the DDSP EIR, new project construction could violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. However, mitigation measures described in the DDSP EIR would continue to
require compliance with the RWQCB and preparation of a SWPPP, and no new impacts would result.
(b -f)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is largely developed and served by existing stormwater
facilities. Per RWQCB requirements, new projects would include design features to increase
percolation (thereby decreasing stormwater flows, impact to drainage systems, and groundwater
degradation), and no new impacts would result.
(g-h)
As described in the DDSP EIR, several properties within the project area are within the Federal
32 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 33
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) loo -year floodplain; however, new projects would be
required to comply with FEMA floodplain regulations, and no new impacts would result.
(i-j)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or
other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche and is not within a designated dam
failure inundation area, and therefore there would be no impact.
io. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
X
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community
X
Conservation Plan?
Discussion
(a)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the DDSP would help ensure greater land use compatibility and would
not physically divide a community, and therefore there would be no new impact.
(b)
The proposed project is a change in the allocation of residential and non - residential uses within the
DDSP planning area and other minor modifications to focus development in key areas at minimum
densities. For residential development, the total allowable development in all three districts would
increase from 1,3oo dwelling units (DUs) to 2,5oo DUs, for a net increase of 1,2oo DUs. Consistency of
the DDSP with applicable General Plan policies was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The proposed
amendments are likewise consistent with policy direction to intensify the downtown, increase
residential opportunities close to the BART station, and increase opportunities for alternative
transportation modes near existing transit corridors and facilities. No new impacts would therefore
result.
(c)
The project area is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and
therefore there would be no new impact.
ii. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
X
mineral resource that would be of value to the
Community Development Department 1 33
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
34 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
X
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
(a -b)
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or
designated in the General Plan or other land use plan, and therefore there would be no new impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
X
X
local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
X
X
borne noise levels?
c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
X
X
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
X
X
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
X
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
X
excessive noise levels?
Discussion
(a -d)
As described in the DDSP EIR, compliance with DDSP design guidelines and development standards
would ensure that new projects do not exceed long -tern stationary noise thresholds. However, new
projects could result in short -term construction - related noise and vibrations that exceed noise
34 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 35
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
standards for nearby sensitive uses and increased long -term mobile noise sources (vehicular traffic).
Mitigation measures described in the DDSP El would continue to apply to new projects including the
preparation of construction noise management plans (when applicable) and noise from transporting
construction materials. Additionally, new projects located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways
would be required to prepare acoustical analyses and incorporate site - specific mitigations. Based on
these requirements, impacts would remain less than significant and no new impacts would result.
(e -f)
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
and therefore there would be no new impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
X
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
X
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
X
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
(a -c)
The DDSP EIR determined that the existing land use designations would not induce substantial
growth. It also determined there was no potential for significant effect on population and housing.
Assuming an average of 2.7 persons per household (Dublin General Plan, 2013), the additional 1,200
dwelling units would increase the City's population by 3,240 persons. This population increase is
relatively minor and is consistent with the DDSP policies to encourage residential development in the
downtown. Additionally, the proposed project would not displace existing housing nor require the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such, there would be no new impact on
population and housing.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or
physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
X
b) Police protection?
X
c) Schools?
X
Community Development Department 1 35
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
36 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Parks?
X
e) Other public facilities?
X
Discussion
(a -b)
As stated in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable building, safety,
and fire codes, fund on- and off -site improvements, and contribute to the City's public facilities fees,
and therefore there would be no new impact.
(c -e)
The proposed project would increase the demand for schools, parks, libraries and other public facilities
by increasing the allowable net new residential units (and therefore population). However, the
incremental increase in population of 3,z-7b4o persons is Eensi eFed rnineF and is consistent with the
DDSP's policies to encourage residential development in the downtown. Dublin Unified School District
fees, City public facilities fees, and the DDSP provision for community benefits (e.g., gathering SpaEes`
would continue to apply for new projects, and therefore impacts would remain less than significant.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
X
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
X
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Discussion
(a -b)
The DDSP EIR reviewed the impacts on recreational facilities of the project, which were found to be
less than significant. The proposed project would increase the demand for parks by increasing the
allowable net new residential units, and therefore population. However, the incremental increase in
population is consistent with DDSP's policies to encourage residential development in the Downtown.
Each new development project would pay public facilities impact fees that will fund the acquisition of
parkland and the development of future park facilities. Impacts to recreational facilities would remain
less than significant.
16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
X
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -
motorized travel and relevant components of
36 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 37
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
X
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
X
a change in location that result in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (for example, sharp curves or
X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
X
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion
(a -b)
The DDSP EIR identified the project's effects due to transportation and circulation as significant and
unavoidable impacts that could not be lessened to a level of less than significant. Therefore, approval
of the Project included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Additionally, as part of the DDSP
approval in 2011, the City amended the General Plan related to acceptable Levels of Service (LOS)
standards within the City to require a LOS of D or better for all intersections except for intersections
within the DDSP area. The objective of this action is to ensure a balance between vehicular and non -
vehicular circulation and create a more pedestrian - friendly downtown.
For the 2014 DDSP Amendment, a new trip generation analysis was conducted to compare trip
generation estimates for the proposed project to estimates for the DDSP. As shown in Attachment B:
Traffic Generation & Distribution, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in project
trips at buildout as compared to the existing DDSP. This analysis indicates that:
• The proposed project is projected to result in a net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and 1,232 PM
peak hour trips. Compared to the DDSP, the proposed project would generate six percent
Community Development Department 1 37
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant / No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
fewer daily, and 17 percent fewer PM peak hour trips. The reason for this reduction is due to
fact that commercial development generates a greater number of trips than residential
development when compared on a similar square footage basis.
• The 2014 DDSP Amendment would generate a zero net increase in AM peak hour trips at
buildout as compared to the existing DDSP.
Based on the project trip distribution prepared for the DDSP EIR, the proposed project trips were
assigned to the roadway network and compared to the DDSP. The change in trip assignment between
the DDSP and the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Attachment B:
Traffic Generation & Distribution.
Traffic queues were also analyzed under proposed project conditions for critical movements at the
intersections of Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard. These
two intersections were analyzed because the City's threshold of significance is greater than 5o trips if
the intersection is already operating at LOS E or lower, which applied only to these two intersections.
The maximum left -turn queues for the southbound and westbound approaches would remain
unchanged with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are shown in
Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution.
The DDSP EIR identified significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on three MTS roadway segments.
Forecast AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project would be equal to or less than
the trip generation forecast for the DDSP. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause new or more
severe impacts than were identified in the prior EIR and no new traffic impacts result.
(c)
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
and therefore there would be no new impact.
(d)
Similar to the level of detail contained in the existing DDSP, the proposed project does not include
specific development plans which would substantially increase hazards nor does it alter roadway
design such that implementation of the proposed project would create sharp curves or dangerous
intersections. This analysis is done at the site specific level and the DDSP EIR contained mitigation
measures requiring that these issues be examined at that time. This condition, and therefore there
would be no new impact.
(e)
As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable building,
safety, and fire codes to ensure proper design and each future development project would fund on-
and off -site improvements and contribute to the City's public facilities fees to minimize impacts to fire
and police services. In addition, the projected daily traffic volumes would decrease with the proposed
project, and therefore there would be no new impact.
(f)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the DDSP includes several policies and design guidelines to support
alternative transportation and to create a mixed -use community that encourages use of alternative
transportation, including walking, bicycling, bus transit, and the nearby West Dublin /Pleasanton BART
38 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Community Development Department 1 39
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
station. The project further enhances these objectives by increasing residential development
opportunities near the BART station. Therefore, there would be no new impact.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
X
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
X
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
X
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
X
to serve the project projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
(a- e)
As described in the DDSP El R, no new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be
required and there would be adequate capacity with existing infrastructure. Additionally, new
projects would be required to pay impact fees to fund stormwater infrastructure. Because the
proposed project would offset an increase in allowable net new residential development by
decreasing the allowable net new non - residential development, there would be no appreciable
difference in water and wastewater servers, and therefore no new impact would result.
(f-g)
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is served by the Altamont Landfill, which has a total
Community Development Department 1 39
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
40 1 City of Dublin
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
/ No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards and a remaining estimated capacity of
45,720,000 cubic yards (74 percent capacity). Future development would occur over an extended
period of time and the Altamont Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional solid waste
until ultimate buildout of the project area.
The proposed project would increase the projected total solid waste generation by 6.37 tons /day (or
2,325 tons per year) which represented approximately o.o6 percent of the permitted maximum
disposal rate of 11,5oo tons per day. This is not a significant increase and no new or more severe
significant impact would result.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
X
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
X
viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
X
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
(a)
The project area is located in an existing urban area. The project area contains buildings, parking lots,
and streets and as such, there is no natural habitat for fish or wildlife species. Because the site is
already developed, there would be no new impacts to sensitive plant and animal species, riparian
habitat, and federally protected wetlands, and /or archaeological resources. The City would conduct
site specific review of any individual future development projects to ensure that there would be no
impact to biological and /or historic resources. Implementation of this review process would ensure
that future development within the project area do not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce habitat or eliminate habitat for fish and wildlife species below
self- sustaining levels, and /or eliminate important examples of California history or pre- history.
40 1 City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact
Significant Mitigation Significant / No New
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(b)
The project area is largely built -out. Any additional development in the project area will primarily be
infill development that will occur incrementally over time. The City of Dublin General Plan, as well as
the DDSP, provide a framework for orderly future development consistent with goals and policies as
approved by the City Council.
The proposed project is to amend the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to change the allowable net new
development for residential and non - residential uses. No specific development project is proposed.
The additional potential residential development within the project area would not be considered
cumulatively considerable given the reductions in non - residential development and overall
development potential within the City. No new or more severe significant impact will result.
(c)
As described throughout this environmental checklist, the proposed project would not result in
substantial environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly and therefore there
would be no new impacts.
Community Development Department 1 41
Addendum and Initial Study
Attachment A: Source List
City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2010)
City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2010)
City of Dublin, Dublin General Plan (1984, as amended).
Community Development Department I A -1
Addendum and Initial Study
Attachment B: Traffic Generation & Distribution
Community Development Department I B -1
Addendum and Initial Study
Table B -i: Traffic Generation (Daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour) for the Existing DDSP and the proposed 2014 DDSP
Amendment
Source: RBF Consulting (2013)
Community Development Department I B -1
(Maximum
Existing
FAR Project)
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
Proposed
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
Unit of
District Land Use Size Measure
' Istrist
Daily
Trips
Hour
Hour
Revised Unit of
Daily
Daily
r
Commercial 737.100 5F
31.656
76
Z769
543.850 5F
23.353
560
2.03"
-8.303
=2012
73
Tot❑`w125 %Reduction forP❑ss -Bv
23.742
572
2,477
17,515
420
1,530
6,227
-151
547
Residential 100 DU's
400 DU's
2.688
204
248
2016
153
186
Total_
24,414
623
2,139
Total:
20 03
624
1,778
4,211
2
-361
Transit - Oriented District
Commercial 2.045.210 SF
87.821
2107
7.67
1.465.460 SF
62.927
1.509
5.495
- 24,894
-597
-2174
Tatd w115%Reducum Trcrrsvt + 25 %Reducdm Pons -By:
52,693
1,264
4,662
47,195
906
3,297
-5.498
-358
-1.304
Residential 483 DU's
3,246
246
29
1283 DU's
8,622
654
795
5,376
408
496
Total w /25% Reds ction fcr Tr:Tr;z .
2.434
185
225
6,466
491
597
4.032
306
37
Total: 1
55,127
11449
4,826
Total:
53,6611
1,396
3,894
-1,466
-52
-932
Village Parkway District
Comrr erclal 2x730 SF
89C
21
78
20'. -.C' S
8s 40
21
-8
Totd w125 %Reductkn for Pass -By:
668
16
58
660
16
Residential 100 DU's
672
51
62
200 DU's
1.344
102
12=
672
51
6
Total:
1,340
67
120
Total:
2,011
118
182
672
51
62
Net Total
Commerd ❑1 2,843,444 SF
77,142
1,85 `
6,737
2,430,040 5F
65,377
1,342
4,82:'
-1 1.72`.,
10
-1.85
Residenri d 683 DU's
3.778
348
1
423
`,883 DU's
14,498
7Q7
6,720
448
545
Total.
80,881
2,138
7,085
Total:
73,876
2 139
S854
-S,005
0
4,232
tes
kAliaW ITE Trip Generation hknual7th Edison per C)ownto m publin Specific Plan OR
Peak hours are for peek hour oFadgcerrt A eettraf r
Total development numbers include alreadperititled projects with the Plan area: the net number represent the net additional develo pment allowed under the 'Ummum FAR case. Trip generation shown a for Hie net new developmerrt
Source: RBF Consulting (2013)
Community Development Department I B -1
2014 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Table B -z: Comparison of Queue Lengths for the DDSP and proposed 2014 DDSP Amendment
Source: RBF Consulting (2013)
B -2 I City of Dublin
Addendum and Initial Study
Figure B -i: AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Assignments
Source: RBF Consulting (2013)
Community Development Department I B -3
LEGEND
I
Increase AM (PM) Peak Hour Trips
�
-Y:'oi ya
Decrease AM (FM) Peak Hour Trips
-121- 1x131 +26 ( +41 /$tea
l
�►
11111
Project Trip Distribution
Future Roadway Extension
N
0
t
y _1 �
� 1
a
-14 (-2631 , 1-131
x$t
Ic
E�
0 fy�
a ( +5l
— `
5 r
Dublin Blvd
�
Dr
9 V
( -131
-51( -3231
7
��
-
ov:�ns ❑�
k3� ,
.I
-11( -2061
N
Stoneridge �
�
y
ntan 361-1271
a
U
-321 -2381
a
vt
NOTE: Disiributionsdeii; edfromC CUTravel Demand WdelSeled- 2onelulalysis
Source: RBF Consulting (2013)
Community Development Department I B -3
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the
following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project
(DDSP, or Project) to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through
feasible mitigations or alternatives. Pursuant to Section 15093, the City Council hereby
determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse impacts and the Project should
be approved.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the
Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the Project
carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City
Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the
Project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives,
there are specific economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approval of
the project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant traffic
impacts are associated with the Project as identified in the Draft EIR
Impact 3.9 -1: In the Near -Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub - standard LOS on
one Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment on San Ramon Road when
compared to the Near -Term Without Project scenario.
Impact 3.9 -2: In the Near -Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub - standard LOS
on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the
Near- Term Without Project scenario.
Impact 3.9 -3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in
substandard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when
compared to the Cumulative Without Project case.
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in
reaching its decision to approve the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project. The City Council
now balances those unavoidable impacts, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such
unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below.
The Project will facilitate development of vacant sites and intensification or redevelopment of
underutilized sites in the Downtown area. This area is a primary focus for the City because it is
an infill area, fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials, services, BART
and public transit. The Project increases both residential and non - residential density to make
more efficient use of its infill location.
1
The Project provides an array of incentives, standards and requirements to implement the
City's vision of a more walkable, livable Downtown, that is attractive and vibrant, and that draws
workers, visitors and residents alike. The Project emphasizes higher density, compact
development patterns in the TOD district where a diverse mix of uses would be readily
accessible through alternative transport modes. It also emphasizes pedestrian level
development where walking and bicycling would be safe, feasible alternatives to automobile
trips within the Project area and to or from nearby neighborhoods. Development standards and
design guidelines provide measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing development of
private projects and public spaces. The Project also recognizes and incorporates important
elements of existing downtown uses, such as large- format retail opportunities and existing auto
dealerships.
The Project includes a significant residential component that will assist the City in meeting its
Housing Element RHNA goals. The potential housing will be at densities complementary to the
mix of residential and non - residential uses, and the Project's co- location of housing, work,
recreation and entertainment
Future development of the site will also provide construction employment and permanent
employment opportunities for Dublin residents. The Project also provides a unique opportunity
to facilitate live /work units in the Village Parkway district.
The Project provides a comprehensive approach to meeting the City's objectives for the area, as
described in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the
DDSP project outweigh its significant unavoidable traffic impacts.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesda , March 11, 2014
{i< Y
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 11,
2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the
meeting to order at 7:02:33 PM
Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff
Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom,
Principal Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm.
O'Keefe, on a vote of 3 -0 -2, Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli were both absent, the Planning
Commission approved the minutes of the February 25, 2014 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA- 2014 -00006 Development Agreement extension for the AMB /Prologis mixed -use
office /residential project at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Downtown Dublin.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, stated that, due to some irregularities in the Public Hearing
notice that was mailed out, Staff recommends that the item be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting on March 25, 2014. The Public Hearing will be re- noticed.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing and, seeing no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission
unanimously voted to continue the item until the meeting of March 25, 2014.
8.2 PLPA- 2013 -00059 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review to make modifications to
the building and site at the existing Dublin Toyota Automotive Dealership at 4321 Toyota Drive.
Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
T&xnning Commission WarcFa 11, 2014
WegurarWeeting V a g e 141
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing and, seeing no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that it made sense to approve the project as it is basically the same as what
was approved in 2012. He stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings.
Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make the findings.
Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings.
Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. He felt it was a
great addition and supports the expansion of existing businesses.
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she can make the findings.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 1,186 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
ADDITION, A 10,282 SQUARE FOOT SALES BUILDING CARPORT /CANOPY, A 1,760
SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BUILDING CARPORT /CANOPY, FAQADE MODIFICATIONS,
AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DUBLIN TOYOTA AUTO DEALERSHIP AT
4321 TOYOTA DRIVE
8.3 PLPA- 2013 -00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP).
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to increase the number of
residential units permitted and decrease the amount of non - residential square footage
permitted in Downtown Dublin and an Addendum to the DDSP Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked for an example of a development in Dublin with a density of 22
units /acre and 30 units /acre.
Ms. Bascom answered that 22 units /acre, depending on the size and configuration of the parcel,
can be either apartments or townhomes. She stated that the attached townhome units at
Emerald Vista are approximately 23 -24 units /acre. She stated that 30 units /acre would usually
be an apartment project with 3 -4 stories, but it also depends on the site.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked why the distinction was made to allow live /work units in the Village
Parkway District with a Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commission warch 11, 2014
ftgur4r�Weeting Page 142
Ms. Bascom answered that the Village Parkway District is more sensitive as some of the
buildings back up to single - family homes. She stated that the idea was to keep any residential
development along Village Parkway very low key.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that there had been an earlier project that was a Planned Development
district with an overlay and asked if a similar concept could be applied to the DDSP, allowing a
combination of commercial and /or residential zoning. He asked if that was possible and what
authority has determined that the City cannot have that type of zoning.
Ms. Bascom responded that the DDSP is generous in terms of the allowed uses in the different
districts. She pointed out the Table of Land Uses in the DDSP which showed that residential
uses and commercial uses are allowed throughout all 3 districts, with some specific types of
commercial uses requiring CUPs in some of the districts. She stated that the DDSP was
intended to be a broad and permissive document, setting standards and design guidelines for
what type of development can happen. She stated that residential and commercial uses are
allowed within the different districts, and it is just a question of how much. The residential use
focuses on the Transit Oriented District because the BART station is close by, with the
assumption that the development there would be denser.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission could determine that, in the Transit Oriented
District, there would be X, Y & Z zoning. X would be residential, Y would be commercial and Z
would be a combination of both.
Ms. Bascom answered that currently, on any given parcel in the TOD, there is the potential to
have residential use, commercial use or a mixed -use project. The DDSP outlines the maximum
development density in the different districts because there must be a maximum for what the
entire district can accommodate.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that the reason for this amendment is to satisfy the City's RHNA obligation and
asked if there is a way to craft the amendment so that it doesn't have to be one way or the
other, but would provide more flexibility for the market.
Mr. Baker stated that, if the Planning Commission were to adopt the DDSP amendment with
1,200 additional units, there is nothing that indicates they must be built; therefore, it could be all
commercial, up to 2.2 million square feet, throughout the downtown, and the 1,200 units would
never have to be built and the City would still be in compliance with State law. He stated that
the City only must provide the ability for a developer to build the units. The DDSP is written to
set the maximum generosity, which means that a developer can build commercial or residential
on many of the parcels, within general parameters. He stated that there is a list of commercial
uses and residential uses that are appropriate for the downtown and a developer could build any
of those uses, as long as they follow the list. He stated that the DDSP has a 20 -30 year vision
for guiding development and it might be that none of the 1,200 units are built, but the capacity
would be there if the market allowed that to happen.
Kit Faubion, City Attorney, referred the Planning Commission to Land Use Table 3 -1 on Page 18
of the Addendum. She stated that the table lists the uses allowed in each district and felt that
this is what Cm. O'Keefe was asking for.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that the current proposal would limit transit oriented commercial development
to 1.6 million square feet, which is down from the 2.2 million square feet allowed in the DDSP.
T&nning Commission Warc .11, 2014
(P,vgu)ar5W,eetrng Page 143
He was concerned that there may be a business that wanted to locate in Dublin, because of the
proximity to BART, and wanted to build more than 1.6 million square feet; they would not be
allowed to. He wanted to give more flexibility to the third category that he was proposing. He
suggested that the category should be more open and not specifically defined, or define it in a
way that it satisfies RHNA, but doesn't lower the commercial square footage allowed.
Mr. Baker stated that the 1.6 million square feet is above and beyond what already exists in the
TOD. He felt that these are very large numbers, for example, it is more than the outlet mall in
Livermore, which is approximately 500,000 square feet; currently there is the capacity in the
TOD to build 3 Livermore Outlet Malls, in addition to the existing development.
Cm. O'Keefe felt Mr. Baker's explanation helped and asked if there was 1.6 million square feet
of commercial space available in the TOD and if there is the market for that much commercial
space.
Mr. Baker answered that, if the City were lucky enough to have an application that would exceed
the 1.6 million square feet allowed, the DDSP would need to be amended, but he felt that was
ambitious at this time.
Cm. Kohli asked if the proposal came about because of the RHNA obligation or are they
mutually exclusive and if the City is using the RHNA obligation as an opportunity to increase the
residential units in the downtown.
Mr. Baker answered that Staff noted the fact that 1,200 units are allowed in the downtown and
1,100 are already spoken for. The City is trying to increase the capacity in the downtown in
order to get more people downtown and have more activity which was part of the vision for the
DDSP. At same time, the RHNA obligation shortfall was determined and the two paths crossed.
Staff felt it was an opportunity to achieve two goals; increase the residential units in the
downtown and meet the RHNA obligation. He stated that the City is 1,075 units short of the
RHNA obligation and if the increase were in the DDSP the City would not have to look at other
areas of the City to meet that obligation.
Cm. Kohli asked how the two goals (satisfying RHNA and increasing units in the DDSP) are
different. He felt that to meet the City's RHNA obligation the City must designate the sites for
the 1,200 units, but is under no obligation to build them. He asked if the City would be more
responsible for ensuring those units are built if the units are added to other areas of the City.
Mr. Baker stated that, in other areas of the City, if a commercial site is converted to residential
land use for RHNA purposes, the commercial designation goes away and will never be
commercial in the future. Whereas, in the downtown, there is flexibility because any use is
allowed on any parcel, commercial or residential, but the City would still achieve the RHNA
obligation.
Ms. Bascom stated that Cm. Kohli is correct that the City is obligated to provide the residential
sites, but is under no obligation construct the 1,200 residential units.
Cm. Kohli stated that the City can designate whether the residential units will be added in the
downtown or somewhere else in the City, but it would still be up to a developer to go through the
process regardless of the development is under RHNA or something other than RHNA. He
Pl anning Commiuion Warch 11, 2014
WvguraarWeeting Tag e 144
stated that the 1,200 units could be built in one calendar year, over 10 years or they could never
be built. He asked if the RHNA obligation is 1,075 units.
Mr. Baker stated that the RHNA obligation is approximately 2,200 units and the City is 1,075
units short of that obligation.
Cm. Kohli asked if Staff or City Council had discussed matching the number of units one - for -one
and add 1,075 and matching the RHNA shortfall. He was concerned with the impact of more
residential units on the school district. He asked if the Commissioners had a chance to read the
letter from the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) that discussed their concerns regarding the
predicted shortfall in capacity and resources that would occur if the residential units were
increased which would potentially include more students. He felt that is a challenge and that it
was not clear if there had been discussions between the City and the school district regarding
resolving the issues.
Cm. Goel referred to Land Use Table 3 -1 in the DDSP Amendment, and asked if "regional retail"
referred to the big box stores.
Ms. Bascom read the definition of "regional retail" which is: any business that is greater than
20, 000 square feet, and generally serves a broad population...
Cm. Goel referred to Table 3 -1: Land Uses and the change to the live /work units allowed within
the Retail District. He stated that live /work units had been prohibited in the Retail District but it
is now allowed with Footnote #6 which states "Allowed throughout the Retail District except on
those properties west of San Ramon Road." He asked if that change was part of the vision for
the west side of San Ramon Road.
Ms. Bascom responded that Footnote #6 makes the distinction between residential uses being
allowed only east of San Ramon Road and not in the area west of San Ramon Road. She
stated that currently residential uses are permitted west of San Ramon Road. Live /work units
were previously prohibited in the Retail District; the current proposal would allow them in the
Retail District east of San Ramon Road.
Cm. Goel asked why live /work units are being excluding west of San Ramon Road.
Ms. Bascom responded that the proposal is to exclude all residential uses west of San Ramon
Road, whether apartments, condominiums, or live /work units; any residential uses in that small
section of the specific plan. Staff looked at the parcels west of San Ramon Road and
considered where to focus new residential development in the downtown and felt it was more
appropriate to have those units closer to BART, therefore, the proposal here is to clearly identify
that the parcels west of San Ramon Road should stay commercial uses.
Cm. Goel asked if Staff obtained an expert opinion regarding the market that indicates a
live /work scenario on that site should have an exception. He stated that he has heard from
some of the business community, in regards to transit oriented development and overall work
premise, a desire to have live /work units in the City. He felt that using the word "except" creates
a situation where the developer must go through a process, when live /work units are allowed
anywhere else in the Retail District. He stated he was not comfortable with that exception. He
understood that the City has a vision for the downtown, but felt that the vision could be carried
out without a superficial boundary being created.
TfCanning Commin son SV arcfz 11, 2814
(Rfgular5Weeting P ay e 145
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if live /work units are currently prohibited in the Retail District.
Ms. Bascom answered yes.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the restriction could be changed to allow residential with a CUP.
Cm. Goel stated that Staff has already done that in the Village Parkway District but was unsure
as to why the distinction was made for the Retail District. He felt that there could be an
opportunity for a project that could be a good fit and that a CUP would be another step that the
developer would have to go through to get the project built. He stated that he hasn't heard any
convincing market analysis, other than the vision of the DDSP, which indicates that that a
boundary should be drawn.
Ms. Bascom explained that the Retail District is the largest district in the downtown, and without
the amendment there are 100 residential units in the development pool allowed in that district;
1,100 are allowed in the Transit Oriented District and 100 in the Village Parkway District. She
stated that all residential units must be pulled from the development pool in the downtown,
which means that the City Council approves the allocation of those units for a particular project.
She stated that, as Staff reviewed the opportunity sites for residential development, they felt that
since the Retail District is the furthest from the BART station and taking a portion of the valuable
100 units and locating them west of San Ramon Road made less sense than focusing those
units at the core of the district. With this Amendment, those 100 units would be increased to
400 units which would provide more flexibility. She felt that throughout the Retail District there is
still a lot of potential for future development. Staff felt that this is an opportunity for the City
Council to determine where the focus should be for future residential development. She stated
that Staff reviewed various parcels in the Retail District which were all viable uses for the
surrounding neighborhoods, the downtown as a whole and allowing a transition of those uses to
residential did not make as much sense as focusing on the inner core of the area.
Cm. Goel stated he would agree to disagree.
Cm. O'Keefe felt it was important to address the letter from the DUSD and asked for Staff's
opinion on the letter that was received and their viewpoint on some of the statistics and
opinions.
Cm. Kohli asked if Staff had a "Plan B" if the Amendment does not pass, realizing that the City
must still meet the RHNA obligation, while keeping in mind the DUSD's concerns.
Cm. Goel stated that the school district provided an option on how to mitigate for some of the
impacts. He suggested using some of the key words within the presentation such as "enables"
and "ability" as well as "achievable for the RHNX; he felt that would make a difference when
responding to the DUSD.
Ms. Bascom stated that there is no school district representative in attendance to further explain
their concerns. She stated that she cannot speak to the validity of the analysis because it is not
the City's analysis. She stated that, if the City were to increase the development potential by an
additional 1,200 units in the DDSP, there may be projects that will take advantage of those units
this year, next year, or in ten years, the City doesn't know when that development will occur;
there may never be any projects. She felt that the school district letter read as though their
Pranning Commis on Warch 11, 2014
(fgulaarWeeting Tl a g e 146
analysis assumed that all of the units would come on -line immediately, which could have
immediate impacts on the school district. She stated that there have been on -going
conversations with the school district regarding student generation rates. She questioned if the
generation rates were for more typical developments and not higher density TOD's where there
would be fewer school age children. She referred to Cm. Kohli's comment, if Staff does not
identify additional development potential in the DDSP area, it must be identified elsewhere
within the City. She felt that it was more appropriate to identify the units in a higher density area
that would have lesser student generation rates.
Cm. Kohli asked if the school district is aware of RHNA obligation.
Mr. Baker answered yes.
Cm. Kohli asked about the discussions with the school district and felt that Ms. Bascom's
explanation was a logical one because the units must be made available and it's out of the
school district's hands. He felt that the downtown plan makes more sense than spreading it
around the City and the potential for student generation rates increasing that way, yet the school
district still sent the letter. He asked why they are still concerned.
Mr. Baker responded that Cm. Kohli's question highlights some of the very real challenges the
City faces which are well intentioned requirements that have competing interests; the HCD
requiring RHNA and housing throughout the state and then the schools have their own state
mandates and funding issues and often those requirements don't meet. He felt that the issue is
that the City must provide the housing units, but the State is not providing the funding to provide
for more schools. He stated that Staff has met with the school district extensively, they are
aware of the RHNA obligation; however, wherever the units are placed it will have an impact on
the schools and so there is not a clear answer. The DUSD has not given the City a formal
opinion other than to raise some issue, and they don't say what they want or how to solve the
issues.
Cm. Kohli asked when the public was notified of the hearing and if the DUSD knew the item was
on the agenda.
Mr. Baker answered that the City has been meeting with the school district since last summer,
and the Planning Commission meeting was publicly noticed 10 days ago.
Cm. Kohli asked if there had been an effort by the City and the school district to go up to the
State level to ask if there is some sort of exception that can be made for future analysis.
Mr. Baker answered that the school funding issues are bigger than the DUSD and there are on-
going efforts to deal with those, but the State has no waiver process.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission can add language to the Resolution that would
include that if the City is going to increase the number of residential units to meet RHNA
standards, a developer fee would be added to provide for new school facilities.
Mr. Baker felt that these are policy level issues for the City Council. He stated that the DDSP
sets a framework for the 20 -30 year horizon and provides a setting for that to happen. He
stated that with each of the projects the City Council must allocate units to that project and felt
Planning Commission 9Yarcfi 11, 2614
Wegufar eeting Page 147
that Cm. O'Keefe's suggestion could be part of that process. There are mitigation measures
that would require projects to provide funding to schools as part of their impact fees.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that, if the
additional units are added, they add framework for development impact fees to offset the
increase in units.
Mr. Baker agreed and stated that could be something to add to require additional benefits for the
school district.
Cm. Kohli asked if it would be legal under RHNA to add these types of conditions that could
prevent the project from being built and could be seen as going against the RHNA policy.
Mr. Baker felt that there are things that the City can do, but the Draft Housing Element must be
sent to the State for approval and if there are items that they consider to be roadblocks to
development, it could be a potential concern and could jeopardize the certification.
Ms. Faubion added that it is not only that there are roadblocks for the Housing Element, there
are statutory limitations on mitigations for school impacts. She stated that the State legislature
adopted statutory school fees under CEQA; therefore, the City Council has no flexibility to
require mitigation for school fees. She suggested that the City Council could look for other
funding assistance for the school district but should not frame it as a mitigation.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there could be an opportunity for the City Council, the Planning
Commission and the school district to have a study session on the proposal.
Ms. Bascom answered no. She stated that Staff received the letter from the DUSD last week.
This is the first formal response from the DUSD regarding their concerns.
Cm. O'Keefe understood that Staff had been meeting with the school district for the last 6
months, but felt that the proposal is too rushed.
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she has a different perspective and would like to share that with
the Commission during deliberations.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing.
Brad Skepner, property owner and representative of a group of owners of a parcel located west
of San Ramon Road, spoke regarding the item. He stated that he has an issue with the
limitation of development west of San Ramon Road. He stated that the parcel that they own is
where McNamara's Steak House is located. He referred to a letter from a potential developer
that the Planning Commission received at the meeting which asks that the restriction be
removed. He stated that the building is too large for the existing retail use and the configuration
and the site depth of the majority of the sites on San Ramon Road were not appropriate for a
prime retail configuration. He felt that by prohibiting residential development west of San
Ramon Road it would ensure that outmoded retail would remain in that location. He felt that
because there are 8 different parcels, with a variety of leases and owners, a larger more
meaningful retail strip would not be built in the near future. He mentioned some statistics from a
website called walk.com which indicated a "walk- score" for residential areas within immediate
access to food, parks, schools and public transportation. He felt that residential units on his
Tlaanning Commission Marche 11, 20114
vgaaharWeettng Tag e 148
property would be considered a transit oriented development because of its proximity to BART.
He stated that the sites are surrounded by multi - family residential, with a natural buffer between
the core retail and the residential zone, which is a very wide San Ramon Road. He encouraged
the Planning Commission and Staff to reexamine the restriction and allow development west of
San Ramon Road on a case -by -case basis.
Gabriel Lane, spoke regarding the project, and asked if there would be any relocation
assistance for small business owners in the area.
Mr. Baker answered that there were none currently in the DDSP Amendment, but referred him
to the Economic Development Department who may be able to give him guidance if his site
were to redevelop in the future.
Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing.
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the 1,200 additional units must be allocated somewhere in the City
and felt that the location is irrelevant to the RHNA numbers because most of the students going
into the schools will be in the areas that are considered moderate to higher income level homes.
She felt that the school district should be worried about more commercial development that is
not necessarily geared towards low and very low income residents. She asked if the RHNA
shortfall is for low and very low income units.
Mr. Baker responded that, in the concept of affordability, the units are considered affordable by
design because the units are smaller and therefore would be more affordable. He added that
the units would not be considered to be affordable in terms of the Inclusionary Housing
programs where the units would only be available to a certain income level.
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the City must allocate the numbers somewhere and the school
district is concerned about a separate issue.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that there are two issues: 1) the RHNA obligation; and 2) increasing the
number of units in the DDSP area because 1,003 are already allocated out of the 1,100 in the
pool. He felt that there is a market demand for more housing in the DDSP area.
Cm. Kohli felt that this is more of a bigger picture issue. He stated that over the last 12 months,
he has heard more and more from constituents regarding the increase in residential
development and the impact on the schools. He felt that there are two different policies from
two different State agencies and not enough communication. He felt that there have been too
many occasions where the Planning Commission looks at the near term when approving
projects and figure out the rest of the issues as they go along. He felt that the City cannot afford
to do that. He felt that the school district letter was just received and there hasn't been very
much discussion or study sessions between the City Council, the school district, commissioners
and Staff, etc. He felt that there should be a lot more deliberation on the topic and does not feel
comfortable moving forward with the item until there is more discussion.
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she doesn't disagree with some of Cm. Kohli's comments. She
felt that the school district and the City Council need to meet and discuss everything, but what
the school district is concerned about is not the same issue.
Tranning Commission March 11, 2014
gurar 3feeting T a g e 149
Cm. Goel stated that the RNHA obligation has a process and timeline for a response and if they
don't meet the timeline then they would have to go through the process within 4 years instead of
8 years. He stated that Staff's presentation used the word "enables" and he felt that should be
taken into context because "enables" shows the ability that the City can achieve the RHNA
requirement. He understood the school district's concerns, and that they must voice their
opinion at every point of the process. He stated that there is no guarantee that these homes will
be built in this area; there is no calculation that shows the impacts on the schools located on the
west. He stated that the school district's letter shows the calculation for schools on the east
side, so the density level relative to students mention whether the school district should be
looking at density, and he felt that should be a separate conversation. He felt that it is not the
Planning Commission's responsibility to make recommendations because it is unknown what
will happen. He stated that, at the time a large development submits an application, the
Planning Commission and City Council have a policy based decision on that development and
felt that is when the school district needs to weigh in on the level of impacts. He felt that the
school district's letter made a statement that Staff can refer and then address it in detail when
the context is created and defined. He asked Staff about timelines, the impacts and what it will
mean if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council for pause and
evaluation. He stated that he was not encouraging that recommendation, but felt it was
important to mention.
Mr. Baker responded that there are timing issues related to RHNA, which are a part of the issue,
but there also is the concept to increase the capacity to further enhance and activate the
downtown area with residential units. The other piece is to meet the City's RHNA obligation.
He stated that there are State law requirements to meet, with penalties if the requirements are
not met, including instead of having an 8 year program the City must go back in 4 years. He
stated that doesn't mean that the City does not have to meet the RHNA obligation, or that the
numbers will go down. He felt that it would be best to figure out a solution, adopt the Housing
Element and have the full 8 years. The deadline is January 2015 and Staffs goal is to have it
completed by the end of 2014. He felt that the Planning Commissioners are struggling with
some real issues and having a good discussion and keying in on the critical pieces. He felt that
it was important for the Planning Commission to keep in mind that they are being asked to make
a recommendation and part of the recommendation is the appropriateness of the proposal; does
the City want to see more development, more activation in the DDSP and does this meet the
goals of the DDSP, is this something that the City Council should consider, and the school
district is a part of that. He felt that the Planning Commission's discussions will help the City
Council frame the conversation. He stated that the Planning Commission doesn't have to make
a decision to approve or deny the Amendment tonight but must make a recommendation so that
the City Council can understand the community's viewpoint.
Cm. Do felt that it would be important, in the future, for the school district to show their
calculations when they voice their concerns. She stated that she lives in a large house and has
no children but felt that the school district would count her house as having some number of
children; therefore, her house would be a negative impact on the school district numbers. She
wanted to know how they arrived at their calculations that determined where the bigger impact
will be.
Cm. Kohli stated that he is a big advocate of more development diversity in Dublin and felt it
was too quick to take away potential commercial development and change it to residential
without giving the issue more time. He was not yet convinced that they need more residential in
the downtown area. He felt that the two issues brought up by the public regarding the limitations
Aanning commission Warcfa 11, 2014
cRggular Weeting �F a g e 150
of development west of San Ramon Road and assistance to small businesses that may be
impacted, are serious concerns and he felt that there should be more detailed discussions.
Cm. Do stated that the DDSP area is the only district in which either residential or commercial
uses can occur on each parcel, but if commercial square footage is decreased in other parts of
the City, the commercial square footage would be lost. She thought that should be kept in mind
when making the recommendation.
Cm. Goel agreed with Cm. Do and felt that Staff has identified the ability to achieve the RHNA
requirements and goals in an opportune area. He felt that a side benefit would be if the square
footage of retail was reduced in the DDSP area then maybe some retail space requirement
could be moved to the east side which a lot of the community has been talking about. He stated
that the developers feel that there is too much retail square footage in Dublin. He felt that this
project identifies an opportunity that would make that comment possibly go away — taking the
excess from DDSP and moving it to the east. He agreed with the developers regarding not
prohibiting residential development west of San Ramon Road. He felt that the Planning
Commission should make the recommendation that Footnote #6 from Table 3 -1 that states
"except on those parcels west of San Ramon Road" should be struck out. He stated that
making that exception is a bold statement and felt that the area has a mixed -use function. He
felt that there are no live /work units in Dublin and if a developer can see that then the City
should provide that opportunity. He stated that the application would still need to go through the
process of approval, but he felt that it was not appropriate in the DDSP document.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Goel if he felt that the footnote should be removed and allow
residential west of San Ramon Road. She felt that if it is allowed the application would not have
to come to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Baker responded that, if the plan was to allow residential west of San Ramon Road, then
Site Development Review would be required but only for design, there would not be a zoning
action.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Commission could allow residential west of San Ramon Road
but require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Cm. Goel stated that he is open to considering a CUP for residential development in the area,
but felt that it would be an extra step for the developer. He felt that using the word "except" in
the DDSP document sets a negative tone.
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that residential is currently prohibited in this area and so nothing
would change.
Cm. Goel understood, but felt now was the time to make that consideration and residential could
be a good fit in that area.
Cm. Goel stated that in some of the other developments a transition plan is reviewed to
determine how to transition from medium density to high density.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that the ULI consultant said to let the market dictate where development
should be then there should be no restriction.
Aanning Commission Warcfr 11, 2014
Wvgu(.ar3feeting 2' a g e 151
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she came to the meeting with one thought and now felt she
could go either way. She asked Mr. Baker to explain why Staff added the restriction.
Mr. Baker responded that there are only a finite number of units allowed in the DDSP area and
Staff tried to focus the resources where the goals of the specific plan can be achieved for a
walkable, vibrant downtown. He stated that going out to the fringes of the Retail District area
will be further from BART and the synergy of core of the downtown. Adding to that the width of
San Ramon Road makes it feel separated from the other portions of the downtown and would
water down the resources. He stated that most of the businesses on the west side of San
Ramon Road are fairly successful retail businesses and would not be right for redevelopment.
He felt that there are only a few sites in the area that could convert to residential. Those sites
are small and would only allow for a very small residential project, and not conducive to place
making. Staff felt that, if there are only a certain number of units, they should be focused where
the changes and activation can occur for a cohesive development.
Cm. Goel felt that Mr. Baker made some good points, but they were related to residential, he
was more interested in live /work units which are a little different. He understands that San
Ramon Road is very wide, but there are crosswalks, and individuals can walk to transit. He felt
that the Transit Oriented District is very close to this area. He stated that he would like
encourage live /work units in the area west of San Ramon Road. He felt that there is very little
opportunity for live /work units in the City and that not allowing residential west of San Ramon
Road was shortsighted.
Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Goel and stated that she like the live /work opportunity and
would be willing to recommend a discussion on that issue. She did not like that it takes away
density in the TOD area because she felt that Staff did a great job of allocating the units in that
area. She felt that increasing the density in the TOD made a lot of sense. She stated that the
DDSP vision was to create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, and felt it was not very pedestrian
friendly to cross 6 lanes of traffic. She did not feel it is a bad idea to allow residential west of
San Ramon Road with the exception of live /work or mixed -use.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked, if the Commission approved an increase in density in the TOD, what
that would look like. She felt that currently there are a lot of apartment rentals and it would be
good to have some ownership in the area, such as the Tralee development. She stated that
Tralee was designed as a condominium project but was converted to apartment rentals. She
felt the qualities of the buildings are nice and that the developers "step it up" when there is
ownership involved. She felt that most of the community are homeowners and when the density
in the TOD area is increased there could be more transient people and having ownership
opportunities will bring more active community members.
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that in increasing the density in the TOD the quality. of architecture,
materials and public space should also increase. She shared some images of architecture that
has been built in more dense areas and distributed some of the pictures to the Planning
Commission.
Cm. Goel agreed with Chair Bhuthimethee and stated that he has always supported Transit
Oriented development and pedestrian friendly environments. He felt that it is good to have the
framework for live /work units to be a viable option. He stated that he understood the vision as
part of the General Plan but still felt that the exception for residential west of San Ramon Road
(Footnote #6 on Table 3 -1) should be deleted which would allow for residential development in
P&nning Commission Warch 11, 2014
,RvgurarWeeiing P a g e 152
that area. He understood the unit allocation, but felt that flexibility in the document is the right
direction.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would feel more comfortable with a recommendation that included
the City Council meeting with the school district prior to adopting the Resolutions.
Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. O'Keefe but wanted to discuss the recent rash of burglaries across
Dublin and the public's concern regarding the lack of resources in the City in regards to public
safety and how that is addressed. He suggested that, as the Planning Commission adds more
residential units to our City, those issues need to be addressed. He felt that the item came to
the table for discussion but there was not enough information for him to feel comfortable making
a decision. He stated that he could not vote yes for this item.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if Cm. Kohli was asking for the item to come back to the Planning
Commission for more discussion or if he would vote no.
Cm. Kohli stated that he is willing to listen to the options, but he did not feel confident that a
recommendation to have more deliberation would happen.
Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation
which could be denial.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if they could continue the item.
Mr. Baker answered that the request is for policy related issues that are for City Council;
therefore, it is appropriate to make a recommendation to the City Council.
Cm. Goel felt that Cm. Kohli's comment was outside the scope of the item, and felt that the City
has a formula to address public safety, is exceeding that and has proven that. He stated that
the proposal is an amendment to an existing document.
Cm. Kohli stated that he was not saying that the City has not adequately addressed the issue of
public safety; he stated that he has heard concerns from constituents in terms of their feelings
regarding a lack of resources. He stated that he did not place blame, and understands that they
should focus on the agenda item at hand, but as commissioners they are responsible for
understanding how the agenda item will impact the residents. He felt that it is their responsibility
and that is what he is trying to do. He felt that there is not enough information to make a
recommendation to move forward with the item because he needs to understand what the
greater impacts might be.
Cm. Goel recognized what Cm. Kohli stated but felt that this is an amendment to a guidance
document that shows the City's ability to meet their RHNA obligation. He stated that it is not an
enforcing document that states what will happen and when. He felt it was important to
understand that as the Planning Commission approves projects that they could be setting the
wrong stage by including a topic of discussion that is actually a policy based decision and
outside the scope of this document. He stated that the concerns of the DUSD and the feelings
of the public are two separate topics. He felt that this document does not need to address that
issue at this point. He recognized that the school district has concerns but felt it would be better
addressed at the City Council level.
Aanning Commission .march 11, 2014
gulazr ,'Meeting Page 153
Cm. Kohli agreed and stated that he wanted to focus on this scope by saying he believes that
the City does not need an additional 1,200 units in the downtown because the area is already
active. He asked the other Commissioners why they believe that the City needs more
residential units downtown. He felt that the DDSP does not need to be amended.
Cm. Goel stated that nothing is set in stone; this is a framework for a decision to be made in the
future, allowing the application of these types of density to be achieved. He stated that in order
to have a successful TOD development it must have a higher density. He mentioned some of
the TOD development and an existing storage facility that could be converted to high density
housing within the TOD because it is close to a viable transit system that provides homes for all
levels of economics. He stated that it doesn't mean that all TOD development has to be low
income; it means that it provides an opportunity for residents to walk to anywhere in the area.
Cm. Kohli asked why the document is being amended if nothing is set in stone.
Cm. Goel felt that reducing the commercial square footage is an opportunity for more diversity
throughout the City. He felt it was also an opportunity for more diversity in residential from the
east side of Dublin to the west side. He felt there is not a fair share document that provides the
framework to do equal distribution of the "penalties within the City of Dublin." He felt that all the
development is happening on the east side, except for retail. He felt that the document allows
two functions; taking away some of the retail from the west side and allowing it to be applied to
the east and it allows the ability to meet the state requirements to achieve the goals and apply it
to the west. He felt that it is the time and he felt that Staff has done a good presentation. His
only issue is the exception of residential west of San Ramon Road. He stated that he would
support the item even without removing the exception because of the validity of the rest of the
document. He felt that the document has no meaning to the DUSD but merely provided an
opportunity to make a reference for a future time. He stated that the DUSD closed a school on
the west side therefore they have the ability, but not the funds.
Cm. Kohli asked how should the Planning Commission move forward.
Cm. Goel suggested making a recommendation to accept it with the modification to remove
Footnote #6 on Table 3 -1 but was open to any other conversations.
Cm. Do asked if Cm. Goel would be willing to require a CUP for any residential west of San
Ramon Road only for live /work units. She stated that she was willing to remove Footnote #6,
but because live /work units are conditional in the Village Parkway District, she would like them
to be included in the Retail District.
Cm. Goel felt that Staff's argument was that residential had no function and no bridge but he felt
that live /work would provide a transition. He stated that his recommendation is to strike
Footnote #6 from the document.
Cm. Do stated that she would prefer that residential be in the Transit Oriented District and only
live /work units to the west of San Ramon Road.
Cm. Goel responded that the definition of transit oriented development is that it is accessible to
transit; in general, most transit oriented development is within Y2 mile of transit which is walking
distance. He felt that it was feasible to walk from the area west of San Ramon Road and if not
there is a bus system that serves the area.
(1'ranning Commission . famfe 11, 2014
W fgufarWeeting �P a g e 154
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that there are a few suggestions which are:
1) Recommend that the City Council meet with DUSD before taking action on the proposal.
• Cm. Goel was in favor
• Cm. Kohli was not in favor
• Cm. O'Keefe was in favor
• Cm. Do was in favor
• Chair Bhuthimethee was in favor
2) Recommend removing the Footnote #6 from Table 3 -1
• Cm. Goel was in favor
• Cm. Kohli was not in favor
• Cm. O'Keefe was in favor
• Cm. Do was in favor
• Chair Bhuthimethee was in favor
Cm. Kohli asked if the other Commissioners were in favor of moving forward with the proposal
with the two suggested recommendations.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would not be comfortable moving forward with the proposal without
the two recommendations included.
Cm. Kohli did not feel that he could support the proposal or the recommendations, therefore, did
not feel a straw poll was necessary.
Chair Bhuthimethee did not feel that the meeting between the City Council and DUSD was
necessary. She felt it was a good idea for them to meet in general. She stated that she is open
to removing Footnote #6 from Table 3 -1.
Luke Sims, Community Development Director, felt that it would be helpful to understand that if
the Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation that asks the City Council and
the DUSD Board to meet prior to their action, to determine what they would like them to discuss.
He stated that the Board and the City Council recently had a discussion regarding this issue and
there have been ongoing discussions regarding student generation, overcrowding, impact on
schools of development, etc. He stated that those kinds of meetings have been held, including
in a public forum and, in case the Planning Commission is unaware, that these meetings have
been very public and open and a very large issue that everyone is aware of. He felt that the
Planning Commission should be aware of that fact before directing or suggesting actions by the
City Council that may be already taking place.
Cm. O'Keefe thanked Mr. Sims for sharing that information with the Planning Commission. He
stated that he still wanted to include the condition because, given the importance of the issue,
he felt strongly that the City Council and the DUSD should meet. He felt that the City Council
could receive the Planning Commission's recommendation and determine that they don't need
another meeting in order to make a decision and that would be OK with him. He stated that he
does not feel comfortable supporting this proposal without the recommendation and would vote
against it without it. He understood that, if the DUSD felt passionately about the issue, they
would have been in attendance at the meeting. But, given the importance of the issue and
taking into consideration the marketing of our City as having a good school system, he wanted
Pianning Commiuion . arch 11, 2014
Wvgular.,Veetin { g 4> u g e 15S
to encourage the City Council to consider meeting with the school district before they take an
action.
Cm. Goel wanted to clarify the recommendations that will be included; he asked if the context
for using the word "consideration" for City Council to meet and evaluate comments made in this
subject document.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would support using the word "consideration" in the
recommendation regarding the City Council meeting with the DUSD.
Mr. Baker felt that the Planning Commission wanted to recommend that the City Council
consider the impacts to the DUSD before they make a final decision.
Cm. Goel did not want to go to that level, referring to the letter from the DUSD.
Mr. Baker responded that it is difficult for the Planning Commission to support the City Council's
weigh in on the letter from the DUSD because it may change and is not a full analysis. But he
felt that the Planning Commission is concerned about the impacts to the school district.
Cm. O'Keefe agreed but wanted to hear the wording for the recommendation.
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Cm. O'Keefe was recommending a meeting but Cm. Goel was
recommending that the City Council consider a meeting.
Cm. Goel responded that the recommendation should use the word "consider" because there
are on -going meetings between the City Council and DUSD. He felt that the Planning
Commission is basing the recommendation on the letter received from DUSD.
Cm. Kohli suggested that the recommendation should state that the Planning Commission is
recommending that the City Council engage in further deliberations with the DUSD before
making a final decision. He felt that deliberations have been on -going but the Planning
Commission would like to see more deliberations occur.
Chair Bhuthimethee did not feel that a meeting is necessary because they have been having
conversations, although she would still encourage a meeting, not discourage one.
Cm. Goel suggested making a motion and then the Planning Commission can revise it prior to
voting.
Cm. Kohli asked for Staff to suggest how the recommendation should be made.
Mr. Baker suggested that the Planning Commission is perhaps getting a little too deep into
directing the City Council and the reality is that the Planning Commission can make the
recommendation but the City Council will decide how to proceed. He felt that the Planning
Commission wanted the City Council to consider the impacts to the school district but it is up to
the City Council to decide how they do that. He suggested that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council consider the impacts to the school district and let the City
Council decide the appropriate mechanism.
Pranning Commission Warcfi 11, 2014
WsgaafarMeeting q? a g e 156
On a motion by Cm. Goel seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -1, the Planning
Commission adopted the Resolution with the following recommendations:
1) Recommend that the City Council consider a meeting with the DUSD regarding potential
impacts, prior to adopting the Amendments.
2) Recommend striking Footnote #6 of Table 3 -1 regarding the properties west of San
Ramon Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL SQUARE
FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY
773,000 SQUARE FEET AND CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR THE
TRANSIT - ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Mr. Baker informed the Commission that there is information in front of them regarding
the Planning Commissioner's Academy and a lunch is scheduled for the group on
Thursday, March 26, 2014, with a location to follow.
10.3 Cm. Kohli referred to his comments regarding not having enough information to make a
decision. He wanted to make it clear that he felt that Staff did a great job of educating the
Planning Commission and thanked them for their support and for always putting them in
a position to make an informed decision. The Planning Commission all agreed.
Planning commission Warcfi 11, 2014
ftufarWeeting T a g e 157
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:28:31 PM
Respectfully submitted,
ARUOU deal--
Planning Cm-m-5
- omission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff BAer'(-�
Assistant Community Development Director
GWINUTES120141PLANNING COMMISSION103.11.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES. docx
Aanning Commission March 11, 2014
Wfgular Weeting Tag e 1 58
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL SQUARE
FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN
PLPA- 2013 -00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road
to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09 -11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08 -11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts
associated with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to
accommodate additional residential and non- residential uses; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west
of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments, hereafter
referred to as the "2014 DDSP Amendment" or "the Project "; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated February 24, 2014, incorporated
herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A -1, to determine if additional
environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially
significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for the 2014 DDSP Amendment, as no substantial changes have been
proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require
major revisions of the previous EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been
identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts were
discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated
February 24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
A -1, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP Amendment and its relation to the analysis
in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum,
all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the Addendum and Initial Study, both dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit A -1).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) adopting an Addendum to the DDSP EIR, including
the related Initial Study, for the 2014 DDSP Amendment project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do, Goel
NOES: Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KW 609 L—
n Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Com unity Development Director
G:IPAM20131PLPA- 2013 -00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncreaselPC Mtg 01.14.20141Att 4 - Reso Addendum.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY
773,000 SQUARE FEET AND CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR THE
TRANSIT- ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS
PLPA- 2013 -00073
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 09 -11
approving the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and associated implementation actions.
At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution 08 -11 certifying the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by
reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated
with intensifying development in the 284 acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional
residential and non - residential uses; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the DDSP to increase the
number of residential units permitted in Downtown by 1,200 and decrease the amount of
commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet and to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit - Oriented and Retail Districts, hereafter referred to as the "2014 DDSP
Amendment" or "the Project "; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February
24, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2014 DDSP
Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on March 11, 2014, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -11, dated March 11, 2014,
recommending City Council adoption of the CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum,
all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit A (removing the amendment related to
prohibiting residential uses west of San Ramon Road), approving amendments to the General
Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan
as so amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the
amended Specific Plan will continue to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do, Goel
NOES: Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APAAN 4061—
Planning Commission h a i r p e r s o n
ATTEST:
Assistant Co unity Development Director
GAPAM20131PLPA- 2013 -00073 DDSP Amendment Residential lncreaselPC Mg 01.14.20141Att 3 - Reso SPA and GPA.DOC
2