HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 West Dublin BART/Village Parkway CITY CLERK
File # 410-55
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan; PA
99-055, Downtown Core Specific Plan; and, PA 99-054, Village
Parkway Specific Plan, Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, and
repeal of portions of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(Report Prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration
Resolution adopting the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and
repealing portions of the t 987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(with Specific Plan attached as Exhibit A, and modifications
attached as Exhibit B)
Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendments for the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan (with General Plan Text attached as
Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as
Exhibit C)
Resolution adopting the Downtown Core Specific Plan with Senior
Housing (Residential) and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan (with Specific Plan attached as Exhibit A,
modifications attached as Exhibit B, and Land Use Plan attached as
Exhibit C)
Resolution adopting the Downtown Core Specific Plan without
Senior Housing (Residential) and repealing portions of the 1987
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (with Specific Plan attached as
Exhibit A, modifications attached as Exhibit B, and Land Use Map
attached as Exhibit C)
Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendments for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan with High Density Residential on
1.69 acres (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B,
and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C)
Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendments for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan without High Density Residential on
1.69 acres (with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B,
and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C)
Resolution adopting the Village Parkway Specific Plan as
recommended by the Task Force and the Planning Commission (as
shown as Alternative 3 in the Specific Plan) and repealing portions
of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (with Specific Plan
COPIES TO: PA File
Village Parkway Task Force
Robert Enea 4
ITEM NO. 6~
attached as Exhibit A, Village Parkway Proposed Street Design as
Exhibit B, and modification attached as Exhibit C)
9) Resolution adopting the Village Parkway Specific Plan as
recommended by Staff, with the existing 'Village Parkway right of
way (as shown in Exhibit 7A in the Specific Plan) as the established
alignment for Village Parkway and repealing portions of the 1987
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (with Specific Plan attached as
Exhibit A, the Existing Roadway Alignment for Village Parkway
attached as Exhibit B, and modification attached as Exhibit C)
10) Initial Study/Negative Declaration
11) West Dublin BART Specific Plan (previously received by Council)
12) Downtown Core Specific Plan (previously received by Council)
13) Village Parkway Specific Plan (previously received by Council)
14) Staff Responses to Letters of Comment from Ken and Marc Harvey;
William Burns representing Crown Chevrolet with Staff Responses;
Julia Hurd of the Target Corporation; Randal Potterf of Cappozzoli
Advisory to Pensions, representing PFRS Dublin Corp. and Erin
Kvistad of McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP
representing the PFRS Dublin Corp; Robert Enea of St. Michael
Investment; David Gold of Morrison & Foerster, LLP representing
AMB.
15) Letter from Omni-Means dated December 8, 2000, West Dublin
BART Specific Plan Area: Increase in Proposed Office Uses
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4.
5.
,
,
10.
Hear Staff Presentation
Open Public Hearing
Question Staff, Applicant and the Public
Close the Public Hearing and Deliberate
Adopt Resolution approving the Negative Declaration
(Attachment 1 )
Adopt Resolution approving the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(Attachment 2 with Specific Plan attached-as Exhibit A with
modifications attached as Exhibit B)
Adopt Resolution approving the General Plan Amendments for the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Attachment 3 with General Plan
Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map
attached as Exhibit C)
Adopt Resolution approving the Downtown Core Specific Plan with
Senior Housing (Residential) and repealing portions of the 1987
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 4 with Specific Plan
attached as Exhibit A, modifications attached as Exhibit B, and
Land Use Plan as Exhibit C) or
Adopt Resolution approving the Downtown Core Specific Plan ·
without Senior Housing (Residential) and repealing portions of the
1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 5 with Specific
Plan attached as Exhibit A, modifications attached as Exhibit B, and
Land Use Plan as Exhibit C)
Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendment for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan with High Density Residential on
1.69 acres (Attachment 6 with General Plan Text attached as
2
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as
Exhibit C) or
Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendment for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan without High Density Residential on
1.69 acres (Attachment 7 with General Plan Text attached as
Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as
Exhibit C)
Adopt Resolution approving the Village Parkway Specific Plan
(Attachment 8 with Specific Plan as Exhibit A, Alternative 3
Roadway Alignment, as recommended by the Task Force and
Planning Commission, attached as Exhibit B, and modification
attached as Exhibit C) and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan or
Adopt Resolution approving the Village Parkway Specific Plan
(Attachment 9 with Specific Plan as Exhibit A, Existing Roadway
Alignment, as recommended by Staff, attached as Exhibit B, and
modification attached as Exhibit C) and repealing portions of the
1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Direct Staff to initiate an amendment to include the Enea property in
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan after the adoption of this Plan.
Direct Staff to include evaluation of potential sites for Senior
Housing with the downtown area within the scope of the Affordable
Housing Implementation Plan now being prepared.
Direct Staff to evaluate possible Floor Area Ratio amendments for
the Crown Chevrolet property in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan Area when a specific development plan is formally proposed
for the property.
This application includes consideration of three Specific Plans for adoption prepared to provide a
framework for revitalizing and improving the downtown area of Dublin. General Plan Amendments to
add a Mixed-Use designationcategory, to re-designate some land uses, and to modify the maximum
allowable F.A.R.'s for the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans areas, and the repeal
of portions ofthe existing Downtown Dublin Specific Plan related to Development Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8,
10, and 11, are also being proposed to assist in the implementation of the three proposed Specific Plans.
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area includes approximately 70 acres of land and is located north
of the I~580 freeway, east of San Ramon Road, south of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of Golden
Gate Drive. The Downtown Core Specific Plan area, consisting of approximately 51 acres of land, is
located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the 1-80 freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevard and east
of the Dublin Place shopping center. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally located along
the east and west sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley
Boulevard to the north, and consists of approximately 31 acres o~ land. A more complete summary and
analysis can be reviewed in the Staff report for the November 21, 2000 City Council agenda.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON NOVEMBER 21, 2000: On Novemlcer 21, 2000, the City Council
held a public hearing on the Specific Plans and associated General Plan Amendments. The City Council
received public testimony at that time and continued consideration of the plans and the associated
applications to December 19, 2000, with the intent to take action on that date. The City Council requested
several modifications to the Specific Plans, which are detailed and evaluated in the Analysis section of
this report.
3
The Specific Plan requires the preparation of a financing and funding plan following adoption of the plan
to estimate the costs for all public improvements, determine the amount of funding necessary to complete
the improvements and identify potential funding sources. As a separate item on the November 21 st City
Council agenda, the City Council approved a contract with the consulting firm of Freedman Tung and
Bottomley Downtown Streetscape Implementation Program for the Specific Plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 26, 2000, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing to consider the three Specific Plans for recommendation to the City Council. At that time,
the Commission continued the public hearing and consideration of the three Plans to October 10, 2000 to
allow additional time to review the specific plan documents and to receive further comments on the plans.
At the meeting of October 10, 2.000, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendments pertaining to that specific plan to
the City Council, along with the Negative Declaration for all three of the Plans.
Consideration of the Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans was continued by the Planning
Commission to the meeting of October 24, 2000. At that meeting, the Planning Commission adopted
resolutions to recommend the Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plans, and the General Plan
Amendments pertaining to the Downtown Core Specific Plan to the City Council.
ANALYSIS:
The following is a discussion and analysis of the modifications to the three proposed Downtown Specific
Plans suggested at the City Council public hearing on November 21, 2000. The City received several
letters of comment on the Plans from individuals during the document review period. Responses to these
comments are included in the discussion below.
West Dublin BART Specific Plan
The intent of the Specific Plan is to promote transit-oriented development using the proximity of the West
Dublin BART station as a catalyst. Transit-oriented development is intended to include a mix of higher
intensity residential complexes, primarily attached apartment and condominium dwellings, mid-rise
' offices, specialty retail uses, lodging and similar uses that have a pedestrian orientation rather than
oriented to automobiles. The issues discussed by the City Council on November 21, 2000 which would
generate modifications in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan include height limits for structures, an
FAR increase for areas shown as Office on the Land Use Plan, a request for inclusion of property in the
Specific Plan area by Robert Enea of St. Michael Investment, and a request by Crown Chevrolet to
change the land use and increase in FAR for their property at Golden Gate Drive and Dublin Boulevard.
The Resolution to adopt the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and to repeal the appropriate portions of
the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan is contained in Attachment 2. This resolution includes an exhibit,
Exhibit B, establishing modifications to be included in the Plan as discussed by the Planning Commission,
the City Council and this staff report. The resolution for the associated General Plan Amendments is
contained in Attachment 3.
Maximum Height for Structures: To create a more traditional downtown environment, the Specific Plan
establishes a greater maximum building height of six stories or 75 feet, whereas the Zoning Ordinance
currently allows a height of up to 45 feet in industrial districts and 35 feet in commercial districts. At the
Planning Commission hearing on October 10, 2000, a modification to the height limit to increase it to 10
stories in the Plan was suggested to reflect the development proposal and hotel design submitted by Jones,
Lang, LaSalle (JLL) for the property owned by BART, adjacent to the Transit Center. However,
following that date, a more recent proposal by JLL indicates that the hotel is proposed to be eight stories
in height, with the BART parking structure a maximum of five stories in height. The City Council
4
discussed the height limit at their November 21 st meeting and gave the indication that a maximum of eight
stories in this portion of the downtown may be more suitable. This revision is contained in Exhibit B of
the Resolution for adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Attachment 2).
JLL's current development proposal shows an increase in square footage of 109,864 square feet for the
hotel portion of the project from the original conceptual plan reviewed by staff. According to Omni-
Means, the traffic consultant for the Specific Plan, even though there will be an increase in square
footage, increasing the FAR on the property to 1.12, no increase in traffic or degradation of the LOS in
the area is anticipated as traffic generation rates are based on the number of rooms in the hotel. This
number (240 rooms) has remained unchanged from the original conceptual plan submitted by JLL.
Reduction inTraf~c Lanes on Golden Gate Drive near the BART Station: At the City Council meeting
on November 21, 2000, JLL suggested to the City Council that Golden Gate Drive be widened to four
lanes only from Dublin Boulevard to St. Patrick Way, and be maintained with two lanes of traffic between
St. Patrick Way and the BART Station. The proposed traffic mitigation measures recommended by the
traffic analysis for the Specific Plan include improvement of this roadway for four lanes of traffic between
Dublin Boulevard and the BART Station as the intersection of Golden Gate Drive and Dublin Boulevard
would operate at level of service (LOS) E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour with the
Specifi.c Plan and BART generated traffic without mitigation. Due to the short distance between Dublin
Boulevard and St. Patrick Way, there are not enough linear feet of roadway to allow a smooth merge of
traffic between St. Patrick Way and the BART station. 'This could create traffic congestion which could
affect both the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive and also the intersection of
Amador Plaza Road and St. Patrick Way. Additionally, .staff is presently reviewing the Draft EIR for the
West Dublin BART Station which also discusses the traffic impacts and mitigation measures for this
planning area, and staff will be meeting with BART representatives soon to discuss the related issues.
Because of this, decreasing the lanes of traffic near the BART Station is not recommended at this time.
The JLL development plan is in the preliminary stages, and staff recommends that this issue be reviewed
during the plan development process for that project to assess the impact further. If a reduction in lanes is
determined to be appropriate at that time, an amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan can be
proposed as part of that project for approval.
Goal Related to Public Art: As enhancement of the visual quality in the City is important to Dublin, the
City Council recommended that a goal related to the inclusion of public art in developments and public
areas, such as plazas, be included in the Downtown Specific Plans. Staff recommends that this goal be
added to the goals in The West Dublin BART Specific Plan under Visual Quality and Design as Goal 17
on page 6 of the Plan. The goals following it would be renumbered accordingly. The proposed goal is
included in Exhibit B of the Resolution for adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Attachment
2).
Request to Increase FAR for Office Land Use: A letter was submitted at the City Council hearing by
David Gold of Morrison and Foerster, representing AMB, a potential purchaser of the Cor-o-Van
warehouse site, requesting an increase in the FAR from .87 to 1.00 for the portion of that property shown
as Office on the Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit 9 of the Specific Plan). All areas shown in the Plan
as Office total approximately 6.98 acres. Staffs opinion was that all of the properties shown in the Office
category on Table 5 (Maximum Development Potential) of the Specific Plan should also be allowed to
benefit from the increased FAR. Therefore, because traffic generation rates are dependent on FAR's, a
FAR of 1.00 was applied to 6.98 acres and tested by the traffic consultant. This FAR would create
approximately 40,000 square feet more of office space than a FAR of .87. Although this increased square
footage would generate more traffic over that originally shown in the table, the traffic consultant has
indicated that the increase would not generate a significant amount of additional traffic and the traffic
mitigation proposed in the Specific Plan should be sufficient to mitigate this increase (refer to Attachment
15, December 8, 2000 letter from Omni-Means). Table 5 of the Specific Plan has been revised and is
5
contained in Exhibit B of the Resolution for adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
(Attachment 2).
Mr. Gold also recommended modification of the definition of "Mixed-Use" in the proposed General Plan
Amendment language to b.e consistent with the definition in the Specific Plan. Staff agrees with this
change and the revised language is contained in Exhibit A of the Resolution for adoption of the General
Plan Amendments for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Attachment 3). The letter requests, also,
that the definition be reworded to allow flexibility in the mix of uses on a site and not require residential
use be combined with a retail or office use. A modification such as this would not fulfill the goal of the
new Mixed-Use land use category, which is to combine housing and commercial uses in the downtown
area, particularly close to transit facilities and services. If the residential element were removed from this
specific site, the Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) project would contain the only residential development in the
area. The intent of redesignating this particular property was to continue some residential use beyond the
JLL development to create a transit village.
Additionally, Mr. Gold requested that the Specific Plan text state flexibility would be allowed in how uses
were oriented on the site when more than one land use designation was on the property. It has been the
City' s policy to be flexible on the location of uses on a particular property when more than one land use is
designated on the site within the boundaries of a development. In reviewing a plan for the redevelopment
of the Cor-o-Van site, flexibility would be allowed in determining the appropriate location for various
uses. No additional policy or change is necessary at this time. A letter of response to Mr. Gold has been
prepared and is contained in Attachment 14.
Request for Inclusion of Enea Plaza in Specific Plan Area: Robert Enea of St. Michael Investment has
expressed concern in a letter dated that his property, Enea Plaza, is not included in the Specific Plan area
and would not receive the benefits of a higher FAR, as other properties near the BART Station would.
Staff met with Mr. Enea and explained that the property had been recently redeveloped and it was not
anticipated that a change in use would occur over the five to seven year time life of the Specific Plan
when the boundary of the Specific Plan area was determined.
In determining the potential land uses and FAR's for properties within the Specific Plan area, an extensive
economic analysis of existing and projected market demands was prepared by a consulting land use
economist. Along with this, individual properties were evaluated in regard to possible transitions in use
over a relatively short period of time. Based on this information, a thorough traffic and circulation
analysis was prepared to assist in determining the maximum intensity of development which could be
supported by the existing transportation system, programmed roadway improvements, the introduction of
the BART station, and additional traffic mitigation measures to ensure that major downtown intersections
continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. As the Enea Plaza property was not included within
the Specific Plan boundaries, this extensive and complex study of the site has not been done nor included
in the environmental analysis of project effects. Staff recommends that the City initiate a Specific Plan
Amendment to include that area in the planning area following adoption of the Plan. This
recommendation is included in the Recommendation section of this report. A letter of response has been
sent to the commenter explaining the rationale for this recommendation, and is contained in Attachment'
14.
Request for Change in Land Use/FAR for Crown Chevrolet Property: A letter to the City Council dated
September 26,2000 was received from William Bums, representing Crown Chevrolet, regarding the
impacts of proposed traffic mitigation measures and improvements on Golden Gate Drive contained in the'
West Dublin BART Specific Plan to the auto dealership's property. The letter and the staff response are
contained in Attachment 14. Another letter dated November 16, 2000 was received from Mr. Bums prior
to the last Council meeting requesting a change in land use for the property located at Dublin Boulevard
and Golden Gate Drive to permit construction of a building twelve or more stories in height. In the
6
present Specific Plan, the property is assumed to remain as an auto dealership with the existing FAR of
· 18. This assumption that the property would remain under the existing use was made based on
conversations with Crown Chevrolet.
No indication was previously given to staff that the use would change over the five to seven year period
of the Plan. Because of this, traffic generation rates for the planning area were also projected based on the
existing land use and FAR. To change the land use and FAR at this time would require reevaluation of
the traffic analysis, which might result in additional traffic mitigation measures in the area. Additionally,
a building height of twelve or more stories would be greater than that recommended by the Planning
Commission, and even greater than the eight story limit discussed by the City Council on November 21,
2000. Staff recommends that the City Council advise the property owner to initiate an amendment to the
Plan when the existing auto dealership use is to be terminated, and the related traffic evaluation and other
studies could be undertaken at that time.
Downtown Core Specific Plan
The Downtown Core Specific Plan is located immediately north of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
area. The intent of this Specific Plan is to maintain the viability of existing "big box" retail uses and to
increase the appearance and functionality of the area by promoting a mix of smaller scale specialty retail,
office, mixed use, residential and similar uses. At the same time, the attractiveness of the area to visitors
would be increased through the construction of more public plazas and open spaces to create a true
downtown structure. Ideally, the economic vitality of the Specific Plan area would be expanded through
an increase in the amount of shoppers and visitors. Several linkages, including auto, pedestrian and
bicycle, to the new West Dublin BART station would be provided to increase the synergy between these
two adjacent areas. With the introduction of a new BART transit center approximately ~A mile away,
more people will be in the vicinity and utilizing services available in this area. A major component of this
Specific Plan is an improved access-way through the Dublin Place shopping center, which could stimulate
small retail development along the access-way alignment. An additional component of the Downtown
Core Specific Plan is re-designation of the area formerly occupied by the Copelands, as Senior Housing at
approximately 29 units to the acre.
In general, the same types of uses would be allowed in the Downtown Core Specific Plan area as West
Dublin BART, although large-scale retailers, or "big box" retail, would be encouraged. As with the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan area, the allowable FAR in this downtown area would increase to a
maximum of .80. The Downtown Core Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission
establishes a maximum building height of six stories.
Senior Housing/HighDensity Residential Land Use: On October 24, 2000, the Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the Downtown Core Specific Plan to the City COuncil. The recommended Plan
included the Senior Housing/High Density Residential land use component adjacent to Amador Valley
Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 9, the Land Use Plan, of the Specific Plan. This use is located in the
Dublin Place shopping center on property owned by PRFS Dublin Corporation.
Letters have been received from the Target Corporation, Cappozzoti Advisory for Pensions, and
McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP representing the PFRS Dublin Corporation owning the
property on which Target is located. The letter from Julia Hurd of the Target Corporation expresses
concerns regarding the cost of design and physical improvements,' and the potential for a loss of parking
spaces with the new accessway, on the Target store and shopping center. The letter and staffs response is
included in Attachment 14. The letters received from Randal Potterf of Cappozzoli Advisory for Pensions
and Erin Kvistad of McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP, who also spoke at the City Council
hearing on November 21 st, state that the property owner (PFRS Dublin Corporation) is in opposition to
the change in land use from Retail/Office to High Density Residential to provide Senior Housing. The
7
Property Owner opposes the change in land use because a new tenant is working with PFRS Dublin
Corporation to locate on the site.
The letters also include a proposal to locate senior housing within the same structure as the future senior
center on the site adjacent to property owned by PFRS. This is proposed as a multi-story structure with
parking located adjacent to the building and in the nearby shopping center lot. The conceptual site plan
for this proposal is attached to the letter from Randal Potterf, and also with a letter from MDM
Architects, working with PFRS on the remodeling and renovation plans for the Target building. It is also
suggested in the letters that the City work with the property owner' s representatives toward an agreement
to develop the senior housing. The agreement for the property on which the future senior center is to be
established includes provisions that any use located on the site must be operated and controlled by a
public agency for a period of 50 years. This provision could restrict development of the senior housing
proposal on the property. These letters and staff s response are included in Attachment 14.
The City Council discussed at their last meeting on the Specific Plans that other potential sites for senior
housing in the downtown area should be evaluated. The evaluation of other potential sites requires
research into property ownership, financing options, preliminary environmental assessment and other
related issues. Within the context of the Specific Plans, staff has not had the time to do this evaluation.
Staff recommends that this evaluation process be included within the scope of the Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan.
Another issue which should be considered in determining the land use for the property is related to an
increase in the FAR with retail type uses and traffic generation rates. If the site shown in the Specific
Plan with a residential use of appropriately 48 dwelling units remains as a retail type use, the FAR on the
site would increase to .40 to reflect that proposed for the other portion of the shopping center. This would
increase the potential square footage for the site by approximately 40,000 square feet. According to the
City's traffic consultant, this would result in more traffic trips per day than the residential use at the same
location. Because of this, intersections in the vicinity may operate at LOS "D" rather than LOS "C".
LOS "D" is generally considered an acceptable level of service, so although trips would increase, it would
not be a significant increase and the mitigation measures included in the Specific Plans should be
adequate.
At the City Council meeting on November 21, 2000, the Council discussed whether or not it was
appropriate to include the High Density Residential land use to provide Senior Housing in the Plan. Since
the Council indicated that it might be appropriate to locate the Senior Housing on another site in the
downtown area, staff has prepared two resolutions for consideration in adopting the Downtown Core
Specific Plan: one with the Senior Housing component and also one with Senior Housing. The
Resolution to adopt the Downtown Core Specific Plan with the Senior Housing/High Density Residential
land use component and to repeal the appropriate portions oft he 1987 Downtown Specific Plan is
contained in Attachment 4. This resolution includes an exhibit, Exhibit B, establishing modifications to
be included in the Plan as discussed by the Planning Commission, the City Council and this staff report,
and also the Land Use Plan as Exhibit C. Additionally, the accompanying resolution for the associated
General Plan Amendments required with adoption of the Plan is contained in Attachment 6. The
Resolution to adopt the Downtown Core Specific Plan without the Senior Hgusing/High Density
Residential land use component, with the subject property remaining as a retail type use, and repealing the
appropriate portions oft he 1987 Downtown Specific Plan, is contained in Attachment 5. This resolution
includes an exhibit, Exhibit B, establishing modifications to be included in the Plan as discussed by the
Planning Commission, the City Council and this staff report, and also the revised Land Use Plan as
Exhibit C. Additionally, the accompanying resolution for the associated General Plan Amendments
required with adoption of the Plan is contained in Attachment 7.
Goal Related to Public Art: As enhancement of the visual quality in the City is important to Dublin, the
City Council recommended that a goal related to the inclusion of public art in developments and public
areas, such as plazas, be included in the Downtown Specific Plans. Staff recommends that this goal be
added to the goals in the Downtown Specific Plan under Visual Quality and Design as Goal 14 on page 5
of the Plan. The goals following it would be renumbered accordingly. The proposed goal is included in
Exhibit B of the Resolutions for adoption of the Downtown Core Specific Plan (Attachments 4 and 5).
Request for Land Use Change and FAR Increase for Dublin Honda: At their meeting on October 24,
2000, the Planning Commission suggested revisions to be included in the Downtown Core Specific Plan,
and also in the General Plan Amendments for the project. Specifically, the Commission suggested
modification of Table 4 of the Plan to reflect a request by Kenneth and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda
(Attachment 11 ) to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for their property on Amador Plaza Road. The
change modified the FAR from 0.20 (or 22,420 square feet) to 0.79 (which results in a development
potential of 87,750 square feet). This change would provide for consistency between the FAR of the
Honda dealership property and that of the adjacent property, former site of Shamrock Ford, at the corner
of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. It is not anticipated that traffic in the area would increase
with this FAR increase as the existing use would remain the same, and the additional square footage
would be utilized for storage and office space associated with that use.
The property owner also requested a reyision to the land use designation of the property to permit
retail/auto or retail/office type uses; however, the City does not have a General Plan designation that
would allow either a retail/auto use or a retail/office use to be established on the site. The Planning
Commission did not change the land use designation on the property, so it remains designated for
retail/auto use on the General Plan. Additionally, any further change in land use in that area would
adversely affect traffic generation rates, and require additional traffic analysis resulting in, possibly,
additional traffic mitigation measures. The letter from Ken and Marc Harvey and staff's response
reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation is included in Attachment 14.
V~lage Parkway Specific Plan
In February 2000, a Task Force for the Village Parkway Specific Plan area was formed at the City
Council's direction to discuss the issues and problems facing businesses and Property Owners in the area,
direct the future land uses along Village Parkway and to evaluate traffic and circulation issues relative to
promoting increased economic growth in the area. During the six-month period in which the Village
Parkway Specific Plan Task Force met to discuss the plan, the Task Force determined that there is a need
to revitalize businesses along the segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the
north and Dublin Boulevard to the south. To accomplish this and to achieve the goals and objectives of
the Specific Plan and the City, the Task Force recommended that slowing traffic and providing better
parking opportunities close to businesses might create a more pedestrian and shopper friendly
environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and increasing the activity level in
the area.
At the meeting of November 21, 2000, the City Council heard testimony related to the various options for
alignment of the Village Parkway roadway. Based on the discussion at the meeting, the two main options
considered by the City Coui:cil are the Task Force Recommended alignment and the Staff Recommended
alignment. To facilitate the discussion and provide for an alignment to be selected at the meeting for
incorporation in the adopted Plan, staff has prepared two separate resolutions for the Council: one with
the Task Force recommended alignment and one with the staff recommended alignment. The Resolution
to adopt the Specific Plan with the Task Force Recommendation (Alternative 3, as discussed below3 and
to repeal the appropriate portions of the 1.987 Downtown Specific Plan is contained in Attachment 8. The
Resolution to adopt the Specific Plan with the Staff Recommendation (existing roadway alignment) and
to repeal the appropriate portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan is contained in Attachment 9.
9
Task Force Recommendation on Village Parkway Alignment: Four different options or alternatives for
the ultimate design of Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process,
along with the existing roadway configuration. These alternatives are described in detail in the agenda
report for November 21, 2000 and also in the Village Parkway Specific Plan. The Village Parkway Task
Force recommended Alternative 3, as shown in Exhibit 7B of the Specific Plan (Attachment 13), as the
preferred alternative, which would provide two lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (one lane in each
direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. This alternative
was also recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council with adoption of the Specific
Plan.
Staff Recommendation on Village Parkway Alignment: At the City Council meeting on November 21,
2000, staff recommended that the existing roadway shown in Exhibit 7A of the Specific Plan be
maintained, and the existing parallel parking on both sides of the street remain. Improvements in the
streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section related to streetscape standards,
and Chapter 6.0 related to urban design guidelines, to encourage increased pedestrian use in the area.
Staff has several concerns regarding narrowing Village Parkway to two lanes of traffic and adding
diagonal parking. Vehicle trip diversion may occur, as discussed in the previous section, and adversely
affect the adjacent neighborhood to the east. This would affect the quality of life for that portion of the
City residential area by creating safety hazards for residents and children attending the neighborhood
school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with the additional cut-through traffic. Memorandums
were previously provided to the City Council from the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin
Police Department expressing concerns related to community safety, and the creation of roadway hazards
in the even that Village Parkway is reduced to two lanes of traffic with diagonal parking within the
existing right-of-way. A video illustrating safety issues related to the reduction of traffic lanes was
prepared for the City Council and presented at the Council meeting.
It has also been suggested in some of the alternatives, and by the Task Force, that mid-block crossings be
established on Village Parkway to facilitate pedestrians crossing to use businesses on either side of the
street. Staff recommends against this because with the speed of traffic on Village Parkway with four
through traffic lanes, it would not be safe for pedestrians to cross at these locations. Additionally, median
breaks may be required to allow construction of the crossings.
A Parking Authority District could be considered to ftmd development of joint parking areas, and may be
further studied by the City Council. Other options recommended by Staff to provide needed parking in the
area in lieu of diagonal parking are to provide improved access to the rear of properties adjacent to the
freeway corridor, and to remove barriers such as fences between parking lots by Property Owners.
However, prior to implementation of any of these measures, further study of their implications would be
needed.
Goal Related to Public Art: As enhancement of the visual quality in the City is important to Dublin, the
City Council recommended that a goal related to the inclusion of public art in developments and public
areas, such as plazas, be included in the Downtown Specific Plans. Staff recommends that this goal be
added to the goals in the Village Parkway Specific Plan under Visual Quality and Design as Goal 10 on
page 5 of the Plan. The goals following it would be renumbered accordingly. The proposed goal is
included in Exhibit C of the Resolutions for adoption of the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Attachments
8 and 9).
10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, State CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines to identify and analyze impacts of the proposed
project (Attachment 1). A 20~day public review period commenced September 2, 2000 and ended
September 22, 2000. This period was extended to September 26, 2000 to allow additional time for agency
response. A Negative Declaration has been prepared because the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment. The Negative Declaration was recommended to the City Council for approval on
October 10, 2000. :
Because of the modifications in the Specific Plans recommended by the Planning Commission, those
discussed by the City Council, and also comments received from private parties, the Negative Declaration
and Initial Study have been revised to address the issues raised (refer to Attachment 10). The revisions to
the documents are minor in nature, and do not 'result in significant environmental impacts. Regarding
increases in the FAR's and square footage for properties shown on the Land Use Plan for the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan area, that related to Office use would generate additional traffic and result in LOS
"D" rather than LOS "C". However, LOS "D" is still an acceptable level of service under the City's
standards and the mitigation measures proposed in the Specific Plan are adequate for this increase.
Additionally, the square footage added by JLL to the hotel project adjacent to the BART station, and the
resulting FAR increase, would not affect traffic generation rates and LOS because these numbers are
based on the number of rooms in the hotel, rather than square footage. The number of rooms proposed for
the hotel has remained unchanged since staff reviewed the original conceptual plan for that project.
In the Downtown Core Specific Plan area, the removal of the residential land use for senior housing
would maintain the existing retail commercial type use on that portion of the Plan. The Plan would allow
an increase in the FAR for the property to .40, and potentially allow development of approximately
40,000 square feet of additional retail space over that !previously evaluated in the environmental
document. This would result in more traffic trips per iday than the residential use, and result in a LOS "D"
rather than LOS "C" for some intersections in the area. Although trips would increase, it would not be a
significant increase and the mitigation measures in the Specific Plans should be adequate. An increased
FAR was also added to the Plan for the Dublin Honda site. This is anticipated not to generate additional
traffic in the Plan area as the Retail/Auto use would remain and the increased square footage possible for
the site would be used for existing offices and storage.
The initial study contains an analysis of the lane and parking alternatives considered for the alignment of
Village Parkway, along with an evaluation of the Staff Recommended alternative (no change in number of
lanes on Village Parkway with parallel parking). In Summary, the traffic mitigation measures included in
the Specific Plans and outlined in the environmental assessment are sufficient in mitigating the proposed
changes in land use and FAR' s being considered by the Council at this time. As no significant impacts
have been identified with the modifications to the Plans, no further mitigation is required. Therefore,
recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not necessary. A resolution adopting the Negative
Declaration is included as Attachment 1 for the Council's review and consideration.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff believes the three proposed Specific Plans will be effective in upgrading the downtown portion of
Dublin, and each plan provides guidelines and direction toward implementing the City's vision for this
area. By intensifying and revitalizing the development in downtown Dublin, the City will continue to be
a major factor in regional commerce and growth, containing a good balance of jobs, services and housing.
In summary, the major issues to be considered at this time by the Council, and recommended by staff,
related to the Specific Plans proposed for adoption are !as follows:
West Dublin BART Specific Plan
1. Limit height in the Specific Plan area to eight stories.
2. Increase FAR for 6.98 acres of Office uses :in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan from .87 to 1.00
(includes Cor-o-Van site and others).
3. Direct staff to initiate an amendment following adoption of the proposed Specific Plan to
evaluate and include the Enea properties in the planning area.
4. Defer review of a change in land use for the Crown Chevrolet property until a new
development/use is proposed for the site. At that time, traffic impacts would need to be
analyzed.
5. Add goal related to locating public art in visually prominent areas to the Specific Plan.
Downtown Core Specific Plan
1. Remove High Density Residential for Senior Housing as a land use within the Dublin Place
Shopping Center.
2. Direct staff to evaluate potential Senior Housing sites in the downtown area as a part of the
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan.
3. Add goal related to locating public art in visually prominent areas to the Specific Plan.
Village Parkway
1. Maintain Village Parkway with its existing alignment (four traffic lanes and parallel parking)
as recommended by staff with streetscape improvements to be implemented according to the
Plan.
2. Direct staff to study the feasibility of mid-block crossings on Village Parkway after the
adoption of the Specific Plan.
3. Add goal related to locating public art in visually prominent areas to the Specific Plan.
4. Direct staff to evaluate possible fagade enhancement programs as identified in the Specific
Plan after adoption of the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council hear the Staff presentation, open the Public Hearing, take testimony
from Staff, Applicant and the Public, close the Publici Hearing and deliberate, and adopt the following:
· . Negative Declaration :
1) Adopt Resolution approving the Negative Declaration for the Specific Plans.
West BART Specific Plan (as recommended by Staff)
2) Adopt Resolution approving the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Attachment 2 with Specific
Plan attached as Exhibit A) and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
3) Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendments for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
(Attachment 3 with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use
Map attached as Exhibit C).
Downtown Core Specific Plan
4) Adopt Resolution approving the Downtown Core Specific Plan with Senior Housing (Residential)
and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 4 with Specific
Plan attached as Exhibit A, modifications attached as Exhibit B, and Land Use Plan as Exhibit C
(Planning Commission Recommendation))~ or
5) Adopt Resolution approving the Downtown Core Specific Plan without Senior Housing
(Residential) and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 5
with Specific Plan attached as Exhibit A, modifications attached as Exhibit B, and Land Use Plan
as Exhibit C (Staff Recommendation)).
6) Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendment for the Downtown Core Specific Plan with
High Density Residential on 1.69 acres (Attachment 6 with General Plan Text attached as Exhibits
A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C (Planning Commission
Recommendation)), or
7) Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendment for the Downtown Core Specific Plan
without High Density Residential on 1.69 acres (Attachment 7 with General Plan Text attached as
Exhibits A and B, and General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit C (Staff
Recommendation)).
Village Parkway Specific Plan
8) Adopt Resolution approving the Village Pirkway Specific Plan (Attachment 8 with Specific Plan
as Exhibit A, Alternative 3 Roadway Alignment, as recommended by the Task Force and Planning
Commission, attached as Exhibit B, and modification attached as Exhibit C) and repealing
portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific Pl,an, or
9) Adopt Resolution approving the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Attachment 9 with Specific Plan
as Exhibit A, Existing Roadway Alignment, aS recommended by Staff, attached as Exhibit B, and
modification attached as Exhibit C) and repealing portions of the 1987 Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan.
Other Recommendations
9) Direct Staff to initiate an amendment to include the Enea property in the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan after adoption of this Plan.
10) Direct Staff to include evaluation of potential Sites for senior housing in the downtown area within
the scope of the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan now being prepared
11 ) Direct Staff to evaluate possible Floor Area Ratio amendments for the Crown Chevrolet property
in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area when a specific development plan is formally
proposed for the property.
li3
/ % IV;
RESOLUTION FOR
.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
SPECIFIC PLANS
ATTACHMENT 1: RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATON FOR
SPECIFIC PLANS
t,,- t.f 11-/1'1/0(';>
.A-rTIt&H-H EfJT f
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF .:THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC
PLAN, DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE VILLAGE PARKWAY
SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-054, PA 99-055, AND PA 99-056
WHEREAS, the City has prepared and appVoved for adoption the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific Plan, which have been
prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plans include permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and, s
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the impacts of the Specific Plans,
the repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown SpeCific Plan, and the General Plan Amendments for
consistency with the General Plan. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Negative
Declaration for the project with the finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment, because all mitigation is incorporated in the context of the Specific Plans; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan documents and a complete record of the project is available
and on file in the Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, a 24-day public review period was held for the Negative Declaration, from
September 2, 2000 to September 26, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, letters of comment on the Negative Declaration were received during the public
review period and fully responded to in writing and in the record; and,
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was revised on December 14, 2000 to reflect and
address the minor modifications in'the Specific Plans as recommended by the Planning Commission
and City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the
project on September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000, at which time they reviewed and considered
the Negative Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them, and
recommended approval to the City Council; and,
· WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000 and at which time they reviewed and considered the
Negative Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them; and,
G:\DowntownSpecifcPlan\CCNDRES .doc
ATTACHMENT 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are incorporated in this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A. The Specific Plans and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the
environment, because mitigation is incorporated into the Plans as part of Plan implementation.
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local
environmental laws and guidelines.
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City' s independent
judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans, General Plan
Amendments and repeal of portions of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the
Negative Declaration for PA 99-054, Village Parkway Specific Plan; PA 99-055, Downtown Core
Specific Plan; and, PA 99-056, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, including the Initial Study
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
GXDowntown Spec~c Plans\CCNDRES.doc
RESOLUTIONS FOR
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
ATTACHMENT 2: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit A - West Dublin BART Specific Plan
Exhibit B - Modifications to Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 3: RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS
Exhibit A - Addition to General Plan Land Use Element Text
Exhibit B - Addition to General Plan Land Use and Circulation Text
Exhibit C - Revised General Plan Land Use Map
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING
THE WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AND
REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR 99-056
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad
vision expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (Exhibit A)
which have been prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the
goals of the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas
within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plans. However, due to changing market and
other conditions, this Specific Plan is no longer relevant to those areas or Development Zones (7,
8, 10 and 11 ) now included within the boundary of the West Dublin BART and should be
repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the
Specific Plans with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse
environmental effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft
Negative Declaration is recommended for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission ~did hold a public hearing on the West Dublin
BART Plan on September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000, and recommended adoption to the
City Council on October 10, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan on November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered
all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find that the proposed West Dublin BART Specific Plan is consistent with the land use
designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as
amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby recommend the following changes to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan as shown in
Exhibit B: (1) modify Section 1.5 to add Goal :l 7 related to encouraging the incorporation of
public art in certain developments; (2) modify Table 5 to include the latest development proposal
from BART/Jones, Lang, Lasalle; (3) modifyi Table 5 to change the maximum FAR for Office
(O) from 9.87 to 1.0; (4) modify Section 5.1 to add: Additionally, a vertical mix of uses such as
residential over retail uses, and developments~offering a live/work component would be
encouraged; (5) add to Section 5.2, "A high density range of 30 to 50 units per acre may be
acceptable. "; (6) modify Section 5.4d to read ~'Building height: 8 stories 6 stories or 75 feet
Architectural appurtenances may exceed the height limit."; and, (7) modify Objective 9.1 of
Section 1.5 to read "Encourage fe~taif-e restaurant and food establishments to provide for outdoor
seating areas."
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby approve adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, subject to the
modifications in Exhibit B, and repeal of the ~987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those
lands within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plans.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
g\Downtown SpecficPlan\CC-RESsp BART~doc
2i
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFIC PLAN- Previously Received by City Council
EXHIBIT B
To Attachment 2
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Table 5. Maximum Economic Development Potential
SP Land Use Category*
Commercial A (Com A)
Commercial B (Com B)
Lodging (L)
Retail/Office (R/O)
Retail/Auto (R/A)
Residential
Office (O) ·
Acres FAR Existing Dev. Max. Dev.
DU/AC (sq. ft.)~* (sq. ft.)
10.87 0.25 243,344 118,310
7.76 0.48 17,823 163,090
8A9 0.62 103,23 1 229,530
8. 709 1.12 (246 rooms) 339. 394
(486 rooms)
12.28 0.83 -- 444,145
4.76 0.18 38,325 38,325
3.54 45 DU/ac -- 160 DU
6.98 0.87 242,385 263,225
1. O0 304, 049
Mixed Use (MU) 11.33 1.00 -- 493,430+'
331 DU
Parking (P) 2.46 ......
Right-of-Way 2.11 ......
Totals 70.57 -- 645,108 1,750,055
70. 799 0 DU 1,900. 743+
491 DU
*Note: Potential plazas areas included in acreage
* * Existing 210, 744 Industrial/Warehouse squarefootage not included
Change 3: Add to SeCtion 1.5, .Project Goals and Objectives, page 6, new Goal 17. As
follows: Enhance the visual quality of the We~t Dublin BART Speci~c Plan area by
encouraging appropriate projects with major public access either visually from roadways,
large outdoor areas. or pedestrian traffic to incorporate public art into the design, and
inaccordance with the City's Public Art Policy.
Change 4: Add to Section 5.1, paragraph 2, following sentence 5 (page 18): Additionally. a
vertical mix of uses such as residential over retail uses. and developments offering a
live/work component wouM be considered
Change 5: Add to Section 5.2, Residential Land Use Category (page 19): Residential uses
include medium and higher density residential dwellings. A high densi.tv range of 30 to 50
units per acre may be acceptable.
o Change 6: Modify Section 5.4d (page 20): Building height: Six stories or 75 fect 8 Stories.
Architectural appurtenances may exceed the height limit.
G:XDowntown Spec~c PlansXBART SPReso ExB.doc
Change 7: Modify Objective 9.1 of Section 1 ~5 to read "Encourage ~ restaurant and
food establishments to provide for outdoor seating areas;
G:\Do~vntown Specfic PIansNBART SPReso ExB.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING
MAXIMUM FAR's, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE WEST DUBLIN BART
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR PA 99-056
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which has been prepared
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan include permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the West Dublin BART Plan and the Dublin General
Plan, a new land use designation entitled "Mixed-Use" is required. The text of the proposed land use
designation is shown in Exhibit A, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the West Dublin BART Plan and the Dublin General
Plan; additions to the text of Background Chapter 1 of the General Plan are required under Section 1.8.1,
Land Use Classification, providing for increased FAR's in the commercial land use categories for
properties within the West Dublin BART area. The text of the proposed General Plan Amendment is
shown in Exhibit B, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the West Dublin BART Plan and the Dublin General
Plan, modifications in the Land Use Map are required within the West Dublin BART area to redesignate
certain properties to different land use designations. In the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area, an
approximately 10 acre portion of land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility shall be redesignated to
Retail/Office and High Density Residential (25+ dwelling units per acre). Additionally, an approximately
11 acre portion of land easterly of the terminus of Regional Street shall be redesignated to Mixed-Use.
These lands are shown on Exhibit C; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments to add a "Mixed-Use" land use designation,
to modify the maximum FARs, and to amend the General Plan Land Use Map will not have a substantial
adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvement; and,
ATTACHMENT 3
//,,(
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared and adopted for
this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plans
with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as
mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is recommended
for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan on September 26, 2000 and October 10, 2000, and recommended approval to the City
Council on October 10, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the West Dublin BART Specific Plan on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed General Plan Amendments related to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan are ·
consistent with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the
Dublin General Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby approve the General Plan Amendments related to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
establishing the "Mixed-Use" land use designation, increasing FAR's for the Specific Plan areas, and
redesignating the land use of certain properties.
PASSED, APPRO VED and ADOPTED thisl 9th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G\Downtown Spec~c PlansXcc-reso BARTgpa. doc
ATTACHMENT 3
EXHIBIT A
To Attachment 3
Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 2, Land Use and Circulation: Land Use Element,
new Section 2.1.5 as follows:
2.1.5 West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan Areas
Guiding Policy
A,
Intensify development and provide housing opportunities and transit-oriented uses
near transit center and facilities.
Implementing Policies
Development within the of the Approval of Mixed-Use land use designation
development in the Specific Plan areas will require that a- shouM include a
combination of medium to high density residential housing and at least one non-
residential land use, such as office or retail, be provided.
G:\DowntoWn Spec~c Plans\BART SPRESgpaxA.doc
Exhibit A to Attachment 3
EXHIBIT B
To Attachment
Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 1, Background, General Plan Map, Land Use Classifications,
Section 1.8.1 as follows:
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area
Retail/Office (FAR: .25 to 1.00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).
Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, hotels, service
stations, entertainment facilities, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification.
Residential use is generally not included except for on lands designated for Mixed-Use, and
where residential uses are ancillary to non-residential uses
Mixed Use (FAR: .50 to 1.00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).
Encourages a combination of medium to high density residential housing and at least one non-
residential land use, such as office or retail, arc included in this classification. Office or retail
uses recommended are shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices,
and entertainment facilities. For development in the Transit Village area adjacent to the BART
Station, a FAR exceeding 1.00 and up to 1.12 for hotel and residential use is acceptable because
of its proximity to regional transportation facilities.
\\DUBLINFS2\PLANXDowntov,;n Spec~c PlansNBART SPRESgpaXB.d0c Exhibit B to Attachment 3
~o
Z ~
ITI '~
m Z
C}
Z
8AN RAMON ROAD
RESOLUTIONS FOR
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC
PLAN
ATTACHMENT 4: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN WITH
SENIOR HOUSING
Exhibit A - Downtown Core Specific Plan
Exhibit B - Modifications to Specific Plan
Exhibit C - Land Use Plan for Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 5: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN WITHOUT
SENIOR HOUS]SNG
Exhibit A - Downtown Core Specific Plan
Exhibit B - Modifications to Specific Plan
Exhibit C - Land Use Plan for Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 6: RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS WITH SENIOR HOUSING
Exhibit A - Addition to General Plan Land Use Element Text
Exhibit B - Addition to General Plan Land Use and Circulation Text
- Exhibit C - Revised General Plan Land Use Map with High Density Residential
Land Use
ATTACHMENT 7: RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS WITHOUT SENIOR HOUSING
Exhibit A - Addition to General Plan Land Use Element Text
Exhibit B - Addition to General Plan Land Use and Circulation Text
Exhibit C - Revised General Plan Land Use Map without High Density
Residential Land Use
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY i OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF
THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision
expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Downtown Core Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which has
been prepared pursuant to Govermnent Code Sec. 65450 et.seq.; and,
· WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land useS, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the
boundaries of the proposed SpeCific Plan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this
Specific Plan is no longer relevant to those areas or Development Zones (7 and 8) now included within
the boundaries of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific
Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plan would have no adverse environmental effects
as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is
recommended for City Council adoption;and,'
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Downtown Core
Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000, and recommended
adoption to the City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the Downtown Core Specific Plan on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed Downtown Core Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals,
policies rand implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the Downtown Core Sp.ecific Plan, subject to the modifications in Exhibit B, and in
conforrnance with Exhibit C, Land Use Plan shown in Exhibit 9 of the Downtown Core Specific Plan,
and repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those lands within the boundaries of the
proposed Specific Plan area.
ATTACHMENT 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g\Downtown Specfic PlansNcc-reso DCSPsps.doc
2
/7
/,-/~
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFIC PLAN- Previously Received by City Council
EXHIBIT B
To Attachment 4
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
Table 4. Maximum Economic Development Potential
SP Land Use Category~
Commercial A (Corn A)
Commercial B (Corn B)
Retail/Office (R/O)
Retail/Auto (R/A)
Acres
23.8
5.45
9.88
2.55
FAR Existing Dev. Max. Dev.
DU/AC (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.)
0.40 364,484 402,730
0.52 69,752 122,390
0.79 -- 341,120
t~ ~t~ 22,420 g274-2-0
O. 79 87, 750
Residential (R) 1.69 29 DU/ac
Office (O) 1.37 0.50
Mixed Use (MU) 6.92 0.60
Right-of-Way 1.32
Totals 52.41
*Note: Includes potential plaza areas
13;120
469,776
0 DU
48 DU
29,820
181,630+
100 DU
I, I00, II0
1, 165, 440+
148 DU
Change 4: Add to Section 1.5, Project Goals and Objectives, page 6, new Goal 14. As
follows: Enhance the visual quali.tv of the planning area by encouraging appropriate
projects with major public access either visually from roadways, large outdoor areas,
or pedestrian traffic to incorporate public art into the design. and in accordance with
the Ci.ty's Public Art Policy.
Change 5: Modify Section 1.5, Objective 4.2 to read: Where economically feasible,
encourage a mix of land uses on a single or adjoining parcel, including mincing uses
vertically and horizontally. This may include but would not be limited to residential,
office, restaurant, retail and other uses.
Change. 6: Add Objective 5. 4: Where economically feasible, consider the utilization
of live/work space within non-residential land uses, where residential uses are
ancilla_rv to non-residential uses. :
Change 7: Modify Section 1.5, Objective :7.1 to read: '~ncourage reqaim restaurant
and food establishments to provide for outdoor seating areas."
G/DowntownSpec~cPlans/DCSPResExb.doc
//
'] ]°\,i
_EGEND ~ ~
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARy
,iiI' USEAS NOTED
/::'OTEN"RAL PLAZA LOCATION
OPPORTUNiTy SITE '
{'R/O) FIETA/L/OFFiC~
e, (coM A)
I iI
- ,.
.,, .
i (OOMA) ·
(t,,fU) MIX.~ USE
R/A) R~AIUALr'rO
(COM B) COMMEROLAL g
(0) OFFICE
(R) RES/DENTiAL
(COMA) COMMERC/ALA
_LAND USE PLAN
-DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
DUBLIN
BOULEVARD
(No)
2000
CITy
O'F DUBLIN
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITYOF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (WITHOUT SENIOR HOUSING)
AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision
expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Downtown Core Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which has
been prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et.seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this
Specific Plan is no longer relevant to those areas or Development Zones (7 and 8) now included within
the boundaries of the Downtown Core Specific Plan and should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific
Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plan would have no adverse environmental effects
as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is
recommended for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Downtown Core
Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000, and recommended
adoption to the City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the Downtown Core Specific Plan on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony herein ]above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed Downtown Core Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals,
policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the Downtown Core Specific Plan, subject to the modifications in Exhibit B, and in
conformance with Exhibit C, Land Use Plan shown as Exhibit 9 in the Downtown Core Specific Plan,
as modified, and repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those lands within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan area.
ATTACHMENT 5
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g\Downtown Spec~c Plans\cc-reso DCSPsps without Senior.d0c
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFIC PLAN - Previously Received by City Council
EXHIBIT B
To Attachment 5
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
Table 4. Maximum Economic Development Potential
(Without Senior Housing/Residential)
SP Land Use Category*
Commercial A (Corn A)
Acres FAR Existing Dev.
DU/AC (sq.fi.)
29 .E 0.40 364,484
25.49
Max. Dev.
(sq. ft.)
q02,730
444, 138
Commercial B (Com B)
Retail/Office (R/O)
Retail/Auto (R/A)
5.45 0.52 69,752
9.88 0.79 --
2.55 9.29 22,420
O. 79
122,390
341,120
')")
87, 750
Residential (R)
Office (O)
Mixed Use (MU)
Right-of-Way
Totals
! .69 29 DU/ac
1.37 0.50
6.92 0.60
1.32
52.41
13,120
469,776
0 DU
29,820
181,630+
100 DU
1, IO0,110
1,206, 848+
l~g DU
IOO DU
*Note.' Includes potential plaza areas
Change 10: Add to Section 1.5, Project Goals and Objectives, page 6, new Goal 14.
As follows: Enhance the visual quality of the planning area by encouraging
appropriate projects with major public access either visually J~om roadways. large
outdoor areas, or pedestrian traffic to incorporate public art into the design, and in
accordance with the City's Public Art Policy.
Change 11: Modify Section 1.5, Objective 4.2 to read: Where economically feasible,
encourage a mix of land uses on a single or adjoining parcel, including mixing uses
vertically and horizontally. This may include but would not be limited to residential,
office, restaurant, retail and other uses.
Change 12: Add Ob/ective 5. 4: Where economically feasible, consider the utilization
of live/work space within non-residential land uses, where residential uses are
ancillary to non-residential uses.
· Change 13: Modify Section 1.5, Objective 7.1 to read: "Encourage ~ re staurant
and food establishments to provide for outdoor seating areas."
G/DowntownSpec~cPlans/DCSPResExb without SeniorHsg.doc
'EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT 5
-.,,.r"~, l [ i
~j L--------~
~,...!
j
, Lj _.j
=GEND
.... SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
USE AS NOTED
,t~ POTENTIAL PLAZA LOCATION
(jj~ OPPORTUNITY SITE
(1:1/0) RETAIL/OFFICE
(COM A)
(COM B) COMMERCIAL B
(0) OFFICE
(R) RESIDENT'IAL
(COM A) COMMERCIALA
N.T.S,
LAND USE PLAN
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2000
CITY
O'F DUBLIN
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING
MAXIMUM FAR's, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Downtown Core Specific Plan, which has been prepared
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin'
General Plan, a new land use designation entitled "Mixed-Use" is required. The text of the proposed land
use designation is shown in Exhibit A, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan, additions to the text of Background Chapter 1 of the General Plan are required under
Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, providing for increased FAR's in the commercial land use
categories for properties within the Specific Plan area. The text of the proposed General Plan Amendment
is shown in Exhibit B, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan, modifications in the Land Use Map are required within the Downtown Core Specific Plan
area to redesignate certain properties to different land use designations. A portion of land designated
Retail/Office and Automotive generally located at the northeasterly comer of Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Plaza Road shall be redesignated to Retail/Office, and a portion of land designated Retail/Office
generally located at the southeasterly comer of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road shall
be redesignated to Mixed-Use in accordance with the Specific Plan. Additionally, an approximately 1.69
acre property in the northwesterly portion of the Plan area shall be redesignated for High Density
Residential land use. These lands are shown on Exhibit C; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments to add a "Mixed-Use" land use designation,
to modify the maximum FARs, and to amend the General Plan Land Use Map will not have a substantial
adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvement; and,
ATTACHMENT 6
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared and adopted for
this application pursuarlt to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plans
with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as
mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is recommended
for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the Downtown Core Specific
Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000, and October 24, 2000, and recommended adoption to the
City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on the Downtown Core Specific Plan on
November21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed General Plan Amendments related to the Downtown Core Specific Plan are consistent
with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General
Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council
approve the General Plan Amendments related to the Downtown Core Specific Plan, establishing the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation, increasing FAR's for the Specific Plan area, and redesignating the
land use of certain properties.
PASSED, APPRO VED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G\Downtown Specfic PlansXcc-reso DCSPgpa.doc
ATTACHMENT 6
EXHIBIT A
To Attachment 6
Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 2, Land Use and Circulation: Land Use Element,
new Section 2.1.5 as follows:
2.1.5 West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan Areas '
Guidin~ Policy
Intensify development and provide housing opportunities and transit-oriented uses
near transit center and facilities.
ImolementinR Policies
B,
Development within the of the Approval of Mixed-Use land may use designation
development in the Specific Plan areas will require that a- may include a
combination of medium to high density residential housing and at least one non-
residential land use, such as office or retail, be provided.
GADowntown Specfic PlansXDCSPRESgpaxA. doc
Exhibit A to Attachment 6
4 iqg
EXHIBIT B
To Attachment
Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 1, Background, General Plan Map, Land Use Classifications,
Section 1.8.1 as follows:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area
Retail/Office (FAR: .25 to .80; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).
Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, hotels, service
stations, entertainment facilities, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification.
Residential use is generally not included except for on lands designated for Mixed-Use.
Mixed-Use (FAR: .50 to 1.00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).
Encourages__a combination of medium to high density residential housing and at least one non-
residential land use, such as office or retail, are included in this classification. Office or retail
uses recommended are shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices,
and entertainment facilities.
G:\Downtown Spec~c PlansXDCSPRESgpaXB.doc Exhibit B to Attachment 6
AMADOR V~!~ ~ ~XI~,LEVA~D
CiTy
, A TTA-CHMENT 6
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN ADDING A "MIXED USE" LAND USE DESIGNATION, INCREASING
MAXIMUM FAR's, AND MODIFYING LAND USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
PA 99-055, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality, economic
vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision expressed in the
Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Downtown Core Specific Plan, which has been prepared
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design
guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of the Dublin
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan, a new land use designation entitled "Mixed-Use" is required. The text of the proposed land
use designation is shown in Exhibit A, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan, additions to the text of Background Chapter 1 of the General Plan are required under
Section 1.8.1, Land Use Classification, providing for increased FAR's in the commercial land use
categories for properties within the Specific Plan area. The text of the proposed General Plan Amendment
is shown in Exhibit B, included by reference and made a part of this resolution; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Dublin
General Plan, modifications in the Land Use Map are required within the Downtown Core Specific Plan
area to redesignate certain properties to different land: use designations. A portion of land designated
Retail/Office and Automotive generally located at the northeasterly comer of Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Plaza Road shall be redesignated to Retail/Office in accordance with the Specific Plan.
Additionally, a portion of land designated Retail/Office generally located at the southeasterly comer of
Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road shall be redesignated to Mixed-Use in accordance
with the Specific Plan. These lands are shown on Exhibit C; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments to add a "Mixed-Use" land use designation,
to modify the maximum FARs, and to amend the General Plan Land Use Map will not have a substantial
adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or public improvement; and,
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared and adopted for
this application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
ATTACHMENT 7
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plans
with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental effects as
mitigation measures are incorporated into the project.. The draft Negative Declaration is recommended
for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on the Downtown Core Specific
Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000, and October 24, 2000, and recommended adoption to the
City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on the Downtown Core Specific Plan on
November21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed General Plan Amendments related to the Downtown Core Specific Plan are consistent
with the land use designations, goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General
Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council
approve the General Plan Amendments related to the Downtown Core Specific Plan, establishing the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation, increasing FAR's for the Specific Plan area, and redesignating the
land use of certain properties.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G\Downtown Spec~c Plans\cc-reso DCSPgpa2.doc
ATTACHMENT 7
pCUje, ~0 6\<-\~
I {\~t1DV1~ i 'i
EXHIBIT B
To Attachment 7
Addition to General Plan text, Chapter 1, Background, General Plan Map, Land Use Classifications,
Section 1.8.1 as follows:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area
Retail/Office (FAR: .25 to .80; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).
Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, hotels, service
stations, entertainment facilities, and sale of auto parts are included in this classification.
Residential use is generally not included except for on lands designated for Mixed-Use.
Mixed-Use (FAR: .50 to 1.00; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee).
Encouragesa combination of medium to high density residential housing and at least one non-
residential land use, such as office or retail, are included in this classification. Office or retail
uses recommended are shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices,
and entertainment facilities.
G:\Downtown Spec~c Plans\DCSPRESgpaXB.docExhibit B to Attachment 7
I ,
LEGEND
~1~ RETAIL/OFFICE
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
t~OWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.8.
8E'P~MBF-F{ 2000
CiTY
oF
DUBLI"N
~XHIBIT D
RESOLUTIONS FOR
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
ATTACHMENT 8: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN WITH TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR ROADWAY ALIGNMENT
Exhibit A - Village Parkway Specific Plan
Exhibit B - Roadway Alignment
Exhibit C - Goal related to Public Art
ATTACHMENT 9: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN WITH TASK'
FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR ROADWAY ALIGNMENT
Exhibit A - Village Parkway Specific Plan
Exhibit B - Roadway Alignment
Exhibit C - Goal related to Public Art
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND REPEALING PORTIONS
OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-054, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision
expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which has
been prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et. seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this
Specific Plan is no longer relevant to this area or Development Zones (10 and 11) now included within
the boundaries of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific
Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental
effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is
recommended for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway
Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000, and recommended
approval to the City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did hold a public meeting on the Village
Parkway Specific Plan with property owners on November 9, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific Plarx on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
ATTACHMENT 8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed Village Parkway Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals,
policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council
adopts the Village Parkway Specific Plan, with Roadway Alternative 3 (Exhibit 7B of the Village
Parkway Specific Plan) in attached Exhibit B as the preferred alignment for Village Parkway, and
repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those lands within the boundaries of the
proposed Specific Plan.
PASSED~ APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g\Downtown Spec~cPlan\cc-resVPSPsps.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFIC PLAN- Previously Received by City Council
EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 8
EXHIBIT 7R
Task Force Recommendation
EXHIBIT C
To Attachment 8
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Change 1: Add to Section 1.5, Project Goals and Objectives, page 6, new Goal 10. As
follows: Enhance the visual quali.ty of the planning area by encouraging appropriate
projects with major public access either visuallv ~'om roadwin?s, large outdoor areas.
or pedestrian traffic to incorporate public art into the design, and in accordance with
the Ci.ty's Public Art Policy.
G:/DowntownSpecifcPlans/cc-resoVPSPexB.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF
AND REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE 1987 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 99-054, CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is desirous of improving the appearance, functionality,
economic vitality of the downtown portion of Dublin in a manner consistent with the broad vision
expressed in the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Village Parkway Specific Plan (Exhibit A) which has
been prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et.seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban
design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the goals of
the Dublin General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Downtown Specific Plan in 1987 for areas within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. However, due to changing market and other conditions, this
Specific Plan is no longer relevant to this area or Development Zones (10 and 11) now included within
the boundaries of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
application pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and are on file in the Dublin Planning
Department. Based on the Initial Study, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific
Plan with the finding that the implementation of the Plans would have no adverse environmental
effects as mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The draft Negative Declaration is
recommended for City Council adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway
Specific Plan on September 26, 2000, October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000, and recommended
approval to the City Council on October 24, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did hold a public meeting on the Village
Parkway Specific Plan with property owners on November 9, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the Village Parkway Specific Plan on
November 21, 2000 and December 19, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
ATTACHMENT 9
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that the proposed Village Parkway Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations, goals,
policies and implementing programs set forth in the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council
adopts the Village Parkway Specific Plan as recommended by Staff, with the existing Village Parkway
right-of-way (as shown in Exhibit 7A in the Specific Plan) in attached Exhibit B as the established
alignment for Village Parkway, and repeal of the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan as it relates to those
lands within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPRO VED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFIC PLAN- Previously Received by City Council
EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 9
EXHIBIT 7A
Staff RecommendatiOn-
EXHIBIT C
To Attachment 9
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Change 1: Add to Section 1.5, Project Goals and Objectives, page 6, new Goal 10. As
follows: Enhance the visual quality o. f the planning area by encouraging appropriate
projects with major public access either visually from roadways, large outdoor areas,
or pedestrian traffic to incorporate public art into the design, and in accordance with
the City's Public Art Policy.
G:/DowntownSpecifcPlans/cc-resoVPSPexB.doc
ATTACHMENT 10
NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
1.00 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
September 2, 2000
Revised December 14, 2000
Website: http://www. ci.dublin.ca.us
Project Title:
Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA,99-055), West
Dublin BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-
054) ,.
Description of Project: The proposed Project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown. area
of Dublin, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan to be considered for adoption by the: Dublin City Council.
The Specific Plans are intended to direct the use of land, the design of public
improvements, and the design an~ appearance of private and public development,
including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the Plans will
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART
Specific Plan areas related to land use changes and land use intensification. Additionally,
the portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific .Plan will require repeal
with adoption of the plans, to modify sections of the document relative to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4,
7, 8, 10 and 11. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will
be necessary.
Project Location:
Name of Proponent:
Public Hearings:
Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Portage Road,
south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street.
City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568,
(925) 833-6610
A Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Draft Negative Declaration and the
associated Project is tentatively scheduled for September 26, 2000 to consider a
recommendation of approval to the City Council. A City Council Public Hearing for
approval is tentatively scheduled for October 17, 2000, November 21, 2000 and
December 19, 2000. All hearings will be held in the City Council Chambers, City of
Dublin offices, 100 Civic Plaza, 'Dublin, CA.
Determination:
· I hereby find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be adopted. This document and the
accompanying Environmental Initial Study have been revised to incorporate and
evaluate modifications in the Specific Plans that occurred during the project review
process, All impacts of these changes have been assessed and determined to be
insignificant based· on the policies and programs incorporated in the Specific Plans.
Because the modifications are minor in nature and result in no new significant impacts,
recirculation of the Ne.qative Declaration is not required.
Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 o Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
Review Period: The review and comment perio.d for this document was originally 20 days from the date
of publication on September 2, 2000. That period was extended to September 26,
-2000.
r Planner /Z,,//~/tt ~
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at:
City of Dublin, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925)
833-6610.
Attachments
Date Published: September 2, 2000, Revised December 14, 2000
Date Posted: September 1,2000
Date Notice Mailed: September 1, 2000
Considered by:
On: Council Resolution No.
N.O.D. filed:
g:\DowntownSpecPlans\NegDec.
INTERSTATE 580
LEGEND
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
LOCAL CONTEXT
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
- SEPTEMBER 2000
C'ITY
O'F
DUBLIN
DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIAL STUDY
PA 99-054
PA 99-055
PA 99-056
Lead Agency: City of Dublin
September 2000
Revised: December 2000
INTRODUCTION
This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plans and General Plan Amendments for the
Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway
Specific Plan areas. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California
Environmental'Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review.
This initial study includes a project description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon
issues identified in the checklist. Modifications in the Specific Plans have been made since the
original draft Ne.qative Declaration and Initial Study were circulated in September 2000. The
revisions to the Plans are described in this revised document, and have been evaluated on the basis
of their related environmental impacts in this revised document. Because the modifications are minor
in nature and result in no si.qnificant impacts, recirculation of the Ne.qative Declaration and Initial
Study is not required under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Additions to the ori.qinal document
are shown with an underline, and deletions from the document are shown with a strikc through.
In summary, this Initial ~Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant adverse
environmental impacts. With the policies and pro.qrams are included in the Specific Plans, no
'si.qnificant impacts will result.
The-Initial Study was prepared based upon the location Iof the project, planning staff review,
field review, comments from City, County and local agencies, studies prepared by consultants, use
of City Planning Documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of three specific plans developed for the downtown area of Dublin, the
Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific
Plan to be considered for adoption by the Dublin City Council. The Specific Plans are intended to direct
the use of land, the design of public improvements, and the design and appearance of private and public
development, including buildings, parking areas, signs and landscaping. The adoptions of the Plans will
require General Plan Amendments for the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas
related to land use changes and land use intensification. Additionally, the portions of the previously
adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan will require repeal with adoption of the plans, to modify sections
of the document relative to Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11. Following Plan adoption, amendment of the
City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary.
The Downtown Core Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-680 to the east and San Ramon
Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and
consists of approximately 51 acres of commercial land uses. The westerly boundary of the Plan area is
the westerly property line of the parcels containing the existing Montgomery Wards and Target retail
stores. The Specific Plan calls for a maximum development potential of 1,206,848 1,100,110 square feet.
commercial, office and mixed-use development and approximately 148 dwellings. The original
environmental initial study evaluated a maximum development potential of 1,100, 110 square feet for the
area. However, since that time, the City Council has discussed an alternative plan to remove the High
Density Residential land use for senior housinq from the Plan, and maintain the retail commercial use on
the Dublin Place shopping center site with an increase in FAR to .40. This change, if approved, would
increase the square fo0taqe of Commercial A retail use in the area by approximately 40,000 square feet.
Additionally, an increased FAR of .79 was recommended to the City Council by the Plannin.q
Commission for the property owned by Dublin Honda on Amador Plaza Road, which could increase the
potential buildout square footage of the 2.55acres of Retail/Auto use in the Plan area by 65,330 square
feet to 87,750 square feet.
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is generally located between 1-580 to the south and Dublin
Boulevard to the north. San Ramon Road lies to the west of the area, and properties on the west side of
Golden Gate Avenue are included in the plan area. The area consists of approximately 70 acres of
commercial, office and light industrial land uses. The Village Parkway Specific Plan area is generally
located between the north and south sides of Amador Valley Road to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
Dublin Planning Department Page 2
Downtown Specific Plans
5'q zV7
.the south. The 1-680 freeway forms the southwestern boundary of the area and lies adjacent to the rear
property line of commercial uses. The area consists of approximately 31 acres of restaurants, offices,
retail commercial, service commercial and other non-residential uses fronting on' this portion of Village
Parkway. A maximum development potential of 1,900,743 1,750,055 square feet of non-residential and
491 residential dwellings are anticipated at full Specific Plan buildout. The original environmental initial
study evaluated a maximum development potential of 1,750,055 square feet. However, since that time,
· the FAR for office uses shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 9) of the Specific Plan has been increased
from .87 to 1.00, to add. approximately 40,000 square feet to the total amount of square footage in the
area. The hotel proposed on the BART-owned property has also increased in square foota.qe by
109,864 square feet from the original proposal evaluated in the document, increasing the FAR to 1.12
for that portion of the Plan. The impacts of these increases in square footage and FAR's are assessed
tn this revised study.
The Village Parkway Specific Plan is generally sited along the east and west sides of Village Parkway
between Dublin Boulevard to the south and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. The Specific Plan
area-encompasses approximately 31 acres of land and has been developed with a mix of retail
commercial, restaurant, office, automotive and similar uses, including the main Dublin Post Office.
Existing types of land uses are anticipated to remain, however, a higher Floor Area Ratio included as
part of the Specific Plan is intended to encourage intensification of uses with a more pedestrian-oriented
design. Exhibit 3 Shows the proposed land use concept for the Downtown Core Specific Plan; Exhibit 4
shows the land use concept for the West BART Specific Plan; and Exhibit 5 shows the land use concept
for the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Two potential alternatives to the roadway design for Village
Parkway are considered in this initial study. The Task Force for the Specific Plan' reviewed several
possible alignments, and recommended implementation of a roadway design that would decrease the
number of traffic lanes and add dia.qonal parkin.q within the existin.q right-of-way. Staff recommends
maintainin.q the roadway with four lanes of traffic and parallel parking as it currently exists, with
streetscape 'design modifications. All alternatives considered are discussed in this document, as are the
Task Force recommended alternative and the Staff recommended design.
Dublin Planning Department Page 3
Downtown Specific Plans
CITY OF DUBLIN
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
m
Project title: Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West Dublin
BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway 'Specific Plan (PA-99-054) .
Lead agency name and "address: City of Dublin, Community DevelOpment Department, 10.0 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568
Contact person and phone number: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner (925) 833-6610
Project location: Central downtown area of Dublin, generally west of Maple Drive and Portage
Road, south of Amador Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate 580, and east of Regional Street. See
Exhibit I for a regional location map and Exhibit 2 for the location of the three proposed Specific
Plans.
Assessors Parcel Number(s): Various
Project sponsor's name and address: City of Dublin., Community Development Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan designations:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area - Retail/Office and Public/Semi-Public Facility
Village Parkway Specific Plan Area ', Retail/Office and Retail/Office and Automotive
Zoning:
Downtown Core Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), and PD
(Planned District)
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area- C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial),'and
M;1 '(Light Industrial District)
Village Parkway' Specific Plan Area - C-1 (Retail Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial), and PD (Planned District)
Specific Plan designation: Previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan, Zones 1,2,3,4,7,
8,10 and 11
10. Description of project: See previous page.
11.
Surrounding !and uses and setting: The project area is tocated in the commercial core of the
City of Dublin and generally consists of retail, commercial service, office and some light industrial
type uses. Easterly of the project area is Portage Road and Maple Drive, and the residential
Dublin Planning Department 'Page 4
Downtown Specific Plans
development adjacent to the Village Parkway Specific Plan area. Westerly of the project area is
San Ramon Road and a portion of the Dublin Place Shopping Center containing retail and
commercial service type uses. Northerly of the project area is Amador Valley Boulevard, retail,
commercial service and office type uses, and medium density residential development. Southerly
of the project area is 1-580, which also lies adjacent to the alignment of the proposed Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART) right-of-way spanning the freeway and connecting with the proposed
BART station in Pleasanton. Adjacent to the freeway on the Dublin side is the proposed West
Dublin BART station .area.
12. Other Public Agency Approvals Required: None
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "potentially significant .impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use/Planning
Population/Housing
Geotechnical'
Water
Transportation/ - Public Services
Circulation
'Biological Resources - Utilities/Service
Systems
Energy/Mineral - Aesthetics
Resou roes
Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality Noise - Recreation
Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination-(to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachment
have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
~ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at
least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described
on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially signifidant unless
mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain
to be addressed.
__ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 5
Signature: ~
· Printed N~t Harbin, SeniLr Planner
Date: Au.qust 30, 2000; revised December 14, 2000
For: PA 99-054,-055 & -056
Downtown Core, West Dublin BART & Village
Parkway Specific Plans, GPA
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1)
2)
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 parenthesis following each
question. 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 factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action, 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.
3)
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" 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 analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
document in substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different forms.
Dublin Planning Department Page 6
Downtown Specific Plans ~
Environmental Impacts: (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources
used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found in
the 'attachment to the following checklist.
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigated
I. Land Use and. Planning. Will the project
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source: 1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source: 1 )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in
the vicinity? (Source: 1,5)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(soils or farmlands or impacts from
incompatible uses)? (Source: 1,5)
e) Disrupt the physical arrangement of an
established community (including low
income or a minority community)? (Source:
2,5)
X
X
X
X
X
II. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source: 1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source: 1 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (Source: 1,2,5)
X
X
III. Soils and Geology. Would the proposal result
in or expose p~ople to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source: 1,6 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 1,6)
c) Seismic ground failure? (Source: 1,6)
d) Seiche, tsunami, including liquefaction?
(Source: 1, 6)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source: 1, 6)
fi. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill? (Source: 1,5,6)
g) Subsidence of land? (Source: 1,6)
h) Expansive soils? (Source: 1,6)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(Source: 1,5, 6)
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
X
X
Page 7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IV. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off? (Source: 1)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as. flooding? (Source:
FEMA map, 1 )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Source: 1,5,6)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? (Source: 1,5,6)
e) Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements? (Source:
1,6)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either'through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source:
1,6)
' g) Altered direction of rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source: 1,6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source:
1,6)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 3,4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source: 1,3,4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source: 1 )
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 1)
X
X
X
X
VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the
proposal result in?
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source: 3)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source: 3)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source: 3,4,5)
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
(Source: 1, 3)
X
X
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 8
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source: 1,3)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source: 1,3,5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
(Source: 1,3)
VII. Biological Resources..Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)?
(Source: 1,5,6)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source: 1,5,6)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat)? (Source: 1,5,6)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source: 1,5,6)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Source: 1,5,6)
VIII.
a)
b)
c)
Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposah
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source: 1)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner? (Source: 1 )
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and residents of the
State? (Source: 1,6)
IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation? (Source: 1,4)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 4, 5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazards? (Source: 4,5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (Source: 1,5,6)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
~ammable brush, grass or trees? (Source:
4,5)
X. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 9
/ / ¢1
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source:
1,5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Source: 1,5)
XI. Public Services. Would the proposal result in
a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection? (Source: 1,4)
b) Police protection? (Source: 1,4)
c) Schools? (:Source: 1,4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source: 1,4,5)
e) Other governmental services? (Source:
1,4,5)
XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations in the
following utilities ?
a) Power OF natural gas? (Source: 4)
b) Communication systems? (Source: 4)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution systems? (Source: 4)
d) Sewer or septic systems? (Source: 4)
e) Storm-water drainage? (Source: 1,4,5)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source: 1,4,5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source:
1,4)
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? (Source: 1, 5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source: 1, 5)
c) Create light or glare? (Source: 5)
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source:
1,5)
b) Disturb archeological resources? (Source:
1,5)
c) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? (Source: 1,5)
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within potential impact area? (Source: 1,5,6)
XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dublin Planning Department Page 10
Downtown Specific Plans
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational
facilities? (Source: 1,4,5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Source: 1,4,5)
X
X
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 11
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.
a)
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project 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 or
animal community, reduce the number of 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?
X
b)
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
X
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
X
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Dublin General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance
2. Evaluation of Development Scenarios, Downtown Dublin, prepared by Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS) (July 25, 2000)
3. Traffic analysis prepared by Omni-Means (August 4, 2000); secondary revisions to the Omni-
Means traffic analysis (September 22, 2000; memo from George Nickelson of Omni-Means dated
November 13, 2000; and, letters from Peter Galloway of Omni-Means dated December 8, 2000.
4. Communication with appropriate City of Dublin Department(s) and service aroviders
5. Site visit
6. Other source (geotechnical reports, biological surveys and other studies)
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 12
Attachment to Downtown Specific Plans Initial Study
Negative Declaration
PA 99-054
PA 99-055
PA 99-056
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS:, Potentially Significant
PS/M: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
Nh No Impact
I. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin.ci
The project site area is the existing downtown commercial area of Dublin. The project site is the location
of approximately 150 acres of retail shops, restaurants, commercial businesses, offices and light
industrial uses with associated roadways and parking areas. Various small parcels remain undeveloped.
No residential development has occurred within the project area.
The City's existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance envision a .mix of retail, lodging, auto service,
restaurant, office and similar uses within the project area.
Project Impacts
a) Conflict with general plan designation and zoning? LS. The Dublin General Plan designates the
downtown specific plan areas as Retail/Office, Retail/Office and Automotive, and Public/Semi-Public
Facility, which allow retail uses, commercial service uses, and civic type uses. The City's Zoning
Ordinance establishes C-1, Retail Commercial; C-2, General Commercial; C-N,. Neighborhood
Commercial; M-l; Light Industrial; and PD, Planned DiStrict:zoning districts in the project area. Some
land use designations in the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan areas would
be modified through the general plan amendment process in conjunction with adoption of the land
use plans for these areas; however, the modifications would generally be minor and establish
another commercial type land Use compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses. In the
West Dublin BAR.T area, some high density residential use designations are proposed to replace
Public/Semi-Public Facility and Retail/Office designations in 'close proximity to the BART station
location. This change would be consistent with the intent of the existing General Plan to create a
more transit-oriented area near the proposed BART station. The residential use would support the
surrounding commercial development proposed, and als0. provide riders for the transit facility. The
designation of Public/Semi-Public Facility was placed on a portion of the property in the area with the
anticipation that the BART station would be developed in the general area.
In the Downtown Core Specific Plan area, the intent of the Specific Plan is to retain existing major
retailers (Target, Montgomery Ward and similar users), and, at the same time, add complementary
smaller scale retail uses, restaurants, entertainment uses and offices to attract a more pedestrian-
oriented clientele. The Specific Plan also calls for the eventual development of a number of plazas
and civic uses as additional attractors of people to the area. Senior residential housing is proposed
adjacent to the new senior center in the northwest portion of Specific Plan area. This would also be a
complimentary land use which should support the senior center and the surrounding retail
Dublin Hlanning Department Page 13
Downtown Specific Plans
commercial establishments. The mixed-use area (high density residential and commercial
combination) shown at the southeast corner of Amador Valley BoulevardlAmador Plaza.Road would
be compatible with the residential development across Amador Valley Boulevard and the existing
retail commercial uses on Amador Plaza Road.
In both the Downtown Core and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan 'areas, intensification of
development through increased floor area ratios (FAR) is anticipated..The City's General 'Plan
presently allows a up to a maximum FAR of .50 in each area for retail and office type uses. The
Downtown Core Specific Plan suggests a maximum' FAR of .79 for retail and office uses, and the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .83 for retail and office uses, .87 1.00
for strictly office use; and 1.00 for mixed-use development. An increased FAR of 1.00 for office use,
as considered for approval by the City Council, on 6.98 acres within this Plan area has been
evaluated in this assessment. Additionally, an increased FAR of 1.12 for the property adiacent to the
West Dublin BART Station is being considered in conjunction with the development of a 240 room
hotel. Although these proposed FAR's under the specific plans are greater than those presently
provided for in the existing General Plan, they are consistent with FAR's in traditional, thdving
downtown areas, and in transit villa.qes as proposed with the West Dublin BART Station
development. This is not considered a significant increase nor would it create a significant impact.
General plan amendments will be necessary to amend the allowed FAR for the downtown plan areas
and modify the land u~es. The proposed FAR's for the plan areas have been analyzed in regard to
traffic generation rates, and only minor traffic improvements are necessary to support the
intensification of the proposed development under the plans (refer to Section VI, Transportation).
Possible chan.qes in trip .qeneration rates and levels of service related to the land use changes from
the original Plans are addressed in the Transportation/Circulation section of this document. These
improvements have been programmed into the Specific Plans. Should FAR's exceeding these
amounts be proposed with future land use applications, a specific traffic analysis and land use
analysis would be required prior to approval to determine the impacts Of the related intensified land
use on the roadway system.
Additionally, adoption of the Downtown Core' and West Dublin BART Specific Plans will require that
portions of the previously adopted (1987) Downtown Specific Plan be repealed to modify sections of
the document relative to Development Zones 1,2,3,4,7,8,10 and 11, which are within these specific
areas. Following .Plan adoption, amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance will be necessary.
There are no proposed land use changes or modifications for'the Village Parkway Specific Plan area.
The present General Plan allows up to a maximum FAR of .50 for the Village Parkway area, and the
average FAR in that area is currently .26. Therefore, further intensification in this plan area up to a
FAR of .50 would be within the range permitted under the present General 'Plan. No general plan
amendment will be necessary in conjunction with adoption of this Specific Plan.
b)
Conflict with app~cable environmental plans or policies? NI. The City of Dublin has adopted no other
city-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this project. No impacts would
therefore result
c)
Incompatibilities with existing land use in the vicinity? NI. The proposed land uses to be established
with the Specific Plans would be compatible with and support the surrounding retail commercial uses
in the three areas (refer to Comment a, above). Non-confor. min.q uses in the Specific' Plan area
would be reviewed in accordance with the CitV's established zoning re.clulations. There will,
therefore, be no impacts related to land use compatibility.
d)
Effect on agricultural operations or soils? NI. The site has been used for commercial uses since the
early 1960's. No agricultural operations exist in the subject areas or the surrounding areas of the
City. No impacts would therefore result.
Dublin Planning Department Page 14
Downtown Specific Plans
e)
Disruption, of physical arrangement of an established community?. NI. The project consists of three
plans intended to direct the land use and future development in the City's central downtown area.
The plan is proposed to be implemented over a five to te~ seven year period, and will occur as a
gradual replacement of uses with new uses. This method of adaptive reuse of the areas will serve to
integrate land uses, transportation and public improvements within the three Specific Plan areas not
significantly disrupt the physical arrangement of the downtown. There will therefore be no impacts
regarding disruption of established communities
II. Population and Housing
Environmental Settin.q
The city population as of January 1, 1999 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be
28,707. Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential
growth in east Dublin, where the City has approved a specific plan calling for residential growth.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the total population' of Dublin is
expected to increase to 35,200 by the year 2000, to 49,400 by the year 2005 and 58,900 in the year
2010. Under the proposed Specific Plans, a maximum of approximately 491 residential dwelling units
would be introduced in the West Dublin BART area, and a maximum of approximately 150 residential
dwelling units would be introduced in the Downtown Core area. This is not considered a significant
increase for the region, and would actually establish housing closer to existing services and
transportation than much of the residential development in the City.
Project Impacts
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? NI. The project involves
primarily retail, office, lodging and similar uses. Although future residential and mixed uses are
envisioned in the 'West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas, such
residential uses are intended to support transit-oriented development programs. Although the overall
amount of residential development for the community is anticipated to increase, such increases
would be less-than-significant.
b)
Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?. NI. The majority of the development
that would occur under the Specific Plans would be commercial, office and other non-residential type
land uses. Some new residential housing is proposed in the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART
Specific Plan areas, but it would not result in a substantial amount of new dwellings, nor would it
induce substantial growth in the area as land available for development is limited in this part of the
City. Under the proposed Specific Plans, approximately 490 residential dwelling units would be
introduced in the West Dublin BART area, and approximately 150 residential dwelling units would be
introduced in the Downtown Core area. This is not considered a significant increase for the region,
and would establish housing closer to existing services and transportation than much of the
residential development in the City, thereby reducing some impacts associated with growth such as
increased traffic generation.
According to the City's General Plan, the Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan
areas are considered a Downtown Intensification Area which would allow up to 200 dwelling units. It
is also stated that the number may be increased if mid-rise, mixed-use buildings, such as that
proposed. in portions of the specific plan areas, achieve market acceptance. Additionally, the plan
areas are currently serviced with water, sewer, and roads, and therefore, the specific plans are not
considered growth inducing projects.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 15
c)
Displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing? NI. The project site has been
developed as a retail commercial and office downtown area. It presently contains no housing.
Therefore, there would be no displacement of housing units on the site.
III. Soils and Geology
Environmental Settin.q
The site lies within the Tri-Valley area, in the commercial core of Dublin. According to historic geologic
studies in the area, the site is underlain by poorly consolidated, non-marine deposit sedimentary rocks of
the Tassajara Formation. The geotechnical investigation report prepared for the project indicates that the
site is not within an AIquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1982). There are no mapped faults which are known to
traverse the site, the closest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is the Calaveras Fault located along San Ramon
Road approximately one-quarter mile to the west. The next nearest active seismic faults include the
Hayward and the San Andreas Faults which are located approximately 9 miles southwest, and 27 miles
west-southwest, respectively. The closest potentially active faults include the (1) Verona, which is
located approximately 3 miles to the .south, and (2) the Las Positas, which is located approximately 9
miles to the southeast.
The soil conditions in the downtown area are summarized from previously prepared geotechnical studies
as follows: Medium stiff to stiff lean clays to the maximum depth of about 41.5 feet below site grade
(BSG). The upper 2 to 5 feet BSG consist of dark brown lean clays with varied gravel and sand content.
The upper 6 to 12 inches of the clays were intermixed with wood debris suggesting that the upper 6
inches was engineered fill. The near surface clays exhibit low to moderate plasticity, a low to moderate
expansion potential, and moderate shear strength. The consolidation tests indicate that the clays are
over-consolidated and exhibit low compressibility under the anticipated foundation loads. Groundwater
was encountered in most of the test borings drilled below 10 feet BSG at depths ranging from 12 to 13
feet BSG. From a geotechnical standpoint, the area is suitable for proposed retail commercial and
residential development with regard to support of shallow spread foundations and concrete slabs-on-
grade. As this is a currently built and urbanized area, when excavation activities are proposed with
individual projects on specific sites, geotechnical studies specific to that property may be required at that
time.
Project Impacts
a)
Is the site subject to fault rupture? NI. The risk of fault. rupture on the site is anticipated to be low,
since the' nearest known active or potentially active faults lie a minimum of one quarter mile away.
No impacts would therefore result.
b)
Is the site subject to ground shaking? LS. The site as well as the encompassing region is anticipated
to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a number of active and potentially active
faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Hayward fault, San Andreas fault and Calaveras fault.
The ground shaking issue is less than significant for properties in the Specific Plan areas because
new development constructed will be required to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and other seismic safety standards as they are developed over the life of the Specific Plans.
C)
Is the site subject to seismic ground fa~ure? NI. Based on previous geotechnical reports and
information for this area of the City, the risk of ground failure would be low. Routine enforcement of
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and recommendations contained in geotechnical
reports prepared for specific development projects will serve to reduce potential impacts of seismic
ground failure to a less than significant level.
DubliD Planning Department Page 16
Downtown Specific Plans
d)
e)
g)
h)
i)
Is the site subject to seiche, tsunami hazards, including liquefaction? NI. Geotechnical investigation
reports for past .projects in the downtown conclude that, the risk of liquefaction in the downtown is
low. This is based on the presence of clay soils on the site which are not prone to liquefaction. There
are no major bodies of water located nearby which could be a source of seiche hazard.
Is the site subject to landslides or mudflows? NI. The downtown project area is essentially flat with
little change in slope;· therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to landslides or mudflows.
Is the site subject to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions? LS. The area is
essentially flat and contains no unstable soil conditions. No significant changes in topography are
proposed because the area has been previously. graded the past to accommodate existing
development.' However, future development and construction within the area under the. auspices of
the three Specific Plans would result in grading and excavation for additional building foundations,
underground utilities and similar purposes. There would be a possibility .of erosion of graded material
and construction debris off of construction sites. The City of Dublin requires preparation and. appt'oval
of erosion contrDI plans for all new construction where grading plans are requested. For development
projects involving five acres of land are greater, preparation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans are also required by the State Water Resources Control Board Adherence to standard erosion
control plans and Stormwater Pollution' Prevention Plans will ensure that any impacts related to
erosion will be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Subsidence of land? N.I. Minimal subsidence would occur in the area, according to geotechnical
reports prepared for past projects in the downtown. No impacts would therefore result.
Expansive soils? LS. The soils have a low to moderate expansion potential and moderate shear
strength. Foundations of future buildings and other structures proposed under the auspices of the
Specific Plans will be reviewed by the City of Dublin pursuant to the Uniform Building Code to ensure
· that adequate foundations are provided. Less-than-significant impacts related to expansive soils are
therefore anticipated.
Unique geologic or physical features? NI. No unique geologic or physical features have been
identified on any of the Specific Plan sites,. based upon a review of a topographic survey and a field
visit. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
IV, Water
Environmental Setting
Surface water exists on perimeters of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas in
the form of open storm drainage channels owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (ACFCWCD) Zone 7 site. Stormwater runoff within Specific Plan areas is directed
to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by ACFCWCD, which underlie the Specific Plan
areas. There are no creeks, wetlands or other bodies of water near the Specific Plan areas
The entire Tri-Valley area is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer. The aquifer ranges in depth
between 15 and 500 feet but is no longer used as the primary source of domestic water in the area.
Zone 7 is presently finalizing plans to store treated wastewater within t~e aquifer during winter months,
which wilt be pumped out and used for landscape irrigation during dry, summer months.
Proiect Impacts
a) Changes to absorption rates? LS. The Specific Plan areas have been largely developed over the
past thirty to forty years and covered with impervious surfaces, including buildings, parking areas,
walkways and other paved areas. Small portions of the areas are either vacant or landscaped to
Dublin Planning Department Page 17
Downtown Specific Plans ..
allow for drainage and irrigation. Construction of new buildings within the areas, under the auspices
of the Specific Plans, would add new impervious surfaces, but would also add additional pervious
surfaces in terms of plazas and more landscaping as required by the Specific Plans. Less-than-
significant impacts to absorption patterns are therefore anticipated.
b)
Exposure of people orproperty to flood hazard? LS. Portions of the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plan are subject to flooding during 100-year flood events and are generally inundated
with water during periods of intense and/or long-term rain fall: Representatives of the City of Dublin
Public Works Department have indicated that sub-regional drainage improvements will be
undertaken in the future as part of the City's Capital Improvement budget to alleviate flooding
hazards. Programs to deal with flood hazards are included in the Village Parkway and Downtown
Core Specific Plans. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to flood
hazards.
c)
Discharge into surface waters or changes to surface water quality?. NI. Existing storm drainage
facilities are planned to be used to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan areas.
Since the amount of stormwater runoff is not anticipated to increase above existing volumes (see
comment a, above), no impacts are anticipated with regard to discharge into surface water. Future
development projects undertaken under the auspices of the Specific Plans will be required to meet
the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program.
d)
Changes in amount of surface water?, NI. Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have no
impacts to surface waters as all drainage shall be directed to the existing storm drainage system. No
impacts to surface bodies of water are therefore anticipated.
e)
Changes in currents or direction of water movement?. NI. The project would not alter currents or
direction of water movement in nearby water bodies since no substantial changes are anticipated to
the volume of stormwater runoff.
Changes in quantity of groundwater?. NI. Approval and implementation of the three Specific Plans
would not significantly alter 'existing ground water resources on or near the project site because all
drainage is directed to the storm drainage system operated by Zone 7. Similarly, significant amounts
of groundwater use are not anticipated, since representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon Services
District have indicated that adequate water supplies have been identified to serve the maximum
amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specific Plans.
g) Altered direction ofgroundwater? L__S N~. The project would not affect groundwater direction, since no
significant subsurface construction is anticipated. In the event that subsurface excavation is
proposed, adopted City standards require that specific development projects, such as those recluirin.q
underground parkin.cl structures, prepare a site-specific hvdrological analysis with .cleotechnical and
soils analysis to determine .qroundwater levels. No si.qnificant impacts are anticipated related to
altered direction of .qroundwater,
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?. NI. The scope of the project is such that groundwater resources will
not be affected, as discussed above.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Substantial reduction of groundwater resources? LS. The project involves approval of three Specific
Plans to upgrade the appearance and land uses in downtown Dublin. Since more intensive land uses
are anticipated in the Plans above that allowed in the current General Plan, some increase in the use
of water is anticipated. Representatives of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District have indicated
that adequate water supplies have been identified and addressed in future District plans to serve the
Page 18
maximum. amount of development envisioned in the proposed Specific Plans.
projected level of water use is expected to be less-than-significant.
Therefore, the
V. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the Tri-Valley area, a sheltered, inland area surrounded by hills to the
west, south and east. Most of the airflow into the southern portions of the Va!ley is accomplished through
two passages in the surrounding hills: the Hayward and Niles canyons. Local wind data show the
frequent occurrence of low wind speed and calm conditions (the latter approximately 23 percent of the
time). These local limitations on the capacity for horizontal dispersion of air pollutants combined with the
regional characteristic of restricted vertical dispersion give the area a high potential for regional air
quality problems.
Project Impacts
a) Violation of air quality standard? LS. Potential air quality impacts can be divided into short-term,
construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts associated with the project.
In terms of construction-related impacts, it is anticipated that construction of new buildings under the
auspices of the Specific Plans would generate temporary increases in dust and particulate matter
caused by excavation and grading activities. Construction vehicle equipment on unpaved surfaces
also generates dust, as would wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Generalized estimates of
construction air emissions include approximately 1.2 tons of dust per acre per month of construction
activity. About 45 percent of construction-related dust is composed of large particles which settle
rapidly on nearby surfaces and are easily filtered by human breathing patterns. The remainder of
dust consists of small particles (also known as PM10). The City of Dublin requires the approval and
implementation of a Construction Impact Reduction Plan as a standard condition of approval for new
construction projects which will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a level of insignificance.
Buildout of the maximum development of the three Specific Plans would add additional vehicular
traffic to this portion of Dublin. These additional vehicles would generate quantities of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10).
However, the location of the Specific Plans near major regional transportation corridors (I-680 and
Dublin Boulevard), and the fact that the intent of the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific
Plans is to promote transit-friendly development results in conformity with the Bay Area Air.Quality
Management District's Clean Air Plan. The short-term and long-term impacts to air quality of
approving and implementing the three Specific Plans would, therefore, be less-than-significant.
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to po~utants? LS. As stated in V-a above, the impacts to air quality of the
project will be less-than-significant both on the long- and short-term. The project, if approved and
constructed, would add some vehicular trips to the project area, but the development of the new
West Dublin BART Station would also reduce a portion of the vehicular trips in the area. This
increase in vehicular trips is minor considering the fact that many of the trips are multi-purpose trips.
It is unlikely that the project would expose additional sensitive receptors, future visitors, and
residents to significantly higher concentrations of vehicle related pollutants. Any impacts related to
this issue would be less-than-significant.
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature or climate? NI. The Specific Plans are intended to
encourage the same general type of development as currently exists on each of the project sites.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 19
Although building heights may be somewhat higher than currently found on the site, no substantial
interference regarding prevailing wind patterns or climatic conditions is anticipated.
d) Create objectionable odors? NI. Permitted uses allowed by the Specific Plans include primarily retail,
office, entertainment, lodging and residential land uses, none of which are associated with the
release of significant amounts of objectionable odors. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
lye
Vi. Transportation/Circulation
[Note: The following section is based on an analysis of the traffic and transportation performed by Omni-
Means, Transportation Consultants in Au.qust 2000, with updates in September, November and
December 2000.]
Environmental Settin.q
Major,roadways serving the site include:
Interstate 580, a six-lane east-west freeway connecting Dublin with nearby local communities
such as Livermore and Pleasanton and regional destinations, such as Tracy and Oakland. In the
vicinity of the proposed project, 1-580 carries between 160,000 and 187,000 vehicles per day.
Nearby interchanges include 580/680; Dougherty Rd./Hopyard Rd. and Hacienda Dr.
Interstate 680 is a six-lane north-south freeway connecting Dublin with local communities in the
Tri-Valley area and regional destinations north and south of Dublin. This freeway accommodates
between 123,000 and 144,000 vehicles per day with interchanges at AIcosta Blvd., Interstate 580
and Stoneridge Drive.
Dougherty Road extends in a north-~outh direction east of the Specific Plan areas. A major
arterial roadway, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, the roadway widens to six travel lanes as it crosses over 1-680, a full-access
interchange for eastboundlwestbound traffic is located at Dougherty/I-580. In the Dublin
Boulevard area, Dougherty Road provides access primarily to commercial and retail areas. North
of Dublin Boulevard, the road provides access to residential areas as it approaches Amador
Valley Boulevard.
Amador Plaza Road. is a north-south street extending from Amador Valley Boulevard south
through Dublin Boulevard. Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Amador
Plaza Road has two travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. South of Dublin Boulevard, the
roadway has two travel lanes and provides access to existing and new retail-commercial land
uses. Amador Plaza Road is planed to connect to the new 1-680 southbound on/off ramps
currently under construction.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west roadway through the south part of the Village Parkway
planning area. Dublin Boulevard has six travel lanes and raised medians from San Ramon Road
to just east of Regional Street. As Dublin Boulevard approaches Golden Gate Drive, the roadway
narrows to four travel lanes and maintains this configuration east to Dougherty Road. Dublin
Boulevard is designated as a route of regional significant in the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan.
Golden Gate Drive is a short, two-lane roadway that extends south from Dublin Boulevard.
Providing access to commercial areas, Golden Gate Drive is designed with two travel lanes.
Regional Street extends south from Amador Valley Road through Dublin Boulevard. South of
Dublin Boulevard, .Regional Street is a wide, two-lane road provides access to retail and
commercial areas. North of Dublin Boulevard, the road has two travel lanes with a two-way left-
turn lane.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 20
Amadot' Valley Boulevard is located north of the project site and extends in an east-west
direction. East of San Ramon Road, Amador Valley' Boulevard has four travel lanes with raised
landscaped medians and is a major arterial street. West of San Ramon Road, the roadway
narrows to two travel lanes.
Village Parkway extends from Dublin Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard. A major arterial
roadway, Village Parkway has four travel lanes with raised center landscaped and hardscaped
medians. Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway provides
access to commercial land uses. Continuing northward, this roadway provides primary access to
residential areas off of Tamarack Drive, Brighton Drive and Davona Drive. A new northbound on-
ramp to 1-680 from Village Parkway recently opened.
San Ramon Road is oriented in a north-south direction west of the three Specific Plan areas. A
major arterial roadway, San Ramon Road has six travel lanes and raised medians north of 1-580.'
North of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road narrows to four travel lanes. In the Specific
Plan areas, the roadway provided access to commercial and retail businesses. San Ramon Road
is designated on System (MTS) roadway by the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency.
· Starward Drive extends from Amador Valley Boulevard north and has two travel lanes. It provides
access to residential areas north of the Specific Plan areas.
Donohue Drive is oriented in a north-south direction and provides access to residential areas
north of Amador Valley Road. A two-lane residential street, Donohue Drive extends north from
Amador Valley Boulevard.
Clark Avenue extends between Village Parkway north across Dublin Boulevard to Maple Drive. A
two-lane roadway, Clark Avenue provides access to commercial areas south of Dublin Boulevard
and residential areas north of Dublin Boulevard.
Civic Plaza/Sierra Court. Civic Plaza is a wide, two-lane street extending south from Dublin
Boulevard providing access to Dublin City Hall and Police Department headquarters. Civic Plaza
is not a through street. Sierra Court extends northward from Dublin Boulevard (opposite Civic
Plaza) and is a two-lane road, The roadway provides access to light industrial and residential
areas.
· Dublin Court extends southeast from Dublin Boulevard and is located east of the Specific Plan
areas. A wide, two-lane road, Dublin Court provides access to retail and commercial areas.
Lewis Avenue is a short, two-lane street extending east-west between Village Parkway and
Portage Road. Lewis Avenue provides access to commercial and office areas off of Village
Parkway before accessing residential areas east of Village Parkway.
Tamarack Drive extends in an east-west direction on both sides of Village Parkway. A wide, two-
lane road, Tamarack Drive provides access to residential areas north of Amador Valley Road.
· Brighton Drive extends in an east-west direction on both 'sides of Village Parkway. A wide, two-
lane road, Brighton Drive provides access to residential areas north of Tamarack Drive.
Davona Drive extends between Village Parkway and Alcosta Boulevard. A two-lane residential
street, Davona Drive also provides through vehicle access from Village Parkway areas to 1-680
via Alcosta Boulevard.
Dublin Planning Department Page 21
Downtown Specific Plans
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority ("WHEELS") provides bus transit service through the
Dublin area. Bus routes serving the downtown Dublin area include Routes 3, 4, 10 and 201/202.
Regional transit to and from the Dublin area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
BART opened a Dublin/Pleasanton station in the late 1990's, located approximately one mile east of the
project site. A recent proposal has been submitted to BART to construct a Downtown Dublin station
within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive, approximately 1/2
mite south of this Specific Plan area.
Bikeways exist or are proposed on Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard . Amador Valley
Boulevard is presently designated for a Class II bikeway lane, which is designed with a one-way striped
lane for bicycle travel on the roadway. Dublin Boulevard is proposed for a Class II bikeway lane, to be
opened with the completion of the roastway improvements. Public sidewalks have been constructed
adjacent to many of the streets within and adjacent to the Specific Plan areas.
The City commissioned a traffic consultant (Omni-Means, transportation consultants) to prepare a traffic
analysis regarding transportation and circulation impacts of approving and implementing the three
Specific Plans.
General Plan Transportation Policy Framework
The General Plan measures and evaluates traffic congestion conditions of the roadway network by using
intersection level of service ("L, OS") analysis. The LOS analysis describes the operational efficiency of
an intersection by comparing the volume of critical traffic movements to intersection capacity and
determining average delays. LOS can range from "A," representing free-flowing conditions, to "F,"
representing very severe congestion and intersection breakdown.
The General Plan adopts LOS D or better as the acceptable LOS for all routes of regional significance
(these routes include: Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Rd., Tassajara Rd., and San Ramon Rd.). Development
and road improvements should be phased so that the LOS does not deteriorate below LOS D (V/C .91
or greater) (General Plan Guiding Policies 5.1.1 B and C).
Si.qnificance Criteria
Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causes the overall
intersection LOS, or a movement LOS in the intersection, to fall below LOS D.
Project Impacts
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? LS. The proposed project would increase vehicle trips
and traffic congestion On the local roadway network, which could deteriorate existing levels of service
on some affected roadways. Table 1, summarizes existing traffic conditions in and around the.
Specific Plan sites, which also includes anticipated traffic from approved but not yet constructed
projects. The table also shows anticipated traffic impacts for the same intersections at full build out of
· maximum Specific Plan densities. For two of the intersections, Golden Gate/Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Plaza/Dublin Boulevard, projected traffic would exceed City thresholds of significance. For
these two intersections, the Specific Plans require the installation of traffic improvements as part of
Specific Plan development to raise the future Level of Service to comply with City standards.
Additional roadway widening improvements would be needed with the projected traffic volumes.
Golden Gate Drive would require widening to four travel lanes with two-way left-turn lanes between
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 22
.Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way. To accommodate the .projected development in the Plan area,
the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach at Areadot Plaza Road should be widened and restriped
to include a separate right-turn lane. Amador Plaza Road is already planned for widening to four
travel lanes in' the City's Capital Improvement Program budget: If St. Patrick Way is extended to
Regional Street with future development, Regional Street should also be widened to four lanes with a
two-way left-turn lane between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way.
To offset overall development impacts in the downtown area, including the BART related traffic,
Dublin BoUlevard is currently proposed. for widening. to six travel lanes between Sierra Court and
Dought~ry 'Road. A second '.eastb0und right-turn .lane would be installed on Dublin Boulevard at
Doughtery Road, and the"eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach at Golden Gate Drive would be
widened and restriped .to include a 'separate right-turn lane. The eastbound approach to Regional
Street would also be widened and re-striped to include a separate right-turn lane. Ultimate
eastbound approach geometrics would include one left-turn lane, three throuoh-lanes and one right-
turn lane. The traffic analysis also assumes the installation. of certain traffic improvements within and
near the Specific Plan areas that have alrTeady been approved by the City:or which are programmed
in the City's Capital .Improvement Budget. .' ""
These improvements would. be completed. in stages associated with the development of properties in
the area. For instance, the extension of St. Patrick Way to Regional .Street would be implemented
with the development of the hotel and residential project proposed adjacent to the BART station and
the 'redevelopment of adjacent industrial sites, such'as 'the Cor-o-Van's site. Some additional
property may be reguired in order to complete the roadway improvements; however,. the extent of
that reouired is unknown at this time.
Since the original environmental analysis was prepared in September 2000, .an increase in the FAR
and souare foota~e for the development of the site adiacent to the West Dublin BART Station has
been proposed. Jones, Lang, LaSalle, the proiect sponsor, has submitted a development proposal
which shows' an increase in square foota0e of 109,864 square feet for the.hotel 'portion of the project
from the orioinal conceptual plan reviewed by staff. According to Omni-Means, the traffic. consultant
for the Specific Plan, even thou.Oh there will be an increase in scluare footage, increasino-the FAR on
the property to 1.12, no increase in traffic or degradation of the LOS in the area is anticipated as
traffic generation rates are based on the number of rooms in the hotel. This number (240 rooms)
'has remained unchanged from the original conceptual plan submitted by the proiect sponsor.
Under consideration bv the City Council, also, is a request from Morrison and Foerster, representing
AMB, a potential Purchaser of the Cor-o-Van warehouse site,' re0uestin.cl an increase in tl~e FAR
from .87 to 1.00 for the portion of that property shown as Office 'on the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit 9 of the' Specific Plan). All areas shown in the Plan as Office total
approximately 6:98 acres, It was determined that all of the properties shown in the .Office land use
cate.clorV of the Specific Plan should be allowed to benefit from the increased FAR. Therefore,
because traffic generation rates are dependent on FAR's, a FAR of 1.00 was applied to 6,98 acres
and tested by the traffic consultant. This FAR would create approximately 40,000 souare feet more
of officespace than a FAR of .87. Although this increased square footage would generate more
-traffic over that originally shown in the table, the traffic consultant has indicated that the increase
· would not generate a significant amount of additional traffic. and the policies and pro.grams related to
traffic in the Specific Plan are adeo'uate for this increase (refer to Attachment 15, December 8,' 2000
letter from Omni-Means).
In the Downtown Specific Plan area, 'the City CoUncii.is considering removal of the High Density
Residential or senior housing element of the Plan. in the northwest corner of the Plan:area adiacent
to.Amador Valley Boulevard. If the use of the property remains as Retail/Office (shown as
Commercial A on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 9, of the Specific Plan), an increase in the FAR for the
site to .40 would occur under the Plan~ reflecting that proposed for the other portion .of' the' shopping
center. This would increase the potential square footage for the site by approximately 40,000'square
Dublin Planning Department Page 23
Downtown Specific Plans
feet. According to the City's traffic consultant, this would result in more traffic trips per day than the
residential use at the same location. Because of this, intersections in the vicinity may operate at
LOS "D" rather than LOS "C". LOS "D" is .qenerallv considered an acceptable level of service, so
although tripswould increase, it would not be a si.clnificant increase and will be adequately addressed
by the policies and programs in the Specific Plans.
At their meetinq on October 24, 2000, the Planning Commission suqclested revisions to be included
in the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and .also in the General Plan Amendments for the project. The
Commission suggested a chan.qe in the FAR for a 2.55 acre Retail/Auto use property to reflect a
request by Kenneth and Marc Harvey of Dublin Honda for property on Amador Plaza Road. The
chan.qe modifies the FAR from 0.20 ('or 22,420 square feet with the existin.q development on the site)
to 0.79, resulting in a development potential of 87,750 square feet. This change would provide for
consistency between the FAR of the Honda dealership property and that of the adjacent property,
former site of Shamrock Ford, at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. It is not
anticipated that traffic in the area would increase with this FAR increase as the existing use would
remain the same, and the additional sauare footaqe would be utilized for storaqe and office space
associated with that use. The policies and pro.clrams in the Specific Plans should be adequate for the
proposed land use. Any land use chan.qe application for this property in the future would require a
land use and traffic analysis to evaluate the impacts on the Specific Plan area.
For the Village Parkway Specific Plan area, the City Council appointed a Task Force which met over
a six-rfionth perio_d to discuss and direct the revitalization of the business community along the
segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and Dublin Boulevard to
the south. To accomplish this revitalization effort, it was decided by the Task Force that slowing
traffic and providing better parking opportunities close to businesses would create a more pedestrian
and shopper friendly environment, thereby stimulating the economic growth of businesses and
increasing the activity level in the area. Four different options for roadway improvements along
Village Parkway were evaluated during the specific plan development process, along with the
existing roadway configuration as shown in Exhibit 7A of the Specific plan. The following is a brief
description of each of the Village Parkway roadway alternatives considered. Exhibits illustrating the
alignment and cross section of Village Parkway for each alternative are contained in Appendix A5 of
the Village Parkway Specific Plan.
Alternative l: The Village' Parkway Specific Plan Task Force reviewed the various options for the
roadway, 'all of which contained diagonal parking to bring people closer to business storefronts
and to change the streetscape in the area. Alternative 1, as shown in Exhibit 10A of Appendix
A5 of the Specific Plan, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes in each
direction) combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. There
are approximately 60 existing parallel parking spaces along Village Parkway at this time, and 121
parking spaces could be provided with this alternative.
A four-foot class III bicycle lane would be located between the diagonal parking and the right
traffic lane. The sidewalk would be widened from five feet (existing right-o~-way is eight feet) to
10 feet to provide enough space for increased pedestrian use. Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width.
In the Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway,
Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans prepared by Omni-Means for the
Downtown specific plans, the consultant determined that this alternative would create the least
potential roadway impacts of the four alternatives and recommended it for implementation. This
determination was based on the following: 1 ) four travel lanes would be maintained; 2) diagonal
parking would provide additional spaces close to business frontages; and, 3) bicycle traffic would
be provided on the street (however, this could create some conflicts between motorists backing
out of spaces and bicyclists). Some conflicts may occur between through vehicles and those
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 24
backing out of spaces, but the bike lane should provide a buffer zone, thereby reducing the
potential for conflict.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 115 feet, As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, an additional seven feet six inches of ROW on each side of the street would
need to be obtained from property owners. Implementation of this alternative would require a
public/private partnership, or joint partnership between private property owners and the City to
balance the cost of improvements. This alternative requires a high degree of cooperation and
commitment by .both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The
preliminary cost estimate for improvements related to this alternative is $2,005,000.
Alternative 2- Alternative 2, as shown in Exhibit 7B of.the Specific Plan (see attached disgram)
and Exhibit 10B of the appendix, would provide four lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (two lanes
in each direction)combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations,
and the bicycle lane would share the sidewalk with pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk would be
widened to12feet to provide enough space for the shared use. Two new crosswalks for
pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each traffic lane
would ,be 12 feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The
total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 118 feet. As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, an additional nine feet of ROW 'on each side of the street would need to be
obtained from property owners.
The consultant's report determined tha~t this alternative was adequate for roadway circulation;
however, maintaining the bike lane on the sidewalk could be problematic in the downtown retail
district due to pedestrian/bicycle conflicts on the adjacent sidewalks. Additionally, the alternative
does not provide a buffer area between the outside 'lanes and vehicles backing out of the
diagonal parking spaces. This could be disruptive to traffic flows during peak hours of traffic.
/
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The
preliminary cost estimate for improvements related to this alternative is $2,170,000.
Altemative 3 - The alternative preferred by the Task Force was Alternative 3, as shown in Exhibit
10C, which would provide two lanes of traffic on Village Parkway (one lane in each direction)
combined with diagonal parking along the street frontage in selected locations. A total of 81
parking spaces could be provided with this alternative. A six-foot Class III bicycle lane would be
located on the roadway between the diagonal parking and the through traffic lane. Two new
crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided in mid-block locations with caution signals. Each
traffic lane would be 12feet and the center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in
width. The Task Force also suggested that the median be reduced in height for better visibility
for pedestrians crossing the street.
The total right-of-way (ROW) required for this option would be 100 feet. As the roadway ROW is
currently 100 feet, no additional ROW would need to be obtained from property owners. The
amount of ROW needed for this alternative is less than that required for the other options
considered, but it would reduce the number of through traffic lanes from four to two, thereby
slowing traffic considerably. In slowing t.,affic on the roadway, Alternative 3 would also create
additional congestion on Village Parkway during peak hour periods, and traffic may be diverted to
Amador Plaza Road and streets with less capacity in the vicinity. With the existing level of traffic
plus approved projects' and BART's estimated traffic volume, the traffic consuitant's estimate is
that the level-of-service (LOS) on Village Parkway would operate at LOS F (unacceptable level),
decreasing from LOS C (acceptable level) with this alternative. Additionally, the LOS at the
Dublin Planning Department Page 25
Downtown Specific Plans
intersections of Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway and Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway
would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, and LOS F during the PM peak hour
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements, but to a
lesser degree than Alternative I and 2. This alternative requires cooperation and commitment by
both the City and the property owners on Village Parkway to be successful. The preliminary cost
estimate for this alternative is $1,050,000, and is the lowest cost alternative when compared to
the other three alternatives.
Alternative 4 - Alternative 4, as shown in Exhibit 10D, would provide four lanes of traffic on
Village Parkway (two lanes in each direction) and a four-foot bicycle lane. Diagonal parking
would be provided along the frontage of businesses in selected locations, but it would be
separated from street traffic by narrow medians. A total of approximately 106 parking spaces
would be provided with this alternative along Village Parkway. Drive aisle entrances would
provide access to these separated parking areas. Two new crosswalks for pedestrians would be
provided in mid-block locations.with caution signals. Each traffic lane would be 12 feet and the
center median would be reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet in width. The total right-of-way '(ROW)
required for this option would be 128 feet. As the roadway ROW is currently 100 feet, an
additional 14 feet of ROW on each side of the street would need to be obtained from property
owners.
This alternative would increase the distance between roadway traffic and the businesses on
Village Parkway, and may not meet the objective of slowing traffic and providing a more
pedestrian oriented streetscape, as the width of the ROW would be substantially increased.
Implementation of this alternative would require a public/private partnership, or joint partnership
between private property owners and the City to balance the cost of improvements. The
preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is the highest of the four alternatives at $3,130,000.
Therefore, as the cost is extremely high and it would not meet the basic objective of providing
parking close to the street and businesses v~th better pedestrian access, it is not recommended
as a viable alternative.
Staff has several concerns regardin.cl narrowing Village Parkway to two lanes of traffic and addin.q
dia.clonal parking, as preferred bv the Task Force. Vehicle trip diversion may occur, as 'discussed in the
previous section, and adversely affect the adjacent neighborhood to the east. This could affect the
quality of life for that portion of the City residential area by creatin.cl safety hazards for residents and
children attendin.q the-nei.qhborhood school. Noise levels could also increase in the area with the
additional cut-throu.qh traffic. Additionally, the Alameda County Fire Department and Dublin Police
Department have expressed concerns related to community safety, response time, and the creation of
roadway hazards in the event that Village Parkway is reduced to two lanes of traffic with diagonal
parkin.q within the .existin.q ri.qht-of-way. Another option for the alignment of Village Parkway, which is the
staff recommended option (see attached diagram), is to maintain the existing roadway without
expansion, and continue the use of parallel parking on both sides of the street. Improvements in the
streetscape and sidewalk could be provided as described in the section of this document on design to
encourage increased pedestrian use in the area. Additionally, joint/shared parking should be
encouraged between properties, with fences removed which impede pedestrian access. This option
would require less capital funds for implementation and would create less roadway impacts.
A letter has been received from the Alameda County Con.qestion Mana.qement Agency' ('ACCMA)
commenting on the transportation and circulation analysis prepared for the Specific Plans. The City's
traffic consultant has responded to these comments in a letter dated December 8, 2000. The ACCMA
stated that the Dublin Specific Plans qualified for analysis usin.q the Countywide Transporation Demand
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 26
.Model. If another model is used in a traffic analysis, the model outputs must be compared to those of
the Countywide model. The traffic consultant used a manual distribution model (TRAFFIX) outputs as a
baseline for .clenerating future traffic volumes and has compared their forecasted volumes to those of the
Countywide model in their lette~ of explanation to the ACCMA. In comparinc~ the two models, the traffic
consultants findin.cts for the Specific Plan area volumes for the year 2005 .aenerallv exceed those under
the Countywide model. The only location where the models differ is at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Villacle Parkway, with a large amount of trips actually attributable to undeveloped
northeastern Dublin properties. However, the policies and pro.qrams in the Specific Plan would address
these future traffic volumes throu.clh the implemeF~tation of widenin.cl Dublin Boulevard. in this area to
three throu.ah lanes from two through lanes. Additionally, the improvements provided at the
intersections of Re.aional Street, Golden Gate Drive, and Amador Plaza Road, as discussed above,
would fully address these traffic impacts. All roadways within the Specific Plan study .area would be
operatin.a at acceptable levels of service C'D" or better) with the proposed mitigation measures in the
Plans. Adherence to traffic and roadway improvements included in the Specific Plans will ensure that
traffic' and transportation impacts related to approval and implementation of the Specific Plans would be
less-than-significant. These improvements are included in the Capital Improvement Program for the
Specific Plans.
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? LS. Proposed development and redevelopment of
properties in the three Specific Plan areas will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works, Police
and Fire Departments at the time of site development review to ensure that City design standards
are met. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to safety impacts.
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? L__S N~. The proposed Specific Plan makes
provision for new roadways through the project areas. New development proposed pursuant to he
Specific Plans will be reviewed by the City. of Dublin Public Works, Planning, Police and Fire
Departments to ensure that adequate access and roadway widths would be provided. Therefore,
adequate access would be provided' to all' building .areas and no impacts would' result regarding
access. Althou.clh not a potentially si.qnificant impact, for more efficient and routine operations, Police
and Fire have recommended that Villa.qe Parkway remain as a four-lane roadway, as recommended
by staff.
Table I. Existing and Future Traffic Conditions
Intersections
Uavona DriveNi!lage Parkway
BrightonNillage Parkway
I amarack/Village Parkway
San RamonlAmador Valley
t~egional/Amador Valley
Starward/Amador Valley
Donohue/Amador Valley
Amador Plaza/Amador Valley
Village Parkway/AmadorValley
LewisNillage Parkway
..... . .b.xisting..::S:cenario:,': .; LHrojectScenario
/::}cis~ing~'+:,'.' "i=xisting~' i-uture'
..: ................... ..P-.:roject
AM PM AM PM
V/C/ V/C/LOS V/C/ V/C/LO
LOS LOS S
A 0,39 A 0.33 A 0.42 A 0.35
A 0.39 A 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.38
A 0.39 A 0.36 A 0.43 A 0.38
A 0.49 B 0.62 A 0.49 B 0.69
A 0.34 A 0.56 A 0.35 A 0.58
C 18.2 C 26.0 C18.4 D28.8
A 0.3'/ A 0.45 A 0.40 A 0.56
A 0.32 A 0.57 A 0.37 B 0.65
B 0.64 C 0.76 C 0.72 D 0.84
A 0.35 A 0.38 A 0:34 A 0.38
Dublin Planning Department Page 27
Downtown Specific Plans ..
San Hamon/Dublin
Regional/Dublin
Golden Gate/Dublin
Amador Plaza/Dublin
Village Parkway/Dublin
Clark/Dublin
Civic Plaza-Sierra/Dublin
Dublin Ct./Dublin Blvd.
Dougherty/Dublin
1-580 WB off/Dougherty
1-580/l=B/Hopyard
i~egional/St. Patrick Way (future)
Golden Gate/St. Patrick Way (future)
Amador Plaza/St. Patrick Way (future)
D 0.85 C 0.78 D 0.87 D 0.89
A 0.36 A 0.54 A 0.48 C 0.79
A 0.28 A 0.48 B 0.68 E 0.91
B 0.62 C 0.80
A 0.44 C 0.76 A 0.58 F 1.02
A 0.50 D 0.83
A 0.47 A 0.60 A 0.47 B 0.66
A 0.40 A 0.51 A 0.42 A 0.53
A 0.35 A 0.51. A 0.36 A 0.54
A 0.37 B 0.66 A 0.39 C0.71
C 0.74 D 0.90 C 0.75 . D 0.88
B 0.62 A 0.58 B 0.62 A 0.56
C 0.73 D 0.85 C 0.72 D 0.85
.... A A
.... A 0.56 B 0.61
.... A 0.41 A 0.45
Note: Italics text indicates volume to capacity ratio and Level of Service after implementation of Specific
Plan traffic improvements ·
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? LS. Approval'of the three Specific Plans and
construction of improvements based on the Specific Plans would increase the demand for on-site
parking within each of the three areas. Parking demand would also be increased due to the planned
presence of the proposed West Dublin BART station, the development of which is not part of.the
Specific Plan project. Requirements included in each of the Specific Plans require that all new land
uses proposed pursuant to a Specific Plan include on-site parking to meet current. City of Dublin
parking requirements. Existin.q uses are assumed to provide sufficient parking with applicable City
standards on-site at the time of original construction and development. The Specific Plans provide
that. E-e_xceptions to parking regulations may be allowed for shared use of parking facilities, or in
instances where the Plannin.q Commission or City Council find evidence based on a parkinc~ analysis
that a reduced parkin.cl ratio is appropriate due to the proximity of the use to public transit service.
The Specific Plans also provide that Provision of additional parking facilities maybe reviewed and
required will bc rcvicwod as individual Site Development Review applications are submitted to the
City of Dublin for new construction projects. This review process will ensure that adequate parking is
provided and any parking impacts would be less-than-significant.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Specific Plans would require
construction of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage non-auto travel modes. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? NI. Each of the Specific Plans require the installation of some new facilities to support
enhanced bus service to each of the three sites. However, the additional facilities would be within
areas presently served by transportation services. The new facilities would be consistent with
adopted policies supporting alternative transportation as they would provide more opportunities to
use varying modes of transportation. Therefore, no impacts are foreseen.
g)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? NI. The proposed project is not sited near operating railroad
facilities, near a navigable waterway or near an airport. Although the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan is located near the proposed West Dublin BART station, the intent of the Specific Plan is to
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 28
promote complementary land uses adjacent to the planned BART station. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.
VII. Biological Resources
Environmental Settin.cl
The. Specific Plan project sites are located in highly urbanized areas. With the exceptions of County
drainage channels on the periphery of two of the Specific Plan areas, no wetlands or other bodies of
water exist in or near the site. Existing 'vegetation includes introduced ornamental landscaping within
planter areas.
Proiect Impacts
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals and birds) NI. The Specific Plan Areas are existing, urbanized downtown areas,
The .majority of the properties within the plan areas are fully developed. No such species have been
observed in the project areas based on field observations conducted in July 2000.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees). NI. No heritage trees are located on the site.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat) NI. Only introduced,
ornamental vegetation associated with urban development is found on the site.
d)
Wetland habitat (e~g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? NI. No wetlands exist on the project site.
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? NI. The Specific Plans represent in-fill development within
an existing urbanized downtown area. There are no wildlife or migration corridors on the site;
therefore, no impacts would occur to such resources
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin.q
Based on the previous geotechnical surveys of specific properties in the Specific Plan area, no known
deposits of minerals exist on the project site. The Conservation Element of the General Plan does not
reference any significant mineral resources on the project site or in the general area.
Project Impacts
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? NI. The proposed project will not conflict with
goals, policies or programs established in the Dublin General Plan regarding energy or energy
conservation.
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and-inefficient manner? NI, The proposed project is not
anticipated to use resources in a wasteful manner. The project will be constructed in accordance with
the Uniform Building Code and Title 24 of'the California Administrative Code, both of which require
stringent energy efficient construction methods, such as insulation, thermal pane windows and
installation of efficient appliances. Exterior landscaping will be governed by both AB 325 and Section
8.88 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which requires "water budgets" for landscape material sand
. methods of irrigation. Finally, the City is mandated by AB 939 to reduce the solid waste stream
Dublin Planning Department ' Page 29
Downtown Specific Plans
c)
generated by residences, business and industrial establishments by promoting recycling and similar
programs.
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and residents of the State? NI. The project site is not located in an area designated by the
California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as having sufficient
mineral resources that are suitable as marketable commodities. No impacts are therefore expected.
IX. Hazards
Environmental Settin.cl
The Specific Plan areas are located in previously developed commercial. office and similar non-
residential areas. Existing uses within the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plan areas
include automobile sales and service uses. Operation of these facilities use oil, grease, solvents and
other potentially hazardous materials. It is anticipated that some or all of these uses would remain in
business after adoption of the two Specific Plans; however, storage and handling of potentially
hazardous materials is controlled by the Alameda County Fire Department, Alameda County Health
Department, Regional Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies..
Project Impacts
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? NI. With the' exception of auto-oriented uses, none of the land
uses permitted by the proposed Specific Plans would store, use or transport significant quantities of
hazardous substances. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to hazardous substances.
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NI. Future
site development plans proposed within the three Specific Plans will be reviewed by the Dublin
Police Department, Dublin Planning Department and Alameda County Fire Department to ensure
that adequate emergency evacuation is provided per City requirements. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards ? NI. Development of land uses and
other facilities pursuant to the three Specific Plans are not anticipated to generate significant health
hazards, since permitted uses would generally include commercial, office, entertainment, restaurant
and residential uses. No industrial or manufacturing land uses are proposed. No impacts are
therefore anticipated.
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? LS. Generally, new land uses in
the Specific Plan areas would include commercial, office, lodging, entertainment and similar uses,
none of which would involve creation of a health hazard. New development that may be located near
automobile serving uses could have the potential to expose employees and visitors to health
hazards; however, the potential for exposure of people to health hazards from existing uses will be
reviewed during the Site Development Plan process to ensure compliance with all applicable health
and safety regulations. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore expected.'
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? LS. The proposed Specific Plan
areas are located in urbanized areas and' existing uses have been constructed in compliance with
Uniform Fire and Building Code requirements. Existing and future landscaped areas will be
permanently irrigated and maintained so that the potential for fire is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 30
X. Noise
Environmental Setting
The General Plan identifies that the normally acceptable maximum outdoor Ldn noise level is 70 dBA for
commercial areas, while interior areas have a maximum noise level of 45 dBA.
The primary existing source of noise in the vicinity of the three Specific Plans is vehicle traffic, autos and
trucks~ traveling on adjacent freeways and surface streets. It is anticipated that significant portions of all
three Specific Plan areas are subject to exterior noise in excess of 70 dBA.
Proiect Impacts
a)
Increases in existing noise levels? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plan and construction of
improvements pursuant to the Plans is expected to incrementally increase noise levels in and
adjacent to the three planning areas. Noise increases would include temporary noise increases,
associated with construction activities and long-term permanent noise levels, associated with
additional vehicular trips and operational noise (mechanical noise, unloading of goods and similar
activities). Given the high levels of noise already on the site caused by nearby freeways, increases in
noise levels are anticipated to be less-than-significant.
b)
Exposure ofpeopte to severe noise levels? LS. The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific
Plans both allow residential dwellings as permitted uses. Site specific review will be performed during
Site Development Review for residential projects to ensure compliance with City interior and exterior
noise standards. Noise studies may be required for individual projects. With adherence to City
noise standards, less-than-significant impacts would occur with regard to exposure of people to
noise impacts.
XI. Public Services.
Environmental Settin.q
The project site is served by the following service providers:
Fire Protection. Fire protection is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, under
contract to the City of Dublin, which provides structural fire suppression, rescue, hazardous
materials control and public education services.
Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the City of Dublin Police Department which is
headquartered in the Civic Center. The Department, which maintains a sworn staff of 31 officers,
performs a range of public safety services including patrol, investigation, traffic safety and public
education.
Schools. Educational facilities are provided by the Dublin Unified School District which operates
kindergarten through high school services within the community; Schools which would serve the
project include Dublin High School (grades 9-12) and Wells Middle School (graded 6-8). Grades
K-5 could be served by one of three elementary schools within the District.
· Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks,
street trees and other public facilities. Dublin's Civic Center is located at 100 Civic Plaza.
Dublin Planning Department Page 31
Downtown Specific Plans
Other .qovernmental services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin
including community development and building services and related governmental services.
Library service is provided by the Alameda County Library with supplemental funding by the City
of Dublin.
The City of Dublin has adopted a Public Facilities Fee for all new residential development in the
community for the purpose of financing new municipal public facilities needed by such development.
Facilities anticipated to be funded by the proposed fee would include completion of the Civic Center
Complex, construction of a new library, expansion of the existing senior center, acquisition and
development of new community and neighborhood parks and similar municipal buildings and facilities.
Future applicants for development pursuant to the Specific Plans would be required to pay this fee.
En,~ironmental Iml:>acts
a)
b)
Fire protection? LS. Approval of the three Specific PlaDs and future construction in compliance with
the Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for fire and emergency calls for service
since additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
review process for individual buildings, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed to ensure
compliance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Such measures would include but
not limited to installation of new fire hydrants, fire extinguishers and similar features. Based on
standard City fire protection requirements, fire protection impacts would be less-than-significant.
Police protection? LS. Approval of the three Specific Plans and future construction in compliance
with the Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for police calls for service since
additional building square footage would be added to each site. As part of the site development
review process for individual buildings, specific security requirements will be imposed to ensure
compliance with applicable provisions of the City's building security ordinance. Such measures would
include, but not be limited to, installation of appropriate locking devices, installation of security
lighting and similar features. Based on standard City security requirements, police protection impacts
would be less-than-significant:
c)
Schools? LS. The West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans each call for a residential
component. Although the size, type and orientation of dwellings that would be proposed for
development would likely generate a minimal amount of students to be served by the Dublin Unified
School District, there could be an .incremental increase in the number of school-aged children. As
part of subdivision and site development review of future residential projects, coordination will occur
with school district officials to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result,
d)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the Specific Plans and construction
of individual development projects pursuant to the Plans would incrementally increase the need for
maintenance of public facilities. Payment of public facility fees to the City of Dublin by individual
projects would ensure that future maintenance impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels.
e)
Other governmental services? LS. Approval of the Specific Plans would represent incremental
increases in the demand for general governmental services. Payment of the City's Public Facility Fee
by individual project developers would offset any impacts caused by such projects, reducing any
impacts to a less-than-significant impact.
XII. Utilities and Service Systems.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 32
/¢7
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by the following service providers:
Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
· Communications: Pacific Bell and AT&T Cable.
Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services. District.
Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
Solid waste disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Compar~'y.
Environmental Impacts
a) Power or natural.gas? NI. According to representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
adequate facilities exist in the vicinity of the project to provide power and natural gas service.
b) Communication systemS? NI. Pacific Bell and AT&T Cable, communication facilities presently exist in
the near each of the three Specific Plan sites.
c) Local or regional wa~.er treatment or'distributiOn systems? NI. Water services are provided to the
area by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). According to representatives of the
District, adequate long-term water resoarces exist to serve future development envisioned in each of
the Specific Plans. However, an upgrade to a 12"1oop waterline from Regional Street to Amador
Plaza Road may be required with new development, but the District will need to evaluate the system
when-specific projects are submitted.
d) Sewer or septic systems? LS. Sewer services am provided by DSRSD. Untreated effluent would
be transported to DSRSD's Regional Treatment Plant in Pleasanton for treatment prior to being
discharged into the East Bay Discharge Authority's outfall line for eventual disposal into San
Francisco Bay. DSRSD officials indicate that adequate capacity exists within the regional treatment
facility to accommodate' the proposed Specific Plans. However, the District may need to replace the ·
8" sewer main line with a 12" line in Dublin Boulevard if development occurs at the intensity proposed
with the Specific Plan. This will also require further evaluation when specific projects are submitted.
Less-than.significant impacts would therefore result regarding sewer treatment facilities.
e)
f)
Storm water drainage? LS. This topic was previously addressed in Section IV, Water.
So~d. waste disposal? LS..The City of Dublin contracts with Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company to
collect solid waste from households and businesses and transport' it to t.he Altamont Landfill, located
in eastern Alameda County. The Landfill currently has an anticipated capacity until the year 2005
and plans are underway to extend landfill capacity for an additional 50 years.
Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company also operates a curbside recycling service to ensure that the
City's waste stream complies with state requirements for reduction of solid waste. The most current
information available indicates that Dublin exceeds state requirements for reducing solid waste.
Although approval of the proposed Specific Plans will incrementally increase the amount of solid
waste, any such increases will be insignificant because the existing facility would be able to be
Dublin Planning. Department Page 33
Downtown Specific Plans
Although approval of the proposed Specific Plans will incrementally increase the amount of solid
waste, any such increases. will be insignificant because the existing facility would be able to be
accommodated given the existing solid waste facilities and resources'. As stated in VIII-b above, the
City is mandated by AB 939 to reduce the solid waste stream generated by residences, businesses
and industrial establishment by promoting recycling and similar programs.
g) Local or regional water supplies? NI. DSRSD staff indicate that adequate long-term water supplies
are available from Zone 7 and other sources to serve the proposed project.,
XIII. Aesthetics. '
Environmental Setting
The Specific Plan areas are located within existing urbanized areas and are not located adjacent to.
scenic highways.
Environmental Impacts
a) Affect a scenic vista or view?. NI. The proposed Specific. Plan includes development programs to
intensify existing land use patterns. Each Specific Plan contains height and bulk requirements to
ensure that scenic vistas from surrounding areas would not be blocked. The Specific Plans establish
a height limit of six stories for the Downtown Core and Villacle Parkway areas. The Planning
Commission has recommended a height limit of ten stories for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
area to the City COuncil, which is common with development in most urban downtowns and
development near freeways. The City Council may determine that ten stories is appropriate for this
area:-,,'.due to its location near the BART Station, a major transit facility, and the 1-580 and 1-680
freeways.- Review of individual projects in accordance with the desi.qn guidelines related to
reduction in bulk and quality of desi.qn as detailed in the Specific Plan will result in less-than-
significant impacts on views.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? NI. Each Specific Plan contains design guidelines to
ensure that new development projects occurring pursuant to an approved Specific Plan would result
in an aesthetically pleasing manner and would include additional. landscaping. As part of the Specific
Plan programs, new public plazas, streetscape elements and other .improvements would be
completed to improve aesthetic conditions. Therefore, no negative aesthetic impacts would be
created.
c)
Create light or glare? LS. Proposed new uses constructed pursuant to the Specific Plans could
incrementally increase light levels in each of the Plan areas. New sources of light would include
street lighting, plaza lighting and building security lighting with new development projects and,
possible, extended hours of business. However, a significant amount of exterior lighting has already
been installed within each of the Specific Plan areas. Standard conditions of approval for individual
development projects will require that pole-mounted lights shall be equipped with cut-off luminaires.
Wall-mounted lights must also be equipped with cut-off lenses. Any additional light or glare created
would be therefore be minimal less-than-significant,
XIV. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settin.q
The project site has been developed. for a range of commercial and similar non-residential areas. No
cultural resources remain on the graded-surface of the site. Since surface improvements are less than
fifty years' old or newer, no historic resources exist on the site.
Dublin Planning Department Page 34
Downtown Specific Plans
Project Impacts '
a-d) Disturb paleontological, archeological, religious or cultural resources? LS: No cultural resources
remain on the graded surface of the site. Any cultural resources buried beneath the ground surface
would be re-buried by individual development projects proposed to implement a Specific Plan. The
possibility exists that cultural resources including paleontological, cultural, historic or' archaeological
could be buried on the site and discovered during excavation. Each individual project proposed
pursuant to a Specific Plan will be conditioned to protect buried archeological and paleontologica!
resources. With adherence to this condition, less-than-significant impacts.would result to cultural
resources:
XV. Recreation.
Environmental Setting
Each of the Specific Plan areas have been developed with commercial, office, entertainment, lodging
and similar uses. No parks or recreational facilities exist on any of the Specific Plan sites.
Project Impacts
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? LS.
Construction of new residential' dwellings pursuant to the West Dublin BART and Downtown Core
Specific Plans would incrementally increase the demand for local and regional parks and recreational
facilities. However, it is anticipated that the majority of new dwellings would either be oriented to
senior citizens or non-family households, typical of higher density, multi-family housing. Therefore,
expected park and recreational demand would be less-than-significant. Future builders of residential
dwellings would be also be required to pay a Public Facility fee to the City of Dublin, which includes a
contribution toward construction of new parks in the city. Additionally, the plans call for some plaza
areas to be created in the three specific plan areas which could provide opportunities for outdoor
recreational activities.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? NI. No recreational opportunities exist on the site that would
be affected by the project.
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a)
Does the project 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 or animal community, reduce. the number of 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?. NI. The preceding analysis indicates that adoption and
implementation of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the
Downtown Core Specific Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental
quality, including biological resources or cultural resources.
b)
Does the project have the potential to achieve Short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? NI. The project represents an example of in-fill development near a proposed
major transit station which will be sited in an area surrounded by major regional transportation
corridors. No long-term environmental impacts will occur.
Dublin Planrang Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page,35
d)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects). LS. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be
expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, short-term air emissions
and need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already urbanized area and
sufficient capacity exists within service systems to support the anticipated amount of development
planned as part of the three Specific Plans.
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? NI. Due to project design and site characteristics, approval and
implementation of the three Specific Plans involve no impacts that would adversely effect human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Initial Study Preparer
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City of Dublin
Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
Kevin van Katwyk, Senior Engineer
T. Philipps, Alameda County Sheriff's Department
James Ferdinand, Alameda County Fire Department
Dublin-San Ramon SeNices District
Bruce Webb, Senior Engineering Planner
References
Dublin General Plan, Revised September 1992
Dublin General Plan Housin.cl Element, June, 1990
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Adopted September 1997
Draft Downtown Core Specific Plan. City of Dublin, September A.'-'.G~st, 2000
Draft Village Parkway Specific Plan, City of Dublin, September A,~g~st, 2000
Draft West Dublin BART Specific Plan, City of Dublin, September ~, 2000
Consultant's Report on the Transportalion Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown
Core and West BART Station Specific Plans, prepared by Omni-Means, LTD., August 28, 2000;
secondary revisions to the Omni-Means traffic analysis ('September 22, 2000; memo from
George Nickelson of Omni-Means dated November 13, 2000; and, December 8, 2000 letters
from Peter Galloway of Omni-Means.
Dublin Planning Department
Downtown Specific Plans
Page 36
Village Parkway Alignment: Task Force, Rec9mmendation
\\
Village Parkway Alignment: Staff Recommendation (Existing
Alignment) "'
WONDER
OUTLET
i
EXHIBIT 7A
_~taff .Re~,ommendati.O-n ,
12/08/200~ 15:'5S B189352247 OMNI MEANS PA~E
omni.means
.PLANNERS
December S, 2000
Ms, Janet Harbin
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
1.00 Civic Plaza
Dublin. CA 94568
Subject: West Dublin lilt Specific Plan Area; Increase In Proposed Office Uses
Dear Ms. Harbin:
We have evaluated the increase in office square footage for the proposed West Dublin DART
Specific Plan Area. Based on our conversations, proposed Office uses in the Plan area would
increase by 39,527 square feet over the current proposal of 333,330 square feet. Using the same
trip generation rates found in Table 6 of the Specific Plan traffic analysis, the additional trip
generation has ben calculated,' As c~oulaltxl, the extra 39,527 square feet of office space
would generate 435 daily trips, 62 AM aml 59 PM peak hour trips.
Based on the proposed overall office distribution for the Specific Plan, approximately 40 percent
of the office trips would be m/from the east, 50 percent to/from the west, and 10 percent m/from
the north. All trips would access the Plan area via Dublin Boulevard. However, given the
somewhat even distribution split in an east-west direction, project trips would tend be' dispersed.
In addition. there would be three different access points at Regional Street, Golden Gate Drive,
and Areadot Plaza Road into the Plan area. For these reasons, no one intersection would
experience a projeSt trip increase of more than 20-25 peak hour trips from the extra 39,527
square feet of office space. Based on'recommended mitigation measures at the Regional/Dublin,
Golden Gate/Dublin. and Areadot Plaza/Dublin intersections, projected intersection LOS would
be D or better with these additional office trips.
Please call if you have any questions regarding this subject.
Sincerely//d~ (-~ '
Peter J. Gallowagran~~er
ROSEVILLE
2237 Douglas BaulevOr(t. SLmtte
Rosevi,~., CA 9566
[gl 6) 782-8688
FAX (916)
/
'Orrmi-Means Engineers & Planners, Consultant's Report of the. Transportation Impacts For the
P_mposed Villag%park.W.~.v. Do~.nlo.wn Con. and West DART.Station Specific Plans, City of Dublin,
Table 6, Final Draft Re rt, September 26, 2000.
~ED~)NJtNG VI~LIA WALNUT (~REEK
4."~ Redcliff Drive, Suite D 720W. Cenfer,~'~enue, Stile C 1901 Olympic Bougvord, SIs. 120
i~.~:d~n~. OA 8BO0~ ~qsllia, CA 93Z81 WOlnU! CrSek. CA 94-596
..'".,3C) 223-6500 (559') 734.5895 (925) 935-2230
i~,.~ ~530) 22~.9326 FAX (559) 73~-589~ F~ (925) 935-2347
DEC-08-B000 04:50PM · TEL)5109358847 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN P~GE:001 R=97~
22f0812~B6
lb|4~ blW~b224!
omni .means
E~t~GII~I,'R%.f~.ANNERS
UMN1M~Ar, I~
/¢1
December 8. 2000
Ms. Janet liarbin
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
i00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Response to Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Comments on
the Draft Report of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plans Report.
Dear Janet:
This letter is a response to Ms. Beth Waluka's comments, representing the Alameda County
Congestion Max~agement Agency (ACCMA), in her, letter to you dated November 8, 2000
regarding the draft transportation report for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plus (August 28,
2000). Her letter described the ACCMA's requirements for sweets subject to the guidelines of
the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
The ACCMA stated that the Dublin Specific Plans qualify for analysis using the COuntywide
Transportation Demand Model. According to the ACCMAi if another model is used in the
cumulative traffic analysis, then those model outputs must be compared to the Countywide
model' s outputs for years 2005 and 2020 for consistency. This comparison of proposed Specific
Plan projects and Alameda Countywide model output is conducted to ensure that the higher of
the two volumes projections are used for environmental review purposes. ' Since we used a
manual distribution model fiRAFFIX) ou~uts as a baseline for generating future volumes, we
have therefore compared our forecasted volumes with the Countywide model and present our
findings here.
Sp..cific streets within the study area comprising part of the Metropolitan Transportation System
(MTS) requiring analysis include San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Dougheny Road.
Other roadways s'uch as Foothill Road, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road, and Hopyard Road am
outside the study area of the Sl:~eific Plan traffic analysis. However, given th~ distributions of
various land uses within the proposed Specific Plan, project trips would be quite disl~rsed on
these roadways. The attached 'Table 1 ' lists the loemions and comparative volumes.. The CMA
model provide~ AM and PM peak hour direetional volumes on various street ~egments for years
.2005 and 2020. The Specffic Plan volumes usexl for comparison to 2005 represent the
"Existing 4-Approved" volumes, and the volumes for 2020 represent the "~xisting rF Approved
+ Downtown & BART Specific Plans" volumes. The-Specific Plan volumes were derived from
the intersection .approach turning volume.,; that correspond to th~ Moders segment volumes.
(Approach volumes provide the most appropriate means for analyzing intersection operation',)
REDDING
434 Redclif~'Ddve, Suite D
imOdlng, OA e6OOZ
~b30) 223.6500
~ ~X ;b.:~0) 22~ 9326
Vl~UA
720 W. Cedar AvertUn, Suite C
VtSc:lli0, C~ 93291 '
(559) 734-5895
FAX (559) 734-5899
WALNUT CREEK
lgO10l'y'nlplmb Boulevord, gig. 120
Wolnut CI9~, C;A g459~
(926) g35-2230
FAX (925) 935-2247
DEC-OS-eOgO 04:4GPM TEL)S10935aa47 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PRGE:001, R=gT~
12/08f200~
15: 4~ 5189~52247 QMNI MF~N5
~2
Our findings for year 2005 indicate the Specific PI~ volumes generally exceed the CMA
volumes. For year 2020, there is a wider nmge of outcomes. The Specific Plan volumes exceed
the CMA volumes at some locations. Where they are lower, they remain within 20% at all but
the westbound Dublin Bird. segment approaehlng Village Parkway during the AM peak hour.
Our review of the CMA model output suggests the model is distributing a large amount of trips
firore the undeveloped nortl~eastern Dublin parcels. In the PM peak hour the Specific Plan
volumes and CMA model volumes are closely matched. The CMA model 'indicate~ that this
segment of Dublin Blvd. would operate at~ LOS "F"o The Specific Plan report mitigates the
anticipated future volumes along ~is segment o~ Dub[in Boulevard by stating that Dublin Blvd.
will be widened from two through lanes to three through lartes, which would adequately
accommodate the highe~ CMA model AM peak hour volumes. In addition, mitigation is also
recommended for the intersections of Regional Street, Golden G~te Drive, and Amador Plaza
Road to fully mitigate Specific Plan traffic impacts. All MTS roadways within the Specific Plan
study area would be operating at acceptable levels (D or better) with approve~ and Specific Plan
mitigation measures. Funding mechanisms for approved and proposed mitigation measures
would be provided by existing City of Dublin traffic ~mpact fees and/or project specific traffic
impact fees.
The findings outlined in this letter will be incorporated into the final report. We will continue
to work with Alameda County CMA smff~f further analyses are needed. It is noted that current
transportation analyses for the proposed Dublin Transit Center will provide additional information
en 1WrS roadways outside' of the proposed Specific Plan study area (i.e. Tassajara Road, Santa
Rita Road, Hopyard Road, Dublin Boulevazd as well as BART and LAVTA). If you have any
additional comments or questions please feel free to contact
Sincetel y,
Peter .1', Oalloway
Transportation Planner
Attachment
DEC-OB-eB00 04: 47PM TEL )510935~e47
ID)CiTY OF DUBLIN
PAGE: 808 R=98y·
|
!
H
-{
-q
~Q
F
Z
TABLE 1'
APPROACH VOLUMES COMPARISON
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ANALYSIS {S P.) AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY MODEL OUTPUT (C:M.A.)
Street ,,S~ment
SB San Ramon Rd. to Amador V~lley BIrd.
- YEAR 2005
AM Peak
S.P.C.M.A. S.P.C.M.A.
166t 1734 1323 1315
YEAR 2020
_AM Peak PM Peak
S.P.C.M.A. S.P.C.M.A.
1825 1650 1418 1738
WB Dublin Blvd. to Regional St.
WB Dublin Bkrd. to Viiladle Pkwy.
EB Dublin Bird. to San Ramon Rd.
EB Dublin Brvd. to Areadot Plaza Rd.
EB Dublin BIrd. to Dougherty Rd,
SB Dougherty Rd. to Dublin BIrd.
683 589
t032 1283
999 1272
1074 582
1095 515 925 1t73 1519 756
1565 '~363 L' lOIN 222t 1669 1626
1~40 O 1495 0 i232 11
1626 1507 1149 1517 1890 2328
, 1753 1089 1099 903 1897 1987
1909 1688 1583 1141 1904 1714 1584 1774
· ,S.P.: Omni-Means Engineers & Banners, Consultanrs Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Viltage Parkway, Downtown Corn,
and West SART Statior~ Spedtic Plans, City of Dublin, Finat Dmfl Report, September 25, 20(30.
C.Mj~.: Alameda County Congestion Ma,mgement Agency, P~ojedions-98, 2005 and 2020 Base Modelj A.M. (Scenario ~001) and PM (Scenede 2001)
Peak Hour VOlumes and LOS,
II
Rece',lved:
1:1./3.3/2001D
11113I~0.00 2:~59PM; ->'G;X"Cy 0'i' uL.j~3j.~.~, rw,.'r'.,~
!2:05 5189352247 DNN'r MEANS
ENGINE'ERS,PLANNER5
PAGE
el
MEMORANDUM
T~..~~Z: Mr. Ray Kuzbark, City o. ublin
DATE: November 13, 2000
SUBJECT:
Potential Traffic Diversion From Village Parkway Through the Residential
Neighborhood'tO the East
Ray: .
In our traffic analyses for the Village Parkway, Downtown Core and West BART Station Specific
Plans, we indicated that a reduction from four to two travel lanes on Village .Parkway would
cause traffic diversions westerly 'to Areadot Plaza and 'easterly through the residential
neighborhood.' We have reviewed our traffic projections and have derived a more refined
estimate· of the potential diversion through the residential neighborhood. to the east.
Through traffic volumes on Village Parkway would be likely to divert when the peak hour flows
at intersections result in poor operating conditions. It is also noted that the conflicts between
through traffic and vehicles backing in/out of diagonal parking spaces could generally delay
-through traffic to the extent that some motorists would choose to by-pass Village Parkway
throughout the day.
ROSEVILLE.
223? Doagtos BOulevard,
R0sovllle, CA g5GG
(916) 782-8888
FAX (916) 782 .e,689
As indicated in the Specific Plans' analyses, the current daily traffic volume· on Village Parkway
is about 2j,000 vehic!es, and the capacity of a two-lane Village Parkway would be about 18,000
daily vehicles. With background traffic growth and trips associated with the 'Specific Plans', the
daily volume on Village Parkway would be expected to exceed .~,000 vehi. cles,16~,000 vehicles
over the theoretical Capacity of a two-lane roadway. However, because the volumes on Village
}'arkway are more evenly distributed throughout the day (resulting in somewhat reduced impacts
during peak hours), the proj,e. cted 'dally volume would exceed the capacity by about 4,500-5,000
vehicles. Based on the traffic flow paRems.at the Village/Amador Valley and Village/Dublin
intersecti one, 'about one-half of this volume (2,250-2,500 daily vehicles) could potentially divert
through the neighborhood to the east.
\
During the AM and PM peak commute hours, the projected. poor operating conditions at
Village/Amador Valley could cause motorists to divert to alternate routes, Again, based on our
review of traffic flow patterns, 225 AM peak hour vehicles and 270 PM peak hour vehicles could
i?.~,DDING VISALIA WALNUT CREEK
4.34 Redcliff Drive. Suite D 720 W. Cenmr Avenue, Suile C 1901 Olympic Boulevard, Sis, 120
R,.>ddmg, CA 96007 Visalie, GA 832..'91 · IVOInul Gig0k. CA 94596
530) 223-6500 (559) 734-5895 (925) 935-2230
rAX ¢530) 223-9326 FAX (559) 73,~:5899 FAX (925) 935-2247
Receive~: .11/13
11/~3/288~ 12:05
'2000 2:59PM;
518S352247
DMNI MEANS
November 13, 2000
Memo to Ray Kuzbari
Page 2
potentially divert through the neighborhood to the east,
It would be very tenuous to precisely predict the extent of traffic diversion through the
neighborhood east of Village Parkway, Some motorists might tolerate delays on Village Parkway
rather than take a somewhat circuitous "shortcut" through the adjacent neighborhood.
addition, a p0nion of the through traffic on Village Park'way probably represents motorists who
are unfamiliar with the neighborhood to the east and would not be aware of any opportunity to
divert through that area. However, if even one-half of the volumes cited above divert through
the neighborhood, the neighborhood could experience an additional 100-150 peak hour vehicles
and 1,100-1,200. additional' daily vehicles. These increases would certainly be perceived by area
residents as an impac~ on their typical traffic flow characteristics.
Please review this information and call me with any questions or comments.
omni.means
ENGINEERS.PLANNERS
September 22, 2000
RECEIVED
S EP 2 5 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
Ms. Ianet Harbin
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE:
Secondary Revisions to the Omni-Means, Consultants Report of the Transportation
Impacts of the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown Core. and West BART Station
Specific Plans, City of Dublin, Draft Report, August 28, 2000
Dear 3anet: ;
Attached please find excerpts from the revised draft transportation report for the proposed Dublin
'Downtown Specific Plans. Additional traffic comments on the draft report were received from
· Ray Kuzbari eartier this week (September 18, 2000). For the-most part, these comments
concerned typoS, syntax; and formatting errors throughout the ~eport. However, some of his
comments addressed the need for additional mitigation measures at the Regional Street, Golden
Gate Drive, and Areadot Plaza Road intersections along Dub]in Boulevard. I have attached the
revised pages from the report which describe these changes and resulting intersection LOS
results. No other recommended mitigation measures have changed as a result of Ray' s secondary
review of our draft report.
ShOuld there be no more comments from City staff, we should probably publish a final report
0nce"'~itl'~ublic comments have been received. This latest draft would reflect Ray' s comments
as well as any other public comments. I am sure you wilt keep us posted.
Please cat! if you have any questions regarding these latest revisionS.
Sincerely
pCr~j.~ow~Da~
· Transportation Planner
Attachments
ROSEVILE "" ~' ":' ":; :' ':' ~'''' ": '.:;: r"'hE~i~iNe:' ''~ *" .... .i~ .-,' ,,...::' "WsiL~X"' ':' ': :' "" """' "' ?-"', 'witN'u~ cE~K: ':.'" ', "::
2237 Douglas:B~utevard, Sult~ 1:00"' :,'. ~ Redcliff Drive, Suite;D.;; "' ." '. · ' ' 720 W.' Confer Avenue, SUite'O' - ...... ] 901 Olympic .B~l~VOrd, ~e. ~.-20
Roseville, GA 9566] Redcling, CA 96002. V so e, .CA 93291 We ndt Creek, CA 94596
(9~ 6) 782-8688 (530) 223-6500:: ' (559) 734-5895 (925) 935-2230
F~ (916) 782-8689 · F~ (530)223-9326 F~ (559) 734-5~99 F~ (:925) 935-2247
Table 7
.Existing+ Future Base+ BART+Specffic Plan Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS)
Village Parkway, Downtown Core, and West Dublin BART Station Specific Plan Areas
AM and PM Peak Hour~
intersection
'Exist+F. Base E+FB+ Mitigated
BART+DSP
AM PM AM PM AM 'PM
i. Davona/Vfllage Parkway A 0.39 A 0.33 A 0,42 A 0.35
2.- Brighton/Villago Parkway A 0.39 A 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.38
3. Tamarack/Village Parkway A'0.39 A 0.36 A 0,43 A 0.38
4. San Ramon/Amador Valley A 0.49 B 0.62 A 0.49 B 0.69
5. Regional/Amador Valley A 0.34 A 0.56 A 0.35 A 0.58
6. Starward/Amador Valley C 18.2 C 26.0 C 18.4 D 28.8
7. Donohue/Amador Valley A 0.37 A 0.45 A 0.40 A 0.56
8. Amador Plaza/Amador Valley A 0.32 A 0.57 A 0.37 B 0.65
9.. Village Parkway/Amador Valley B 0.64 C 0.76 C 0.72 D 0.84
10. Lewis/Village Parkway A 0.35 A 0.38 A 0.34 A 0.38
1L San Ramon/Dublin D 0.85 C 0.78 D 0.87 D 0.89
12. Regional/Dublin A 0.36 A 0.54 A 0.48 C 0.79
i3. Golden Gate/Dublin A 0.28 A 0.48 B 0.68 E 0.91
14. Amador Plaza/Dublin A 0.44 C 0.76 A 0.58 F 1.02
15. Village Parkway/Dublin A 0.47 A 0.60 A 0.47 B 0.66
16, Clark/Dublin A 0.40 A 0.51 A 0.42 A 0.53
17. civic Plaza-sierra/Dublin A 0.35 A 0.51 A 0.36 A 0.54
18. Dublin Ct./Dublin A 0.37 B 0.66 A 0.39 C 0.71
19. Dougherty/Dublin C 0.74 D.0.90 C 0.75 D 0.88
20. 1-580 WB off/Dougherty B 0.62 A 0.58 B 0.62 A 0.56
21.1-580 EB off/Hopyard C 0.73 D 0.85 C 0.72 D 0.85
22. Regional/St. Patrick Way (future) ..............
23. Golden Gate/St. Patrick Way (fumr~) A 3.4 A 1.8 A 0.56 B 0.61
24. Areadot Plaza/St. Patrick Way (future)A 0.27 A 0.35 A 0.41 A 0.45
25. 1-580 SB off/San Ramon (weave)3 E 31 F 28 E 30 F 27
(mph) (mph) (mph) (mph)
A 0.45 C 0.71
A 0.56 C 0.76
A 0.50 C 0.79
B 0.62 C 0.79
(2)
(3)
Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. LOS
for 'unsignalized intersection is based on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual and uses average delay in
seconds for stopping movements.
Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Updated peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) intersection
counts along Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard,
F~bmary2000. Provious intorsection counts conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants, October 1998
and 1999.
This weaving area is expected to be elimlnated as a long-tom circulation improvement by installing a
signalized inte~rsec~on at the I-5.80 westbound off-ramp and San Ramon Road. Mitigated LOS are shown
with a signal installed.
TransportatiOn Analysis for the Proposed
Dublin Downtown Specific Hans
42
oGoMen Gate/Dublin: The northbound Golden Gate Drive approach should be widened and re-
striped to include an additional left-tun lane. Ultimate northbound approach lane geometries
would include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane, and one (1)..right turn lane. The
eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened and re-striped to include a separate
right-turn lane. Ultimate eastbound approach lane geometries would include one (1) left-turn
lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) fight-turn lane.
· Amador Plaza/Dublin: The northb0und and southbound Areadot Plaza Road approach lanes
should be widened and re-striped to include separate through lanes. Ultimate northbound and
southbound approach lanes would include one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one
(i) right turn lane. In addition, the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened and'
re-striped to include a separate right-turn lane. Ultimate eastbound approach lane geometries
would include one (1) left-turn iane, three (3) through lanes, and one (I) fight-turn lane.
With the above improvements, the Golden Gate/Dublin intersection would improve from LOS
E (0.91) to LOS C (0.76) during the PM peak hour. The Amador Plaza/Dublin intersection
would improve from LOS F (1.02) to LOS C (0.79) during the PM peak hour.
The intersection of Regional/Dublin would not require additional mitigation with added BART
and Dublin Specific Plan traffic. However, should St. Patrick Way be extended west from
Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street, the Regional/Dublin would require additional circulation
improvements to accommodate eastbound traffic flows on Dublin Boulevard. In response, the
following mitigation measure is recommended with the extension of St. Patrick Way west to
Regional Street:
.Regional/Dublin: The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach should be widened and re-striped
to include a separate fight-turn lane. Ultimate eastbound approach lane geometries would include
one (i) ieft-turn lane, three (3) through lanes, and one (1) fight-turn lane.
With the above improvement, the Regional/Dublin intersection would improve from LOS C
(0.79) to LOS C (0.71) during the PM peak hour (assumes the St. Patrick Way extension from
Golden Gate Drive west to Regional Street).
Recommended mitigation measures have been shown schematically in Figure 10. All other
project study intersections. would be operating at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) with the
proposed'Specific Plan traffic'volumes.
Roadway Volumes:
With BART and Dublin Specific Plan volumes, all arterial study streets would be operating at
acceptable levets of service. However, other specific local streets in the West Dublin BART
Specific Plan area would experience significant increases in average daily traffic (ADT) volumes
with additional BART and Specific Plan traffic. These include the short-block collector streets
Transportation Analysis .for the Proposed.
Dublin Downtown Specific Plans
43
SHANNON AVE,~
ure 10
dditional Lane Geometry Improvement
Existing + Approved + BART + Dublin Specific Plan Intersectio.n Geometries
(At Locations Where Mitigation Is Needed For SpecifiC Plan Development)
®~~means.