Dumbarton TOD - Final Environmental Impact Report - City of Newark

DUMBARTON TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTSPECIFIC PLANFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010042012)JULY 2011PREPARED FOR:CITY OF NEWARK37101 NEWARK BOULEVARDNEWARK, CA 94560PREPARED BY:RBF CONSULTING500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 270WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596IN ASSOCIATION WITH:MONK & ASSOCIATESFEHR & PEERS

CONTENTS9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS9.1 INTRODUCTION _________________________________________ 9-19.2 CONTENTS OF FINAL EIR __________________________________ 9-29.3 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR AND APPROVAL PROCESS_____________ 9-29.4 LIST OF COMMENTORS ____________________________________ 9-39.5 RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS ________________________ 9-410 REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIR______________________________ 10-1APPENDICESHTRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT – NEW PLACES, NEW CHOICES IN THESAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, A STUDY BY THE METROPOLITANTRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newarki

9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS9.1 INTRODUCTIONThe Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (Draft EIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review periodbeginning May 18, 2011, and ending July 1, 2011, as assigned by the State ofCalifornia Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse andconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQAGuidelines). Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional and localagencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment.Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:“The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issuesreceived from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare awritten response. The lead agency shall respond to comments receivedduring the noticed comment period and any extension and may respondto late comments.”In accordance with Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the leadagency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR for the DumbartonTOD Specific Plan and has prepared written responses to the comments received.All comments on the Draft EIR, and the responses thereto, are presented in thisdocument. Section 9.4 provides a list of all those who submitted comments on theDraft EIR during the public review period. Section 9.5 contains all of thecomments received on the Draft EIR along with responses to each. Theseresponses include identifying text revisions in the Draft EIR. Text revisionsresulting from comments on the Draft EIR, as well as staff-initiated text revisions,are presented in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR). Revisions to the Draft EIRtext are indicated by underline text (underline) for text additions and strike out(strike out) for deleted text. Revised figures and tables are identified with the word“revised” in front of the figure or table number. It is important to note that noneof the revisions are significant new information that would result in any newsignificant environmental impacts (including without limitation new environmentalimpacts from a new mitigation measure) or a substantial increase in the severity ofany environmental impacts, nor do any of the revisions impose a new mitigationmeasure that the project applicants have declined to implement or adopt. Instead,they merely provide clarification or make minor modifications to an adequate EIR.Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required pursuant to CEQAGuidelines Section 15088.5 (b).Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-1City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 99.2 CONTENTS OF FINAL EIRThe Final EIR is composed of the following elements:♦ Draft EIR and Appendices♦ List of persons, organizations and public agencies that commented on theDraft EIR♦ Copies of all comments received♦ Written responses to those comments♦ Revisions to the Draft EIR resulting from comments9.3 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR ANDAPPROVAL PROCESSFor a period of at least ten days prior to any public hearing during which a leadagency will take action to certify an EIR, the Final EIR must be made available to,at a minimum, trustee and responsible agencies that provided written comments onthe Draft EIR. Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the FinalEIR must be certified before the lead agency can take action on the project.Following Final EIR certification, but prior to taking action on a project, the leadagency must prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).Before approving (or conditionally approving) the project, the lead agency mustalso prepare written CEQA Findings for each significant impact identified for theproject, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding, inaccordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. If significantenvironmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level areidentified for the project, the lead agency must prepare a Statement of OverridingConsiderations, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Foursignificant and unavoidable traffic impacts were identified for the DumbartonTOD Specific Plan.Certification of the Final EIR may occur at a public hearing independent of projectapproval or during the same hearing. Prior to approval of the project, the leadagency must adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations,and MMRP. Certification of the Final EIR must be the first in this sequence ofapprovals.9-2 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 99.4 LIST OF COMMENTORSAll commentors on the Draft EIR are listed below.9.4.1 PUBLIC AGENCIESComment Letter #1 Gregor Blackburn, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,Federal Emergency Management AgencyComment Letter #2 Eric Mruz, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife ServiceComment Letter #3Comment Letter #4Gary Arnold, California Department of TransportationMoses Stities, California Public Utilities CommissionComment Letter #5 Mary Rose Cassa, San Francisco Bay Regional WaterQuality Control BoardComment Letter #6Robert Shaver, Alameda County Water DistrictComment Letter #7 Beth Walukas, Alameda County TransportationCommissionComment Letter #8Comment Letter #9Al D. Bunyi, Union Sanitary DistrictHilda Lafebre, San Mateo County Transit DistrictComment Letter #10 Timothy Doherty, Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommissionComment Letter #11 Irina P. Torrey, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission9.4.2 GENERAL PUBLICComment Letter #12 Benny Dehghi, Honeywell International, Inc.Comment Letter #13 Michael Patrick Durkee, Allen Matkins Leck GambleMallory & Natsis, LLPComment Letter #14 Margaret LewisComment Letter #15 Dean LewisComment Letter #16 Carin High, Citizens Committee to Complete the RefugeDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-3City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 99.5 RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL COMMENTSEach of the comment letters submitted on the Draft EIR and responses to thecomments in the letters are provided on the following pages. Each comment isidentified with a two part numbering system. The first number corresponds to thenumber assigned to the comment letter. The second number corresponds to theorder of the comment within the letter identified. For example, Comment 7-5refers to the seventh comment letter received and the fifth comment identified inthe letter.9-4 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9Comment Letter #1Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-5City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 99-6 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #1, Gregor Blackburn, U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency1-1 This comment addresses the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for theSpecific Plan area. The commentor references FIRM map number060001060009. However, the correct FIRM map number for the SpecificPlan area is 06001C0443G as referenced on page 4.8-25 of the Draft EIR.As noted on page 4.8-25, according to the FIRM map, the Specific Plan areais partially located within a 100-year tidal flood zone; portions of the Cargillproperty are classified as Zone AE, as is some of the western portion ofFMC’s property. The remaining properties are classified as Zone X, whichindicates that the area has 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding or is in anarea of one percent annual flood with average depths of less than one footor within drainage areas less than one square mile.1-2 This comment states that buildings constructed in a riverine floodplain mustbe elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the Base Food Elevationlevel in accordance with the effective FIRM map. The proposed projectwould be required to comply with Section 15.40.51 of the City’s MunicipalCode, which has flood improvement standards for lands within specialhazard flood areas as defined by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA). As noted on page 4.8-25, the proposed project includesthe import of approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill materialto elevate future structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore,the proposed project would ensure that the lowest floor elevation of futurestructures within the Specific Plan area is at or above the Base FloodElevation level in accordance with the effective FIRM map.1-3 Comment noted. The Specific Plan area is not located within a RegulatoryFloodway.1-4 This comment addresses buildings constructed within a coastal high hazardarea. As noted on page 4.8-25 of the Draft EIR, portions of the SpecificPlan area are located within a 100-year tidal flood zone. However, theSpecific Plan area is not located within a coastal high hazard area.1-5 Comment noted. If future development within the Specific Plan areamodifies existing special flood hazard areas, data will be submitted to FEMAfor a FIRM revision.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-7City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 91-6 This comment states that many communities have adopted floodplainmanagement building requirements that are more restrictive that theminimum federal standards. The proposed project would be required tocomply with Section 15.40.51 of the City’s Municipal Code, which providesflood improvement standards for lands within special hazard flood areas asdefined by FEMA.9-8 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark



Response to Comments Chapter 9Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-11City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9This page intentionally left blank.9-12 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #2, Eric Mruz, U.S. Department of Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service2-1 This comment summarizes the concerns of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) that follow in the letter and are responded to below.2-2 This comment addresses the effects of the proposed project on migratorybirds. Most birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, passerine birds (e.g.,warblers, flycatchers, swallows) and raptors are protected under the FederalMigratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, asamended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989). TheMigratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass,shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of FederalRegulations, Section 10.13, including their nests, eggs or young. Becausebirds are able to, in almost all cases, fly away or avoid being injured fromconstruction-related activities, take is most unlikely to occur fromconstruction-related activities. However, nesting birds including incubatingbirds, their eggs and young are susceptible to being injured from unduedisturbance and those actions that could physically harm the nest and itsoccupants. Thus, from a practical standpoint with respect to constructionrelatedimpacts, take associated with nesting birds could occur in theabsence of protective measures to ensure that nesting birds are notimpacted. In California, all nesting birds are also protected under theCalifornia Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800 and 3513). Inorder to prevent take of migratory birds, and similarly to ensure that noimpacts to nesting birds occur that would be violation of the California Fishand Game Code, preconstruction surveys would be conducted prior to anyearth-moving, construction, or other project-related activities that occurduring the nesting season (March 1 through September 1). If active nests areidentified during these surveys, appropriate protective nesting buffers wouldbe erected in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 identified in theDraft EIR.2-3 The commentor is concerned about the project’s effect on waters of theU.S./State, including vernal pool habitats, and the federally listed salt marshharvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) and California clapper rail (Ralluslongirostris obsoletus). Below is a discussion of the mitigation measures that areincluded in the Draft EIR to ensure that impacts to sensitive resources areminimized and/or mitigated to less than significant levels.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-13City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9Since the project area is composed of 19 parcels with many different landowners, many of whom may not have immediate development plans, theDraft EIR was prepared at a program-level and site-specific biologicalstudies have not been conducted for this phase of the project (with theexception of the Torian properties). Therefore, regarding waters of theU.S./State, the Draft EIR specifies in Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 that prior toany development or parcel-specific site planning that a formal wetlanddelineation be conducted according to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and the RegionalSupplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Coast Region(2008) prior to City approval of any specific development proposal. Duringthe wetland delineation, if vernal pools are identified, they would be notedas areas requiring further study and/or consideration for protection frompotential project impacts. This text has been added to Mitigation Measure4.3-6. Refer to Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.Similar to impacts to wetlands, mitigation for impacts to vernal pools mayinclude the purchase of mitigation credits from an approved mitigationbank, onsite creation of vernal pool habitat, or offsite creation of habitat.Similarly, surveys for special-status plants would be necessary in any vernalpool or wetland habitats prior to impacting such habitats. These surveys areincluded in Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 in the Draft EIR.Based on July and October surveys of the project area, it is the biologicalconsultants’ opinion that with the exception of Parcel E, which may supporta fresh water wetland, that other areas within the project site supportingwetland vegetation are too brackish or saline to support special-status vernalpool invertebrates or special-status vernal pool plants.The Draft EIR includes mitigation requirements for impacts to waters of theU.S./State. Permits would be required from the USACE and the CaliforniaRegional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to filling orotherwise impacting waters of the U.S./State, respectively (waters includewetlands). These two agencies would also require mitigation for suchimpacts that would include replacement of any impacted feature such thatthere is no net loss of wetland functions and services. Typically, suchmitigation includes replacing impacted wetlands at a minimum 1:1(replacement to impacts) ratio. Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 in theDraft EIR for a full description of the mitigation requirements.9-14 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9The Torian property has been studied by several salt marsh harvest mousebiologists over the years and a determination was made that it does notprovide the habitat components suitable for the species because it is not ahistoric salt marsh and does not provide the contiguous salt marsh habitatnecessary to support the species. However, in an abundance of caution andto meet the standards of care required by CEQA, the Torian property wouldbe required to implement protective measures prior to development toensure that impacts to the salt marsh harvest mouse would not occur shouldit enter the project site. These protective measures would include handremoval of pickleweed onsite under the supervision of a permitted saltmarsh harvest mouse biologist and installation of mouse-proof fencingaround any potentially suitable salt marsh harvest mouse habitat (refer to“Preconstruction Measures” specified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1).Although it is unlikely that the remaining properties within the project areaprovide the necessary habitat components to support the salt marsh harvestmouse, the Draft EIR includes mitigation (Mitigation Measure 4.3-1)requiring that a “Habitat Assessment” for the salt marsh harvest mouse beconducted prior to any site-specific development (with the exception of theTorian property as referenced above). If during the Habitat Assessment it isdetermined that the salt marsh harvest mouse could reside on a site withinthe project area, a protective cat-proof fence would be established separatingthe developed project site from any suitable salt marsh harvest mousehabitat that would be preserved as part of the project.The project site does not provide suitable habitat for the California clapperrail. Monk & Associates’ biologists made this determination because thereare no tidal channels within the project area for clapper rails to forage.Additionally, pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and other marsh vegetation isvery limited in distribution within the project area, is short statured, anddoes not provide the concealment that clapper rails need to moveunobtrusively through the project area. Also, there is no cordgrass (Spartinaspp.) within the project area which is another preferred clapper rail covertype. Accordingly, there is no “escape cover” provided by the project area.Therefore, clapper rails, which are secretive by nature and typicallyassociated heavy cover (i.e., escape cover), are not expected to occur on oruse the project area. While there is an offsite tidal channel northwestof/adjacent to the project area that may provide habitat for the clapper rail,it is Monk & Associates’ experience and expectation that if clapper rails usedthis tidal channel they would not venture out of the safety of the tidalchannel’s dense vegetative cover. During periods of flooding and/or highDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-15City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9tide the clapper rail could be expected to use the top of the channel’s bankbut would not venture far from escape cover.Monk & Associates’ clapper rail studies (for example, Gallinas Creek inMarin County) have found that California clapper rail distribution is typicallyrestricted to areas dominated by marsh vegetation. Other studies of otherclosely related rail species, while not completely germane, are nonethelesshelpful in shedding light on where rails spend their time. A close nicheequivalent to the California clapper rail that lives in southern California isthe light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes). The light-footed clapperrail has been studied to an extent that its distribution within the marshsystem is well understood. Telemetry data of light-footed clapper raildistribution found that they spend >90 percent of a day in cordgrass(Spartina foliosa), and used the upland fringe at the edge of the marsh forroosting during the highest tides (Zembal et. al. 1989). 1 Monk & Associatesunderstands that this comparison may or may not be reflective of Californiaclapper rail distribution, but believes it is likely that such distributional dataare reflective of California clapper rail use of marshes. In conclusion, Monk& Associates believes that California clapper rails will seek refuge in uplands,but typically those uplands located immediately adjacent to their preferredmarsh habitats.The project area, which is a non-tidal site that provides low quality, shortstature marsh vegetation, would not provide the escape cover (concealment)clapper rails need. Nor does the project area vegetation provide nestingopportunities. At most, the vegetation onsite provides only limited foraginghabitat for the extremely rare occurrence that clapper rails would need toventure out of the adjacent tidal channel – should they be present in thischannel to begin with. It is unknown whether or not clapper rails evenreside in this offsite channel. Therefore, based on all of these factors it isunlikely that clapper rails are onsite and would be impacted by the project.Finally, the commentator states that the proposed project “essentiallyisolates the Plummer Creek restoration area between development and saltponds, leaving little buffer for listed species and other wildlife in therestored area.” The commentator, therefore, recommends moving all1 Richard Zembal, Barbara W. Massey, and Jack M. Fancher 1989. The Journal ofWildlife Management, Vo. 53, no. 1 (Jan. 1989). pp. 39-429-16 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9proposed trails and development to east of Hickory Street. However, asnoted above and below in Response 2-4, the Draft EIR includes mitigationmeasures to reduce the impacts of the project to listed species and otherwildlife, including from construction noise and lighting from permanentstructures, and the Specific Plan for the project includes standards to ensurethat impacts to sensitive species would be minimized.2-4 The commentor recommends evaluating construction noise, lighting andvibration that may displace sensitive species temporarily and/or permanentlyfrom the area.It should be noted that the project area is not located in a remote, rural arearemoved from urban noise. The project area is located in an industrial areawhere some industrial operations currently take place and noise associatedwith these facilities occurs. A police shooting range also occurs within theboundaries of the project area. Thus, wildlife currently present within theproject area is acclimated to high levels of existing ambient noisedisturbances. It should also be noted that the discharge of firearms can beparticularly disturbing to wildlife, particularly birds. Owing to existingambient industrial and shooting range noise, wildlife now found in the areawould be acclimated to this noise. As the project area builds out over anextended number of years, wildlife would continue to acclimate to thisdisturbance. Acclimation by wildlife to consistent ambient noise is a wellrecognizedbehavioral response by wildlife to continual and consistent formsof disturbance. Species that would acclimate poorly to high levels of ambientnoise would be unlikely to use the area now or in the future.The additional ambient noise levels generated by a developed project areawould be unlikely to result in disturbance that would discourage wildlife useof adjacent wildlife habitats any more than occurs today. In light of theamount, type and extent of existing disturbance, most birds and mammalsthat reside in the area today have a high tolerance for noise relateddisturbance. Regardless, mitigation measures have been included in theDraft EIR to protect nesting birds from the effects of noise and vibration.Preconstruction nesting bird surveys would be conducted prior to any earthmovingor construction activities associated with the project. The nestingperiod for birds (March 1 through September 1) also corresponds with themating/breeding season for many mammal species; therefore, restrictionson construction times would benefit both nesting birds and some breedingmammal species. Refer also to Response 2-2.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-17City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9With regard to lighting, the Specific Plan proposes lighting standards “toensure that lighting . . . does not create excessive “spillover” light and glareinto adjacent residential areas and habitat areas, including the adjacentRefuge.” Thus, the Specific Plan includes standards to ensure that impactsto sensitive species are minimized. In addition, as noted above, the projectarea is not located in a remote, rural area removed from urban lighting. Theproject area is located in an industrial area where some industrial operationscurrently take place and lighting associated with these facilities occurs.2-5 This comment suggests that the project consider building farther away fromthe baylands or analyze the potential need for additional flood protectiondue to sea level rise. Sea level rise is addressed on page 4.6-27 of the DraftEIR. Minor revisions have been made to the Draft EIR to acknowledge thesea level rise mapping that has been completed by the Bay Conservation andDevelopment Commission (BCDC) (refer to Chapter 10 of this Final EIR).Based on the mapping conducted by BCDC and acknowledged in the DraftEIR, a portion of the Specific Plan area could be affected by sea level rise.As addressed in the Draft EIR, the forecasted sea level rise could increaseflood related impacts, especially from storm-surge induced flood events.Section 15.40.51 of the City’s Municipal Code has flood elevation standardsfor lands within special flood hazard areas as defined by FEMA. If sea levelrise was determined to be a significant threat, protective measures such aslevees installed by regional and local governments would be available toprotect urbanized areas.The BCDC forecast expressly notes that it does not account for existingshoreline protection or wave activity and that, where necessary, future leveesare an appropriate mechanism for protecting against flood damage fromrises in sea levels. Ultimately, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAgency, FEMA, the USACE, cities, counties and flood control districts areresponsible for protecting the public and the San Francisco Bay ecosystemfrom flood hazards. The City's Municipal Code flood elevation standardswould protect the Specific Plan area based upon flood risks as determinedby FEMA, the City and these other regional and local agencies.The Draft EIR provides a reasonable range of alternatives, and includesalternatives to the proposed project that would preserve open space adjacentto the baylands. Alternatives 2 and 3 would concentrate development9-18 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9adjacent to the City, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan areain open space. The project, as well as the alternatives, will be considered bythe City Council prior to taking action on the Specific Plan.2-6 This comment states that it is unclear how the area would be affected by theDumbarton Rail Service and expresses concern regarding the capacity ofThornton Avenue to handle increased traffic volumes. Thornton Avenue isprojected to carry increased levels of traffic with the project. The potentialimpact of additional traffic on Thornton Avenue was analyzed in the DraftEIR. Table 4.14-13 (Future Year 2035 Plus Project Conditions withMitigation) of the Draft EIR indicates that three segments of ThorntonAvenue would be impacted by project traffic. The Level of Service (LOS) atthe intersections of Thornton Avenue with Cherry Street, NewarkBoulevard and Cedar Boulevard would degrade to LOS D, E or F in thefuture regardless of the project, although the project would increase thedelay at these intersections by approximately five to 15 seconds. Thepotential mitigation measures would include widening Thornton Avenue toaccommodate the additional volumes. However, due to the built out natureof the City, limited right-of-way is available to widen Thornton Avenue.Widening this roadway to reduce levels of congestion would also havepotential secondary impacts to bicycle and pedestrian travel by creatinglonger crossing distances and a less-comfortable environment for walking orbicycling. As a result, impacts to the three intersections are identified in theDraft EIR as significant and unavoidable. The project goals supportmanaging congestion and reducing automobile trips by orienting usesaround the future transit station.It should also be noted that, as stated in the Draft EIR on pages 3-1 and 3-19, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not be dependentin any way upon the proposed Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC) transitservice (or the transit station), which is a separate project undergoingseparate environmental review by other public agencies. Moreover, due tothe uncertain timeline and funding status of the DRC Project, it would bespeculative to include the project in the cumulative context of thisenvironmental analysis. The DRC and the transit station are not reasonablyforeseeable future activities of the project that must be studied by this EIRat this time.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-19City of Newark




Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #3, Gary Arnold, California Department ofTransportation3-1 This comment states that peak hour traffic volumes have beenunderestimated and peak hour trips for townhouse/condo use should bebased on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 8 thEdition. The ITE Trip Generation 8 th Edition was used to calculate tripgeneration estimates for the Specific Plan. Fitted curve equations were usedfor townhouse/condo uses rather than the average rate and are moreappropriate according to the criteria provided in ITE’s Trip GenerationManual.3-2 The commentor requests that different symbols to differentiate theresidential trip generation and neighborhood trip generation be used. Thecomment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raisean environmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the recordfor review by the public and decision makers.3-3 The commentor requests that queue lengths be shown for all studyintersections and scenarios. Traffic-related impacts are typically assessed interms of qualitative measures that describe operational conditions within atraffic stream. The intersection analysis used in the Draft EIR is based onthe operational analysis methodology outlined in the Highway CapacityManual (HCM) 2000 Transportation Research Board Special Report 209,Chapter 16. The HCM methodology defines intersection Level of Service(LOS) as a function of delay in terms of seconds per vehicle (sec/veh).Although traffic-related impacts can also be assessed in terms of vehiclequeue lengths, this level of detail extends beyond the requirements for aprogram-level EIR.3-4 Mitigation language has been added to the Draft EIR explaining howimpacts at the intersection of Interstate 880 (I-880) NorthboundRamps/Mowry Avenue would be reduced to less than significant levels asrequested by the commentor. Refer to Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR)of this Final EIR.3-5 The commentor requests that the Draft EIR analyze the intersections ofState Route 84 (SR-84) Westbound and Eastbound Ramps/NewarkBoulevard. The Draft EIR included an analysis of intersections determinedthe most likely to be impacted by additional traffic in the project area.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-23City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9Based on the professional judgment applied by the City and EIR consultantteam, the intersections of the SR-84 Westbound and EastboundRamps/Newark Boulevard were not determined to have a significantincrease in traffic requiring their inclusion as study intersections in the DraftEIR. Based on Figure 4.14-6 (Project Trip Generation) in the Draft EIR,these intersections would only carry one percent of the total trafficgenerated by the project. As a result, they were not included in the analysis.The future year conditions at the intersection of Jarvis Avenue/NewarkBoulevard without the project would operate at LOS F in the AM and LOSE in the PM with moderate vehicle queues. Because the JarvisAvenue/Newark Boulevard intersection is over 740 feet from theintersection with the SR-84 Eastbound Ramps, it is not anticipated that thequeues would impact operations of the on and off-ramp intersections.Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the LOS at theJarvis Avenue/Newark Boulevard intersection and would increase the delayby a few seconds. Therefore, the project would not result in a significantimpact compared to future no project conditions.3-6 This comment recommends providing Transportation DemandManagement (TDM) measures beyond those proposed in the Specific Plan.The comment is noted. The City will consider these additional measures,including lower parking ratios, unbundling parking spaces, car sharingprograms, transit subsidies, private shuttle services, etc., in coordination withrelevant agencies.9-24 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark



Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #4, Moses Stites, California Public UtilitiesCommission4-1 This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to evaluate traffic safety issuesassociated with numerous at-grade railroad crossings located within theproject area. At-grade railroad crossing safety is important to the City ofNewark. As a program-level EIR, the Draft EIR for the proposedDumbarton TOD Specific Plan has been prepared for project area land usechanges and the planning document that would guide future developmentwithin the area. Site-specific plans to develop individual properties withinthe Specific Plan area and improvement plans to construct requiredinfrastructure to support the development have not been prepared, butwould be at a later time. Once sufficient detail is known about a projectsuch as the land use type, amount, and site access locations, it would bepossible to estimate the volume of traffic generated by the project, theeffect of that traffic on nearby rail crossings, and the likely pattern ofpedestrian and bicycle activity at nearby rail crossings. The City willconsider the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s)recommendations for rail crossings for project-level analyses and coordinatewith the CPUC in regard to the specific types of data and analyses to beprovided.4-2 This comment states that CPUC approval is required to modify an existinghighway-rail crossing or to construct a new crossing. The comment doesnot address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raise anenvironmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the record forreview by the public and decision makers.4-3 The commentor requests a copy of the revised Traffic Impact Study toensure that the at-grade railroad crossings adjacent and in near proximity tothe project area are included in the analysis. Refer to Response 4-1.4-4 The commentor requests that the CPUC be included on the list ofresponsible agencies included in the Draft EIR. Chapter 3 (ProjectDescription) of the Draft EIR has been revised to include this request and isincluded in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-27City of Newark










Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #5, Mary Rose Cassa, San Francisco BayRegional Water Quality Control Board5-1 The commentor states that the Draft EIR is lacking in addressing potentialthreats to human health, water quality and the environment during projectconstruction and operation, and potential impacts on deep aquifers fromsoil and groundwater pollution as a result of construction and changed landuse. Section 4.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the Draft EIRprovides a discussion of the existing environmental conditions within theSpecific Plan area and descriptions of the properties within the area that aresubject to contamination at a level of detail necessary for the general publicand decision makers to gain an understanding of the significant impacts ofthe proposed project. It acknowledges the extent of past contamination ofproperties within the Specific Plan area and remedial activities that havetaken place or that are ongoing. It further identifies the potential impacts ofthe project consistent with the CEQA thresholds of significance, includinghazards to the public and the environment, and recommends mitigation toreduce these impacts to a less than significant level.5-2 The commentor states that the descriptions of the contaminated sites areinconsistent, lack necessary detail and do not provide an overview ofcontamination in the area, without presenting any evidence or other supportfor those assertions. This comment also states that the potential healthrisks, ecological risks and degradation of state waters are understated.Again, no substantiation of that assertion is provided. The commentorstates that the Draft EIR should include an assessment of impacts attributedby volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with excavation andconstruction. In response, as noted above in Response 5-1, the Draft EIRprovides an accurate discussion of existing conditions with the Specific Planarea and descriptions of the contaminated properties at a level of detail thatinforms the general public and decisions makers about the potentialsignificant environmental effects of proposed activities consistent with therequirements of CEQA. With regard to VOCs, the Draft EIR properlyidentifies the presence of this substance in groundwater and soils within theSpecific Plan area and concludes that it would create a significant hazard tothe public or the environment. This impact would be potentially significantbut mitigable with implementation of specific measures identified in theDraft EIR.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-37City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 95-3 This comment recommends revising Mitigation Measure 4.7.1a to providegreater detail. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 has been revised accordingly and isincluded in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.9-38 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark







Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #6, Robert Shaver, Alameda County WaterDistrict6-1 This comment states that a drilling permit is required in accordance with theAlameda County Water District’s (ACWD’s) Well Ordinance prior to anysubsurface drilling activities for wells, exploratory holes and otherexcavations. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIRor otherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it is noted andincluded in the record for review by the public and decision makers.6-2 This comment references Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, which requires designlevelgeotechnical investigations for individual properties when developmentis proposed, and states that ACWD regulates the construction, repair anddestruction of wells, exploratory holes and other excavations. MitigationMeasure 4.5-1 has been amended to note this and is included in Chapter 10(Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.6-3 This comment identifies concerns with soil improvement techniques thatmight be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 and the potentialfor such techniques to intersect an aquifer or impact the integrity of anyaquitard located directly above an aquifer. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 hasbeen added to require the project geotechnical engineer(s) to coordinatewith the ACWD to ensure compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01.” Refer to Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.6-4 This comment references pages 4.7-1 through 4.7-22 of the Draft EIRregarding existing conditions relative to hazardous materials within theSpecific Plan area. The comment states that ACWD provides assistance andlocal oversight for the cleanup and restoration of contaminated sites incoordination with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality ControlBoard (SFRWQCB) and requests a revision to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a torecognize ACWD’s involvement in the investigation and cleanup of thesesites. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a has been revised accordingly and isprovided in Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.6-5 This comment references Mitigation Measure 4.7-1b and states that ACWDrecords indicate that there are over 150 existing wells within the SpecificPlan area. While there is no evidence provided regarding the exact numberof wells within the Specific Plan area, nevertheless, any existing wells,whatever the number, should be protected as required by law. TheDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-45City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9comment requests a mitigation measure that requires project applicants todevelop a plan for the protection of wells subject to the review and approvalof the ACWD prior to issuance of demolition and/or grading permits.Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 has been added accordingly and is included inChapter 10 of the Final EIR.6-6 This comment requests that proposed dewatering activities be addressed inthe Draft EIR. As a program-level EIR, the Draft EIR for the proposedDumbarton TOD Specific Plan has been prepared for project area landuse changes and the planning document that would guide futuredevelopment within the area. Site-specific plans to develop individualproperties within the Specific Plan area and improvement plans to constructrequired infrastructure to support the development have not been prepared.Thus, the extent of dewatering activities needed for the proposed projecthave not been determined. However, implementation of MitigationMeasure 4.3-2 would ensure compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01, which includes regulations pertaining to the installation and destructionof dewatering wells.6-7 This comment references pages 4.8-4 and 4.8-5 of the Draft EIR andsuggests that information in the Draft EIR be updated to reflect thatproduction from the Newark Desalination Facility has increased toapproximately 12.5 million gallons per day beginning in August 2010. Thecomment also states that a review of water quality data by ACWD indicatesthat groundwater within the Specific Plan area has a potential beneficial usecontrary to the Draft EIR. It also requests that the Draft EIR recognizethat protecting the shallow water bearing zone is critical for protecting theNewark Aquifer. The Draft EIR notes, based upon substantial evidence,the increasing salinity of the Newark Aquifer within the Specific Plan areadue to tidal intrusion and the brackish nature of the shallow water bearingzone that the shallow water zone is not itself usable as a potential drinkingwater source. With that said, revisions to information provided in Section4.8 (Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality) of the Draft EIR regardinggroundwater quality have been made and are provided in Chapter 10 of thisFinal EIR.6-8 This comment states that there are over 150 wells within the Specific Planarea. Refer to Response 6-5, above.6-9 This comment states that in order to protect the groundwater basin, each9-46 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9well within the Specific Plan area must be in compliance with ACWDOrdinance 2010-01. If wells are to remain, a letter indicating this must besubmitted to ACWD. A permit would be required for inactive classificationif the wells would not be used for a period of 12 months. The commentdoes not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raise anenvironmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the record forreview by the public and decision makers.6-10 This comment references the Recycled Water section of the DumbartonTOD Specific Plan and requests reference in the Specific Plan that theinstallation of a recycled water distribution system may be made a conditionof providing water service to future, specific projects within the SpecificPlan area. This reference will be added to the Specific Plan as requested.The comment also states that the Draft EIR should address any potentialimpacts that may result from installation of recycled water infrastructure.Unless and until such infrastructure is required, and the details knownregarding its location and design, any such impacts would be too speculativeand uncertain to be analyzed at this time. As a program-level EIR, the DraftEIR for the proposed Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan has been prepared forproject area land use changes and the planning document that would guidefuture development within the area. Site-specific plans to develop individualproperties within the Specific Plan area and improvement plans to constructrequired infrastructure to support the development have not been prepared.Thus, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), the Draft EIRrecognizes that subsequent activities undertaken pursuant to the SpecificPlan would be examined in light of the program EIR to determine ifadditional environmental review would be required.6-11 This comment states that at least one additional water main connectionwould be required for the project, most likely within Willow Street. Thecomment also states that one or more new water mains would need to beconstructed across the existing San Francisco Public Utilities Commission(SFPUC) right-of-way. The commentor states that the Draft EIR shouldinclude the required connection and address any associated impacts that mayarise from its connection. Potential impacts associated with crossing theSFPUC right-of-way for required storm drainage lines are identified in theDraft EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b would reduce this impact to less thansignificant and has been revised to include new water mains. Refer toChapter 10 of this Final EIR.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-47City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 96-12 This comment states that ACWD would determine water main sizing at thetime of improvement plan review. The comment does not address theadequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raise an environmental concern.However, it is noted and included in the record for review by the public anddecision makers.6-13 This comment states that the ability to install a public water system withinthe project area would be conditioned upon confirmation that the soil orgroundwater does not pose a risk to health or safety during installation ofthe system or during long-term operation and maintenance of such a system.It also states that any mitigation measures required to eliminate hazards needto be identified in the Draft EIR. Section 4.7 (Hazards and HazardousMaterials) addresses the project’s potential impacts associated with existingcontamination within the project area and identifies mitigation to reduceimpacts to the public and environment to a less than significant level.9-48 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark



Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #7, Beth Walukas, Alameda CountyTransportation Commission7-1 This comment states that the Alameda County Transportation Commission(ACTC) encourages cities to consider a comprehensive Transit OrientedDevelopment (TOD) Program, which would include environmentallyclearing all access improvements necessary to support the TOD land usedevelopment as part of the environmental document. The comment doesnot address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raise anenvironmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the record forreview by the public and decision makers. It should also be noted that theproposed project location could take advantage of the proposed DumbartonRail Corridor (DRC) Project and encourage transit as an alternative toautomobile use, and that the Specific Plan includes a number of elementsdesigned to reduce depending upon automobiles, including trails, bicyclefacilities and the placement of housing within walking distance ofemployment, transit and entertainment. However, it should also be noted,as stated in the Draft EIR on pages 3-1 and 3-19, the project is notdependent in any way upon proposed DRC transit service (or the transitstation), which is a separate project undergoing separate environmentalreview by other public agencies. Moreover, due to the uncertain timelineand funding status of the DRC Project, it would be speculative to includethe project in the cumulative context of this environmental analysis. TheDRC and the transit station are not reasonably foreseeable future activitiesof the project that must be studied by this EIR at this time. As a result, atthis time alternative transit service would need to be provided toaccommodate the demand generated by the site.7-2 The commentor requests that the City collaborate with Alameda CountyTransit (AC Transit) as early as possible in the development process toidentify appropriate mitigation measures and a plan for providing transit tothe project area. Mitigation Measure 4.14-2 requires the City to coordinatewith AC Transit to improve bus service to the Specific Plan area, whichwould reduce impacts related to transit to less than significant. However,ultimate implementation would be under AC Transit’s jurisdiction andcannot be guaranteed. As a result, the impact would remain significant andunavoidable.Comments regarding the importance of the Dumbarton Rail Project andcoordination among agencies are noted.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-51City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 97-3 This comment requests that pedestrian and bicycle routes documented inthe Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans be identified in theDraft EIR. The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans were adopted in2006 and are currently being updated. The 2006 Bicycle Plan contains aproposed Countywide Class III bicycle route that extends from ThorntonAvenue southbound across SR-84 to the intersection with Willow Street.The route then travels on Willow Street south to Central Avenue and runseast until it intersects with the railroad tracks where a proposed section ofthe Bay Trail parallel to the tracks would continue the route. Other plannedCountywide routes in the vicinity include a proposed Class III route thatcontinues east on Central Avenue and a proposed north-south Class II routethat runs along Newark Boulevard, Brittany Avenue and Cherry Street.Alameda County also adopted a Pedestrian Master Plan in 2006 thatidentifies areas of Countywide significance for capital pedestrian projects.Thornton Avenue, Cherry Avenue and Willow Street are all part of theproposed Bay Trail spine and, therefore, corridors of Countywidesignificance for pedestrian projects.Chapter 4.14 (Traffic) of the Draft EIR has been revised to includeadditional language describing these plans. Refer to Chapter 10 (Revisionsto Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.7-4 This comment states that the Draft EIR should consider the use ofTransportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The City willconsider additional measures beyond those proposed in the Specific Plan,including mechanisms that encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling,telecommuting and other means to reduce peak hour traffic trips.9-52 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark







Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #8, Al D. Bunyi, Union Sanitary District8-1 This comment suggests revisions to Section 4.12 (Public Services andUtilities ) of the Draft EIR to replace references to the East Bay DischargersAuthority with Union Sanitary District (USD), as well as modifications tothe date of completion of the USD Sewer Master Plan. These revisions areincluded in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.8-2 This comment addresses the Newark Basin Master Plan Update and correctsthe anticipated completion date on pages 4.12-18 and 4.12-19 of the DraftEIR. Refer to Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.8-3 Comment noted regarding the Cargill and FMC properties requiringannexation to USD prior to development. Clarification has been providedin Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR to describe the process.Refer to Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-59City of Newark




Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #9, Hilda Lafebre, San Mateo County TransitDistrict9-1 The comment requests discussion of the impacts of the Dumbarton RailCorridor (DRC) Project in the Draft EIR for the Dumbarton TOD SpecificPlan. As stated in the Draft EIR on pages 3-1 and 3-19, implementation ofthe proposed Specific Plan would allow a mix of residential, office, retail,park and recreational open space uses in close proximity to planned futuretransit service along the DRC. At the same time, the project is notdependent in any way upon proposed DRC transit service (or the transitstation), which is a separate project undergoing separate environmentalreview by other public agencies. Moreover, due to the uncertain timelineand funding status of the DRC Project, it would be speculative to includethe project in the cumulative context of this environmental analysis. TheDRC and the transit station are not reasonably foreseeable future activitiesof the project that must be studied by this EIR at this time.Comments regarding the attractiveness of development within the SpecificPlan area to residents and businesses with the DRC project completed arenoted.9-2 This comment states that since the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan andDRC Project are interrelated, the inclusion of each project in the no-buildcondition for the other should be considered. As described in Response 9-1,the DRC and the transit station are not reasonably foreseeable futureactivities of the project that must be studied by this EIR at this time.9-3 This comment suggests that it may be warranted that the DRC Project beincluded in the evaluation of cumulative impacts, specifically for noise.Noise analysis associated with future rail use are included in Chapter 4.10(Noise) of the Draft EIR and mitigation measures are included to addresspotential impacts.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-63City of Newark






Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #10, Timothy Doherty, Bay Conservation andDevelopment District10-1 This comment summarizes the Bay Conservation DevelopmentCommission’s (BCDC’s) jurisdiction and authority along the San Franciscoshoreline. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR orotherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it is noted andincluded in the record for review by the public and decision makers.10-2 This comment states that since providing the City with an initial letterregarding BCDC’s jurisdiction over the project area in May 2010, they haveconducted further analysis of the extent of their jurisdiction over the area.Following receipt of Comment Letter #10, City staff requested additionalclarification regarding BCDC jurisdiction. BCDC staff confirmed that thewaterway in the northwest portion of the project area, referred to as thebarge canal, is considered part of the Bay and BCDC has jurisdiction over ashoreline band located between the shoreline and 100 feet landward andparallel to the shoreline for public access purposes. Plummer Creek is notconsidered part of the Bay but is referred to as “Certain Waterways,” whichcannot be filled without a BCDC permit. The project does not propose anyfill of these waters. Page 4.9-23 of the Draft EIR has been revised to clarifythis and is included in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this FinalEIR.10-3 Comment noted regarding the McAteer-Petris Act and placement of fill inthe Bay. As noted on page 3-25 of the Draft EIR, the proposed projectincludes a perimeter trail surrounding the Specific Plan area, as well as theconstruction of a 6.5-acre park that would be located adjacent to this area,which would preserve public access and views of the shoreline.Furthermore, the project does not propose to place fill within the Bay.10-4 Comment acknowledged regarding BCDC’s support of transit-orienteddevelopment that “allows for a mix of residential, office, retail, public/quasipublic, and park and open space uses in close proximity to planned regionalpublic transit.” The City will continue to coordinate with the Association ofBay Area Governments (ABAG) Focus program.10-5 This comment asks for clarification regarding the source of sea level riseprojections. The projections for sea level rise within the project area in theDraft EIR were derived from the San Francisco Bay Plan and the BCDC’sDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-69City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9Shoreline Areas Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise Central Bay South InundationMap and were included in Section 4.6 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of theDraft EIR. However, according to the BCDC staff report, Living with aRising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on the Shoreline,released in April 2009, climate projections for the Bay Area suggest that sealevel may rise between 15 to 55 inches by the year 2100. Page 4.6-27 of theDraft EIR has been revised to correct the sea level rise projection and isincluded in Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.10-6 This comment states that the Bay Plan findings and policies anticipate theneed for planning associated with safety of fills and sea level rise. As notedin Response 2-5, sea level rise is addressed on page 4.6-27 of the Draft EIR.Minor revisions have been made to the Draft EIR to acknowledge the sealevel rise mapping that has been completed by the BCDC (refer to Chapter10 of this Final EIR). Based on the mapping conducted by BCDC andacknowledged in the Draft EIR, a portion of the western area of SpecificPlan could be affected by sea level rise. As addressed in the Draft EIR, theforecasted sea level rise could increase flood related impacts, especially fromstorm-surge induced flood events. Section 15.40.51 of the City’s MunicipalCode has flood elevation standards for lands within special flood hazardareas as defined by FEMA. If sea level rise was determined to be asignificant threat, protective measures such as levees installed by regionaland local governments would be available to protect urbanized areas.The BCDC forecast expressly notes that it does not account for existingshoreline protection or wave activity and that, where necessary, future leveesare an appropriate mechanism for protecting against flood damage fromrises in sea levels. Ultimately, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAgency, FEMA, USACE, cities, counties and flood control districts areresponsible for protecting the public and the San Francisco Bay ecosystemfrom flood hazards. The City's Municipal Code flood elevation standardswould protect the Specific Plan area based upon flood risks as determinedby FEMA, the City and these other regional and local agencies.As addressed in Response to Comment 10-2, any future development within100 feet of barge canal would be required to comply with the BCDC’s SanFrancisco Bay Plan.10-7 This comment suggests that the Draft EIR discuss the potential forinundation and its impacts on land use, transportation, hydrology, water9-70 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9quality, hazards, infrastructure, and utilities and public services. As noted inResponses 2-5 and 10-6, sea level rise is addressed on page 4.6-27 of theDraft EIR and considers the potential for inundation within the SpecificPlan area as a result of sea level rise. The Draft EIR provides a reasonablerange of alternatives, and includes alternatives to the proposed project thatwould preserve open space adjacent to the baylands. Alternatives 2 and 3would concentrate development adjacent to the City, preserving the westernportion of the Specific Plan area in open space. The project, as well as thealternatives, will be considered by the City Council prior to taking action onthe Specific Plan.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-71City of Newark




Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #11, Irina P. Torrey, San Francisco PublicUtilities Commission11-1 This comment states that the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan currentlyconflicts with the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s (SFPUC’s)right-of-way and pipelines, specifically the Newark Valve Lot location. Thecomment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raisean environmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the recordfor review by the public and decision makers.11-2 The commentor states that the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project areais not likely to support California tiger salamander (CTS) is not valid. Thecommentor is basing this on a Biological Opinion the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) issued the SFPUC for their Bay Division Pipeline Number5 Project.Monk & Associates has multiple staff members that are both USFWS andCalifornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) permitted CTSbiologists. They routinely conduct surveys for all distinct populations of theCTS, have located many previously unidentified CTS breeding sites andhave an extensive reporting history for CTS both with CDFG and USFWS.The closest known CTS population to the project area is in Fremont (i.e.,the former the Pacific Commons project site) and was originally discoveredand reported to CDFG and USFWS by Monk & Associates in March 1997.Two of Monk & Associates’ permitted CTS biologists surveyed the projectarea for the Draft EIR and assessed the suitability of the project area forCTS. One of these biologists worked with the known CTS population inFremont. It is Monk & Associates’ professional opinion that the project areadoes not provide suitable aestivation (over-summering) or breeding habitatfor the CTS.For almost a century, the project area has been a site for industrialproduction. It is located in between residential and industrial lands on theeastern project boundary and Cargill bittern basins on the western projectboundary. Wildlands, Inc. Plummer Creek Wetland Mitigation Project, arestored area of tidal wetlands and associated uplands, is located at theproject site’s southwestern corner. CTS are not known to occur at thePlummer Creek Wetland Mitigation Project Site (personal communicationbetween S. Lynch, Monk & Associates, and C. Tambini, Wildlands, Inc., July5, 2011). The extensive surrounding developments and the brackish to saltDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-75City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9water habitats provide an effective barrier to CTS immigration into theproject area.There are no fresh water habitats onsite that are of the size or depth toremain inundated long enough for CTS larvae to metamorphose. Pool valuefor reproduction is positively correlated with depth. Breeding is typically notobserved in pools with a maximum depth of less than 22 centimeters(Trenham et. al 2008). Research has shown that CTS larvae need pondedwater through the month of May (minimum) to allow larvae time to fullymetamorphose. 2 CTS larvae first start to emerge from breeding pools asearly as May, but if the water in the pool persists, CTS larvae will remain inthe pools in their aquatic phase (with gills) through June or early July (Monk& Associates personal observations).Due to the absence of suitable breeding habitat within the project area, thedistance of the project area from known CTS populations (3.8 miles is theclosest known recorded population), and all the barriers to migration in thisindustrialized area of Newark, there is no possibility that CTS occur withinthe project area. Therefore, development of the proposed project would notimpact CTS.2 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife andplants; designation of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander, central population;final rule (50 CFR Part 17, August 23, 2005).9-76 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark













Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #12, Benny Dehghi, Honeywell International,Inc.12-1 This comment suggests additional mitigation to address specific issues andrecommendation outlined in comments provided to the City in response tothe Notice of Preparation from the San Francisco Bay Regional WaterQuality Control Board (SFRWQCB). Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a,which is included in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR.12-2 Comment noted regarding Honeywell’s ongoing groundwater and soil vapormonitoring and groundwater and soil cleanup efforts pursuant to Final SiteCleanup Requirements that affects portions of the Gallade property, theTrumark property and several of FMC’s parcels.12-3 Comment noted regarding previous planning for the project site and thelimitations associated with residential development on the Gallade, Trumarkand FMC properties. The Specific Plan’s development standards forMedium Density Residential, Park and Recreational Open Space andRestricted Use would govern these properties and supercede previousplanning efforts.12-4 This comment suggests that more detailed general discussion of currentongoing cleanup efforts and cross reference Section 4.7 (Hazards andHazardous Materials) and Section 4.8 (Hydrology, Drainage, and WaterQuality). The comment is noted and additional detail is provided regardingcleanup efforts in response to specific comments in the letter. Refer toResponses 12-7 through 12-14.12-5 This comment states that the Draft EIR should fully disclose current andfuture conditions in the area to meet the requirements of CEQA. The Cityhas provided full disclosure, to the best of its knowledge, of existingconditions within the Specific Plan area, identified potential environmentalimpacts that might result from development within the area, and identifiedmeasures that would mitigate any potential environmental impacts to a lessthan significant level.12-6 This comment suggests a more detailed description of hazards andhazardous materials impacts associated with the proposed project providedin the Executive Summary on page 2-5. As the list provided on this page isa summary of impacts in a variety of environmental topics, it would not beDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-89City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9appropriate to add the detail suggested. Furthermore, the languagesuggested summarizes current cleanup efforts within the Specific Plan areanot project impacts.12-7 This comment requests the replacement of a paragraph in Chapter 3(Project Description) of the Draft EIR on page 3-11 with a revisedparagraph and additional language regarding current cleanup efforts withinthe Specific Plan area. Chapter 10 of this Final EIR includes the suggestedrevision.12-8 This comment requests the replacement of language in Chapter 3 on page 3-14 describing the Trumark property. Chapter 10 of this Final EIR includesthe suggested revision.12-9 This comment requests the replacement of language in Chapter 3 on page 3-15 describing the Gallade property. Chapter 10 of this Final EIR includesthe suggested revision.12-10 This comment addresses the summary of permitted land uses within theSpecific Plan area in Chapter 3 on page 3-30. The comment states that, asrequired by the Department of Toxic Substance Control Hazardous WastePost Closure Facility Permit, a Covenant to Restrict Use of Property wasissued for the former Baron-Blakeslee Facility. The covenant prohibitsresidential uses, hospital for humans, public or private schools for personsunder 21, and day care facilities for children. This covenant would takeprecedence over land uses included in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and theproposed Specific Plan. However, the covenant includes a provision thatwould allow it to be modified should it be demonstrated that other useswould be safe.12-11 This comment requests that the Alameda County Department ofEnvironmental Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency beadded to the list of responsible agencies in Chapter 3 on page 3-40. Chapter10 of this Final EIR includes the requested revision.12-12 This comment provides an update on the status of current cleanup effortson the Gallade property that have affected the FMC property at 8787Enterprise Drive. The update is further addressed in Response 12-13.9-90 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 912-13 This comment requests replacement of four paragraphs beginning on page4.7-15 with four new paragraphs addressing existing conditions on theGallade property and updating the status of current cleanup efforts.Chapter 10 of this Final EIR includes the requested revision.12-14 This comment provides information regarding the Trumark property. Thecomment requests that a reference be provided for the Health RiskAssessment discussed in the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA was preparedprior to the Final SCR Order R2-2007-0005 and prior to residential usesbeing contemplated on the site. Therefore, the Health Risk Assessment isnot relevant to the proposed project. Contamination on the Trumarkproperty is currently undergoing cleanup efforts in accordance with FinalSCR Order R2-2007-0005.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-91City of Newark






Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #13, Michal Patrick Durkee, Allen MatkinsLeck Gamble Mallory & Natis, LLP13-1 This comment summarizes the benefits of the proposed project. Thecomment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raisean environmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the recordfor review by the public and decision makers.Included as an attachment to the comment letter and referenced in thiscomment was “Transit-Oriented Development – New Places, New Choicesin the San Francisco bay Area, A Study by the Metropolitan TransportationCommission.” This document is included in the Appendices of this FinalEIR.13-2 This comment states that the Draft EIR provided analysis of a reasonablerange of alternatives and only the proposed project would meet thedemands of CEQA while attaining the goals of the project. The commentdoes not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raise anenvironmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the record forreview by the public and decision makers.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-97City of Newark




Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #14, Margaret Lewis14-1 This comment states the opinion that the Draft EIR is missing informationand misleading but does not raise specific issues. Therefore, it is noted andincluded in the record for review by the public and decision makers.14-2 This comment asks questions regarding the project’s property owners,timing for development and the payment of costs associated with the DraftEIR. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR orotherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it is noted andincluded in the record for review by the public and decision makers.14-3 This comment asks about the fill needed to raise the project area above the100-year flood hazard elevation and whether the project would be funded byredevelopment money. The comment does not address the adequacy of theDraft EIR or otherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it isnoted and included in the record for review by the public and decisionmakers.14-4 This comment asks what type of transit the City envisions for the projectarea and states that it is isolated from services. The comment does notaddress the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raise an environmentalconcern. However, it is noted and included in the record for review by thepublic and decision makers.14-5 This comment asks who owns the rail right-of-way to the Union Cityintermodal station and questions other aspects of future rail service. Thecomment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwise raisean environmental concern. However, it is noted and included in the recordfor review by the public and decision makers.14-6 The commentor states that the Draft EIR neglected to mention the vernalpool habitat on Willow Street near Thornton Avenue. Refer to Responses 2-3 and 16-3, which address vernal pool habitat.14-7 The commentor asks what would be the project impacts to the PlummerCreek Mitigation Site, which is part of Area 2. The Plummer CreekMitigation Site is located outside of the Specific Plan area. The commentormay be confusing the City’s General Plan Area 2 with the Specific Plan area,which are different.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-101City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9The owner of the Plummer Creek Mitigation Site, Wildlands, Inc., is awareof the project since they are an adjacent landowner and have been notifiedof the proposed Specific Plan.14-8 This comment asks about the barge canal. The Newark General Plan refersto the barge canal – a man-made canal – as an area of visual significance.The Draft EIR simply references this designation of the General Plan. Thebarge canal is not within the Specific Plan and there is no proposal for itsuse or development as part of the project.14-9 The commentor asks “when will a wetland delineation map be prepared forArea 2 TOD? Who will pay for it?” A wetland delineation has been preparedfor the Torian property. Wetland delineations for the remaining propertieswithin the Specific Plan area will be prepared on a parcel by parcel basis asdevelopment plans are prepared.. The individual landowners would beresponsible for paying for the wetland delineation on his/her property.Refer also to Response 16-10.The commentor also asks: “where is an approved mitigation bank?” It ispremature to identify a mitigation bank as credits in a particular bank couldbe sold out at the time it is necessary for a project applicant (landowner) topurchase credits. A mitigation bank would be found when it is necessary tomitigate for future impacts to waters of the U.S./State. An approved “in-lieumitigation entity” is a mitigation bank or an approved mitigation site with adesignated conservator that will manage the site in perpetuity.Out-of-kind wetlands are mitigation wetlands (that are created or preserved)that are of a different type than the wetland impacted. For example, if aseasonal freshwater wetland would be impacted by a project and it wasmitigated for by preserving tidal wetland habitat that would be “out-ofkind”mitigation.It is premature to determine where wetlands would be created at this time. Itwould be determined at the time a landowner applies for permits to fillwetlands on his/her property.14-10 Refer to Responses 2-2, 16-7 and 16-8, regarding the commentor’s question,“What studies were used to determine the distance construction equipmentneeded to avoid nesting birds?”9-102 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9The commentor asks “Did the consultants consider birds and other wildlifeand plant communities on the Wildlands’ site?” Yes, they were consideredand the proposed Specific Plan would not impact sensitive communities,special-status species, or nesting birds on the Wildlands’ site. Refer toResponse 2-4.The commentor also asks “Did the consultants consider or advocate adevelopment buffer on the north and eastern sides of the Plummer Creekmitigation site where housing is planned?” There are no specific sitedevelopment plans at this time so it is not known whether there will be abuffer or not. Furthermore, no buffer would be necessary to mitigatedimpacts.Regarding the question whether a trail is planned that would include thePlummer Creek levees or any part of the mitigation site, there is not a trailplanned as part of the proposed Specific Plan. There may be trail developedas required public access on the perimeter of Plummer Creek mitigation site,but it is not a part of the proposed project. The project does propose aperimeter trail around the Specific Plan area, but not adjacent to thePlummer Creek mitigation site.14-11 This comment asks what criteria were used to determine that sea level rise isspeculation as stated in the Draft EIR. Sea level rise is addressed on page4.6-27 of the Draft EIR, and it is acknowledged that a portion of thewestern Specific Plan area may be affected by sea level rise. Refer toResponse 10-5 and 10-6.14-12 This comment states that sites exist in the City where housing can be built.The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or otherwiseraise an environmental concern. However, it is noted and included in therecord for review by the public and decision makers.14-13 This comment states the opinion that the project area should remain zonedfor industrial use. The comment does not address the adequacy of the DraftEIR or otherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it is noted andincluded in the record for review by the public and decision makers.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-103City of Newark




Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #15, Dean Lewis15-1 This comment states that Area 2 is polluted with chemical residue, someproperties have deed restriction preventing residential uses, clean up of therestricted sites would be prohibitive, and this is the wrong place for housing,parks and a train station. The comment does not address the adequacy ofthe Draft EIR or otherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it isnoted and included in the record for review by the public and decisionmakers.15-2 This comment addresses the proposed transit station and states that locatingthe station within Area 2 does not meet the criteria of serving CapitolCorridor trains. The comment does not address the adequacy of the DraftEIR or otherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it is noted andincluded in the record for review by the public and decision makers.15-3 This comment states that it would be a waste of money to building thetransit station in Area 2. The comment does not address the adequacy ofthe Draft EIR or otherwise raise an environmental concern. However, it isnoted and included in the record for review by the public and decisionmakers.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-107City of Newark














Response to Comments Chapter 9Response to Comment Letter #16, Carin High, Citizens Committee toComplete the Refuge16-1 This comment expresses concern that the Draft EIR is so general in itsdescription of existing biological resources within the Specific Plan area thatit is impossible for decision makers, public agencies or the public to fullyunderstand the impacts that may occur or whether mitigation measuresidentified would be adequate. While the Draft EIR has a broad brushapproach to describing the plant communities and wildlife habitats withinthe Specific Plan area, the background research completed for the Draft EIRprovided a thorough understanding of the special-status species (i.e.,threatened, endangered, rare) issues in the Newark area and what specialstatusspecies and sensitive resources (e.g., wetlands) would need to beaddressed for any future development proposal. It is standard practice forprogram-level EIRs to provide general baseline biological conditions andrequire site-specific surveys for individual parcels (project sites) asdevelopment proposals arise. Since it may be many years before the projectsite is at complete build-out, it is logical to wait to conduct site-specificfocused surveys until the time development is proposed so that thebiological studies are not outdated and need to be repeated.16-2 This comment addresses the time of year the biological consultants surveyedthe project area. The biological consultants conducted surveys to recordbaseline biological conditions as required by the CEQA Guidelines. Sincethe biological surveys were general in nature and were not to focus onblooming periods or to conduct a wetland delineation it was not necessaryto be on the project site during the winter or spring months. Since the DraftEIR was prepared at a program-level with many different parcels that wouldbe developed at different time over many years, site-specific and speciesspecificfocused surveys were not conducted and are not necessary at thisstage in the project. Rather such surveys would be conducted in the futureprior to the development of the individual parcels as detailed in mitigationmeasures identified in the Draft EIR.16-3 The commentor mentions that Figure 4.3-1 (Vegetation Communities) inthe Draft EIR does not show an area of wetland vegetation on Parcel E.This is a mapping error. The biological consultants did identify this area ofwetland vegetation during their October 2009 field studies and located it onthe field maps; however, this information did not get transferred onto thefinal graphic prepared for the Draft EIR. Figure 4.3-1 has been updated andDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-121City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9is included in Chapter 10 (Revisions to Draft EIR) of this Final EIR. At thetime Monk & Associates’ biologists were on the project site, Parcel Esupported an area of cracked soils that was partially vegetated with Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), pigweed (Chenopodium sp.), and English plantain(Plantago lanceolata). This most likely is the area the commentor is referring to.16-4 The commentor asks why baseline information was not provided in theDraft EIR and states that more detailed analysis is required. However, theanalysis in a program-level EIR should be tailored to the first tier of theplanning process, with the understanding that additional detail may beneeded and if so would be provided when specific second-tier developmentproposals are under consideration. The detailed evaluation ofenvironmental impacts and mitigation measures may be properly deferreduntil later in time when environmental review is conducted for such specificsecond-tier development proposals that would implement the program.Also refer to Response 16-1.16-5 This comment states that the Point Reyes Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus maritimuspalustris) has been identified in the vicinity of the site. Table 4.3-1 (Special-Status Species Known to Occur Near Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Area)contained in the Draft EIR confirms this statement. Furthermore, on page4.3-18, the Draft EIR concludes that there is marginally suitable habitat forthe species within the project area.16-6 This comment states that there is a 2004 documented report of ContraCosta goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) near the project area. This sighting hasnot been reported to California Department of Fish and Game’s NaturalDiversity Database (CNDDB); thus, the EIR’s biological consultants, Monk& Associates, were not aware of this sighting. After the commentor broughtthis sighting to Monk & Associates attention, the reported observer, abotanist known to them and someone that they frequently work with, wascontacted and confirmed the 2004 sighting on a vacant lot north of therailroad tracks near Willow Street (personal communication between S.Lynch of Monk & Associates and D. Lake, July 5, 2011). Since the portionof Parcel E that Monk & Associates identified as supporting wetlandvegetation is also known to support Downingia pulchella, a seasonal wetlandplant, this habitat may also provide suitable habitat for Contra Costagoldfields. Therefore, the Draft EIR description of Contra Costa goldfieldshas been modified as has Table 3 contained in Appendix B of the Draft EIRto show that potential habitat is present within the project site boundaries.9-122 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9The impacts and mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR forspecial-status plants already address impacts to state and federally listedthreatened and endangered plant species should they be found on theproject site. Thus, if Contra Costa goldfields were found on the project site,avoidance and mitigation measures as presented in the Draft EIR would beimplemented. Refer to Chapter 10 of this Final EIR for revisions notedabove.16-7 The commentor states that the Draft EIR should establish a default bufferfor nesting birds. The commentor also states that rather than focusing onthe minimal area necessary to protect the nest site and minimal avoidancerequirements, the Draft EIR should focus on implementing measures thatwould avoid “take.” It is the biological consultant’s experience that certainbirds become adapted to noise and adapt better to disturbance than others.Therefore, in urbanized areas such as the project site, a 300-foot nondisturbancebuffer would be all that is warranted for non-listed, nestingraptors. Even then, if monitoring during construction indicates that nestingraptors appear well acclimated to disturbance (for example, red-tailed hawksthat routinely nest near freeways, factories, or in the case of the project site,gun ranges) and can tolerate a smaller nesting buffer, a qualified raptorbiologist may make a recommendation to reduce the buffer size and throughcontinued monitoring of adult raptor nesting behavior would be able toensure that disturbance does not result in nest site inattentiveness, or in theextreme, nest abandonment. In this fashion, site-specific nesting buffers canbe established that ensure that construction related activities do not result intake of the nesting birds, their eggs or young. As the commentor notes, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommended a buffer distance of600 feet for the Hetch Hetchy pipeline replacement project, however, itshould be noted that the area of concern at Hetch Hetchy was far lessdisturbed than the project site and does not have the same urbanized setting.Regardless, buffers must be established that would protect the nest site andnesting attempt such that there is no take of the nesting birds. Such buffersare routinely established by qualified raptor biologists with demonstratedexperience working with nesting raptors. It is Monk & Associates’experience that USFWS and CDFG typically allow qualified raptorbiologists to set site-specific nest site buffers that are tailored to siteconditions for non-listed raptor species provided that ongoing monitoringcontinues to demonstrate that the nesting raptors are not being undulydisturbed by a proposed project.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-123City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 916-8 The commentor states that the Draft EIR fails to consider that vacant landsadjacent to the Refuge or tidal sloughs may provide important escape habitatfor tidal marsh species as sea level rises. What the commentor does notconsider; however, is that if the sea level rises and floods the project site itwould also flood these adjacent habitats.16-9 The commentor questions the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the Torianproperty does not provide habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse “in lightof the fact that the Plummer Creek Mitigation Bank [sic] has successfullyestablished tidal marsh habitat nearby.” To confirm that tidal marsh habitathas been successfully constructed on the nearby Plummer Creek WetlandMitigation Project (it is not a “mitigation bank” but rather a mitigation“project” that was built in 2000-2001 as mitigation for several AlamedaCounty projects), Monk & Associates contacted Wildlands, Inc. andreceived confirmation that 8.85 acres of tidal wetlands has been constructedon the Plummer Creek Wetland Mitigation property (personalcommunication between S. Lynch of Monk & Associates, Inc. and C.Tambini, July 5, 2011). However, there is no evidence that these wetlandsprovide salt marsh harvest mouse habitat. Notwithstanding, if salt marshharvest mice are present on the Plummer Creek Wetland Mitigation Projectproperty, they could move to the Cargill and/or Torian properties, althoughthey likely would not survive there. Accordingly, mitigation identified in theDraft EIR for the salt marsh harvest mouse has been revised to reflect thisand is included in Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.16-10 The commentor states that the Draft EIR would piece-meal impacts towaters of the U.S./State. The Draft EIR does not piece-meal impacts butrather looks at the project at a program-level since complete site buildoutwould not occur for many years and not all the parcels would be developedat the same time. It would not be practical to require a wetland delineationat this stage of the development review process because the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers’ (USACE) jurisdictional map has a validity period ofonly five years and after the five year period a new wetland delineationwould be required. By requiring individual land owners to complete awetland delineation of their property prior to site development ensures thatthis step in the environmental review process is completed.The commenter asks, “why wasn’t an alternative conceptual specific plandeveloped that could incorporate habitat preservation into the Specific Areaprovided in the Draft EIR?” The Draft EIR provides a reasonable range of9-124 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9alternative, and includes alternatives to the proposed project that wouldpreserve open space adjacent to the baylands. Alternatives 2 and 3 wouldconcentrate development adjacent to the City, preserving the westernportion of the Specific Plan area in open space. The project, as well as thealternatives, will be considered by the City Council prior to taking action onthe Specific Plan.16-11 The commenter asks, “is it not possible that the salt marsh harvest mousecould migrate onto the Torian property? What would prohibit theirmovement onto the site?” It is possible for the salt marsh harvest mouse tomigrate onto the Torian property, if it is present in the area. However, thehabitat on the Torian property in its existing condition is not suitable for thesalt marsh harvest mouse and it would likely not survive there. There is notenough cover to protect this mouse from aerial predators such as the redtailedhawk (which is known from the area) and there is not enoughpickleweed for food and cover. However, in an abundance of caution andto meet the standards of care required by CEQA, the Torian property wouldbe required to implement protective measures prior to development toensure that impacts to the salt marsh harvest mouse would not occur shouldit enter the project site (refer “Preconstruction Measures” specified inMitigation Measure 4.3-1).The commentor states: “it must be required that CDFG and the USFWSconfirm no impacts to the salt marsh harvest mouse would occur fromdevelopment of any given project site.” Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 in theDraft EIR does not require confirmation from CDFG and USFWS for the“Habitat Assessment” results if the study is completed by a permitted saltmarsh harvest mouse biologist. The biologist conducting the HabitatAssessment is required by Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 to hold both a federalRecovery Permit and a State MOU authorizing work with the salt marshharvest mouse because these are the biologists authorized by CDFG andUSFWS that have direct experience evaluating the species’ habitats andwould be able to use their best judgment in determining what site conditionsconstitute suitable salt marsh harvest mouse habitat.The commentor states that the following language should be added to theEIR: “A permitted CDFG/USFWS SMHM biologist should be onsite toperform vegetation clearing to ensure no mice are harmed.” Also, “Theintegrity of any SMHM fencing should be inspected on a weekly basis by aDumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-125City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 9qualified biologist.” Both of these items have been added to MitigationMeasure 4.3-1. Refer to Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.16-12 Refer to Response 16-7, which discusses buffers for nesting raptors.16-13 This comment states that the Draft EIR is flawed in its disclosure ofimpacts on wildlife in the project area. No impacts are expected to occur tospecially protected wildlife species; however, measures are required toprotect nesting birds. Refer to Responses 2-2 and 2-4 that address nestingbirds, construction, noise and vibrations.To minimize potential impacts to wildlife from increased artificial lighting,all street and building lights adjacent to the Plummer Creek MitigationProject would meet the “full-cutoff” classification defined by theIlluminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). A full-cutofflighting fixture is one in which “the luminous intensity (measured incandelas) at or above an angle of 90° above nadir (i.e., the angle that pointsdirectly downward, or 0°, from the lamp) is zero, and the luminous intensity(measured in lumens) at or above a vertical angle of 80° above nadir doesnot exceed 10 percent of the luminous flux (measured in lumens) of thelamp or lamps in the lighting fixture.” 3 Such fixtures minimize “lighttrespass” onto adjacent areas, ensuring that light is focused onto the arearequiring illumination (i.e., ground) and not into adjacent natural areas. Thiswould ensure that there are minimal if any lighting impacts to adjacent areas.The project does propose lighting along the trail near the Plummer CreekMitigation site, however, the Specific Plan proposes lighting standards “toensure that lighting . . . does not create excessive ‘spillover’ light and glareinto adjacent residential areas and habitat areas, including the adjacentRefuge.” Thus, the Specific Plan includes standards to ensure that impactsto sensitive species are minimized. Finally, the Draft EIR has been preparedat a program-level and the future development of a trail may be subject tofurther environmental review and future studies.16-14 This comment addresses noise impacts to birds. Refer to Response 2-4.3 NLPIP (National Lighting Product Information Program). 2003 (revised February2007). NLPIP Lighting Answers. Volume 7, Issue 2.9-126 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 916-15 The commentor states that the Draft EIR does not discuss the adverseimpacts of vibration on wildlife species. The commenter references thepossibility of dynamic deep compaction as a possible mitigation for seismichazards. While common species could be disturbed by dynamic deepcompaction, the project site does not provide habitat for special-statuswildlife species and nesting birds would not be impacted becausecompaction and pile driving would not be conducted during the nestingseason.16-16 This comment states that mitigation sites should be managed in perpetuityand funding mechanisms should be provided to ensure long-termmanagement. Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 has been revised accordingly and isincluded in Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.16-17 The commentor references Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 and states seeMitigation Measure 4.3-3, above. It is unclear what is meant by thiscomment and, therefore, it is noted.16-18 This comment references Mitigation Measure 4.3-5. This measure providesdetailed mitigation for special-status plant species recommendations forsubmitting survey reports to CDFG (and/or USFWS).16-19 This comment references Mitigation Measure 4.3-6. Project applicantswould be required to avoid jurisdictional areas to the extent practicablewhile otherwise meeting the project objectives. The Draft EIR states thatimpacts to waters of the U.S./State would be mitigated at a minimum 1:1ratio (impacts:replacement), but the final acreage of any mitigation requiredfor impacts to waters of the U.S./State would be determined by USACEand the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the time permits are issuedfor the project. Impacts to drainages/tributaries regulated pursuant toSection 1602 of California Fish and Game Code would be subject toregulation by CDFG. If there would be impacts to CDFG regulated areas,mitigation would be prescribed as approved by CDFG at the time a 1602Agreement is issued.16-20 The commentor requests that proposals to plant trees adjacent to theRefuge should first be coordinated with the Refuge to avoid theintroduction of perching sites for predatory species. This requirement hasbeen added to Mitigation Measure 4.3-8 in the Draft EIR and is included inChapter 10 of this Final EIR.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 9-127City of Newark

Response to Comments Chapter 916-21 The commentor states that the Draft EIR does not consider the adverseimpacts of the Specific Plan on plant and wildlife habitat immediatelyadjacent to the Specific [Plan] area. Impacts on adjacent properties wereconsidered and are not anticipated. Refer also to Response 2-3 regardingfencing of sensitive habitats.16-22 This comment expresses disappointment regarding the City’s treatment ofthe issue of sea level rise. Refer to Responses 2-5, 10-5 and 10-6.16-23 This comment asks about stockpiling fill material necessary to implementthe proposed project, how long the material would be stockpiles and wouldfill be done at the individual project-level. The comment also asks whatimpacts would occur to City streets and who will bear the responsibility torepair streets if necessary. Given that City streets are designed to carry legalloads, no damage or impact is expected. If damage were to occur as a resultof overloads, the transporter would be responsible for the damage.16-24 The commentor states that renewable energy is supported in concept butthe siting of any proposed wind turbine should be coordinated with theRefuge to avoid adverse impacts to avian species and bats. This comment isnoted.16-25 This comment asks who is responsible for monitoring and enforcing airquality mitigation. If the City, is there staff and funding available to ensuremitigation measures are implemented? The City would be responsible toensure mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are implemented. Ifstaffing is unavailable, the project applicant would be responsible to pay thecost of contract staff to perform mitigation monitoring.16-26 This comment summarizes that the Draft EIR does not adequately disclosebaseline conditions, potentially significant impacts, or mitigation measures.Responses 16-1 through 16-25 respond to the comments regarding theinadequacy of the Draft EIR.9-128 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

10 REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIRSubsequent to the public release of the Draft EIR, revisions have been made to theEIR as a result of staff initiated changes and comments received. Those pages withrevisions are identified below and follow this list of errata pages. It is important tonote that none of the revisions are significant new information that would result inany new significant environmental impacts (including without limitation newenvironmental impacts from a new mitigation measure) or a substantial increase inthe severity of any environmental impacts, nor do any of the revisions propose anew mitigation that the project applicants have declined to implement or adopt.Instead, they merely provide clarification or make minor modifications to anadequate EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required pursuantto CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (b).Page 3-11Page 3-13Pages 3-14 – 3-16Pages 3-38 & 3-39Page 3-40Pages 3-41 & 3-42Page 4.3-5Page 4.3-22Text amended to update current cleanup effortswithin the Specific Plan area.Text amended to replace references to East BayDischargers Authority with the Union SanitaryDistrict (USD) and change the reference to a 36-inchsanitary sewer main to a 38-inch sanitary sewer main.Text amended to update descriptions of Trumarkand Gallade properties.Text amended to replace references to the East BayDischargers Authority with the USD.Text amended to reference that portions of theCargill and FMC properties within the Specific Planarea are outside of the USD boundaries and wouldhave to be annexed prior to development.Text amended to strikeout the East Bay DischargersAuthority as an agency with jurisdiction over theproposed project and add U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC), Alameda County Departmentof Environmental Health and Bay Conservation andDevelopment Commission (BCDC).Figure 4.3-1 revised to show location of an area ofwetland vegetation on Parcel E.Text amended to update information about theContra Costa goldfields.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 10-1City of Newark

Revisions to Draft EIR Chapter 10Pages 4.3-50 – 4.3-53Page 4.3-60Pages 4.3-65 – 4.3-67Page 4.3-69Pages 4.5-11 & 12Page 4.6-27Pages 4.7-15 – 4.7-17Pages 4.7-30 & 4.7-31Page 4.8-4Page 4.8-23Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 amended to clarifyrequirements to mitigated potential impact to the saltmarsh harvest mouse.Text amended to reference Contra Costa goldfieldsas one of several special-status plant species forwhich the project site may have suitable habitat.Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 amended to referenceprotection of vernal pools and add languageregarding long-term protection of wetlands notimpacted by the project and/or new wetlandscreated.Mitigation Measure 4.3-8 amended to requirecoordination of tree replacement with the DonEdwards San Francisco Bay National WildlifeRefuge.Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 amended to note that theAlameda County Water District (ACWD) regulatesthe construction, repair and destruction of wells,exploratory holes and other excavations and addMitigation Measures 4.5-2 and 4.5-3 to addresscoordination with ACWD and require wellprotection plan.Text amended to address a revision to the estimateof sea level rise by climate change.Text amended to update current cleanup effortsassociated with the Gallade property.Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a amended to includeadditional mitigation language.Text amended to update the amount of water treatedat the Newark Desalination Facility and notebeneficial use of groundwater.Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b amended to add referenceto new water mains that may cross over the HetchHetchy Pipeline.10-2 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Revisions to Draft EIR Chapter 10Page 4.8-25Page 4.9-23Pages 4.12-18 & 19Pages 4.14-19 & 20Page 4.14-71AppendicesText was amended to reference Section 15.40.51 ofthe City’s Municipal Code, which includes the City’sflood improvement standards.Text amended to clarify BCDC jurisdiction overdevelopment on within the project area.Text amended to replace references to the East BayDischargers Authority with the Union SanitaryDistrict (USD) and update the anticipatedcompletion date of the Sewer Master Plan by USD.Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 amended to update theanticipated completion date of the Sewer Master Planby USD.Text amended to reference the Alameda CountyBicycle and Pedestrian Plans.Mitigation Measure 4.14-1b amended to addmitigation for the intersection of I-880 NBRamps/Mowry Avenue.Page 2 of Table 3 contained in Appendix B updatedto show potential habitat present for Contra Costagoldfields.Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIR 10-3City of Newark

Revisions to Draft EIR Chapter 10This page intentionally left blank.10-4 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Final EIRCity of Newark

Appendix HTransit-Oriented Development – New Places, New Choices inthe San Francisco Bay Area, A Study by the MetropolitanTransportation Commission

New Places, New ChoicesTRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

New Places, New Choices:Transit-Oriented Developmentin the San Francisco Bay AreaNovember 2006To order additional copies of this publication,P.O. Box 2050939 Ellis Street50 California Street, Suite 2600Joseph P. Bort MetroCentercontact the MTC-ABAG Library:Oakland, CA 94604-2050San Francisco, CA 94109-7714San Francisco, CA 94111-4704101 Eighth Street510.817.5836 PHONE510.464.7900 PHONE415.771.6000 PHONE415.352.3600 PHONEOakland, CA 94607-4700library@mtc.ca.gov E-MAILinfo@abag.ca.gov E-MAILsparetheair@baaqmd.gov E-MAILinfo@bcdc.ca.gov E-MAIL510.817.5700 PHONEwww.abag.ca.gov WEBwww.baaqmd.gov WEBwww.bcdc.ca.gov WEB510.817.5769 TDD/ TTYPrinted on recycled paperwww.sparetheair.org WEBinfo@mtc.ca.gov E-MAILwww.mtc.ca.gov WEB

New Places, New ChoicesTRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

Table of Contents1 New Places, New Choices2 Introduction3 TOD: One Strategy, Many Benefits4 TOD Benefits: Housing5 TOD Benefits: Mobility6 TOD Benefits: Environment7 TOD Benefits: Healthier Living8 Measuring the Benefits of TOD10 The Challenges for TOD11 Moving Forward12 Profiles of 10 Bay Area TOD Projects34 Map: Bay Area TOD Sites36 Appendix A: Smart Growth Preamble and Policies38 Appendix B: MTC Resolution 3434:Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policyfor Regional Transit Expansion ProjectsNew Places, New Choices“Now available for sale or rent in the San Francisco Bay Area: Attractive, afford-able homes with modern amenities in vibrant neighborhoods. All units offerexcellent public transit access for gridlock-free commutes to employmentcenters. Convenience is key, with shops, restaurants and retail services just stepsaway, and walking and biking opportunities galore. Autos are optional, and anysavings in gasoline, parking, maintenance and insurance costs are yours to keep.Experience the benefits of a transit-oriented lifestyle at one of the excitingnew developments taking shape in Redwood City, San Jose, Pleasant Hill, Jack LondonSquare in Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, Hayward, the SanPablo Avenue Corridor in the East Bay… and in many other locations throughout theregion. Come see if this new style of living is the right choice for you.”1

IntroductionTOD: One Strategy, Many Benefits2If broad housing and lifestyle trends could be advertisedin the way that individual real estate developmentsoften are, the blurb on the preceding page ishow the concept of “transit-oriented development”(TOD) might be pitched to a Bay Area audience. Notthat this very real trend requires a hard sell to enlistrecruits. Indeed, one of the main points of this publicationis to show that more and more people throughoutthe region are choosing to live in compact communitiesnear public transit. They are making this choicefor convenience and affordability, and out of a desireto reduce dependence on the automobile for theirroutine travel needs. Developers, transit agencies,community organizations, and cities and counties arecollaborating on scores of projects throughout theregion in recognition of this market demand. At thesame time, regional agencies are taking concretesteps to support this move toward more efficient useof the Bay Area’s land and public-transit infrastructure— both for housing and commercial purposes. It isa movement both well-established and growing, andis poised to pick up even more momentum as our populationexpands.Of course, this preference for transit-centered settlementpatterns is not yet the dominant trend in theregion — freeway-oriented, suburban-style developmentis still a very strong force. But if transit-orienteddevelopment is not yet a mass phenomenon, it iscertainly a distinct and rapidly growing market, andone that offers enticing new choices to a growingnumber of Bay Area residents.In this publication, we feature 10 representativetransit-oriented developments that were recently builtor are in the process of taking shape. We selectedthese to convey a sense of the diversity and appealof this style of community-building enterprise, and togive an idea of why someone might choose to live orwork in one of these locations. And, make no mistake,it’s the choosing that is most important. Notwithstandingall the substantial merits from a public policypoint of view — transit- and land-use efficiency, air qualitybenefits, health advantages, energy savings andthe like — TODs will succeed only when people freelychoose to live in them. The urban and suburbandwellers who opt for TODs do so because the developmentsoffer a practical, preferable, more environmentallyfriendly — and often more affordable — way to liveand travel in our increasingly complex Bay Area.What Is Transit-Oriented Development?Transit-oriented development refers to the clusteringof homes, jobs, shops and services in close proximityto rail stations, ferry terminals or bus stops offeringaccess to frequent, high-quality transit services. Thispattern typically involves compact development anda mixing of different land uses, along with amenitieslike pedestrian-friendly streets and parks — much likethe many neighborhoods of central cities such asOakland and San Francisco that developed as streetcarsuburbs and walking communities before theautomobile.To be successful, TODs must serve a significantportion of trips by public transit, walking and biking,rather than by private automobile. This does not meanthat everyone living in a TOD will necessarily give upowning a car. However, residents are very likely to ownfewer cars and to drive less than residents livingfarther from transit. So, while TOD residents may notlead car-free lives, they are often freed of their dependenceupon cars for everyday mobility needs. Forthis reason, transit-oriented developments might alsobe thought of as “driving-optional” developments.TOD is not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon; it is aflexible form of development adapted to local circumstances.As the examples featured in this publicationshow, TOD can be focused around specific rail stationsor ferry terminals, or spread along a rapid-bus corridor.TOD can be old or new, high-rise or medium-rise.Transit-oriented developments can help transformold parking lots into new and vibrant mixed-use communities,and convert failing shopping centers — oreven abandoned “brownfield” sites — into neighborhoodspoised to thrive near current or future transitstations. TOD architectural styles and densities canand do vary by location, and the type of transit thatserves the area. TOD can take different forms in eachsmall town, suburban area or big city, but can play akey role in all.What Does TOD Offer the Bay Area?The planning principles behind TOD are not new —indeed they represent a return to the developmentpatterns common to older cities throughout theworld. Siting homes, jobs, shops and services withinwalking distance of mass transit hubs was the typicalpattern of development as American cities expandedalong railroad corridors and streetcar lines in the19th and early-20th centuries. However, with the riseof the automobile and the construction of theInterstate Highway System came a more suburbanstyle of development, with land uses increasinglysegregated over great distances according to theirfunction (industrial, commercial or residential). Thismore dispersed development pattern remains predominanttoday.But as has been clear for some time, this post-World War II pattern of more spread-out, land-intensiveand car-focused growth does not meet the needsof all Bay Area residents. Further, the more our roadsystem expands to serve far-flung suburbs, the moredifficult and costly it is to maintain. TOD-style developmentoffers many people an appealing lifestylealternative while also addressing important regionalconcerns such as housing availability and affordability,mobility, and protection of the environment and publichealth. Taken together, these factors have helped tofuel the upsurge in interest in TODs.3

TOD Benefits: HousingTOD Benefits: Mobility4For Many, TOD Is Right Size,Right Place, Right PriceThere is a critical shortage of attractive, affordableplaces to live in the Bay Area. The shortage of housingthreatens the regional economy and exacerbatesour transportation problems. Building more townhomes,apartments and condominiums as infillhousing in downtowns and around transit hubs canhelp to increase the supply of affordable housingthroughout the region and lessen the pressure tokeep expanding ever outward, away from the region’score with its established infrastructure.Changes in the mix of households in the Bay Area —growing numbers of older “empty nesters” and youngerdual-income, childless households, for example— favor more compact housing styles. More peoplewant to live in walkable neighborhoods and vibrantdowntowns, close to public transit, in settings withmore urban amenities. Some want more transportationchoices, including better access to public transit;others want to be closer to local restaurants, cafes,and a wide variety of shops and services. Transitorienteddevelopment is well-suited to the needs —and the pocketbooks — of both youthful and aginghouseholds, which are expected to increase significantlyover the next several decades.Demand for the TOD LifestyleSeveral surveys suggest that demand forsmaller homes close to jobs, shops and servicesis already strong within the region. A pollconducted by the Public Policy Institute of Californiain 2004 found that a majority of Bay Arearesidents would rather live in a small home witha short commute than in a large home with along commute.• Would you choose to live in a small home witha small backyard, if it means you have a shortcommute to work, or• Would you choose to live in a large home with alarge backyard, even if it means you would havea long commute to work?Small home,short commute61%Large home,long commute33%Don’t know6%In a recent Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) poll, a majority (55 percent) of BayArea residents also expressed a preference forliving in a mixed-use neighborhood where theycan walk to stores, schools and services.Enhancing Transit Access,Maximizing Transit AssetsStudies have shown that people living or workingclose to high-quality transit use it with much greaterfrequency than people farther from transit. Accordingto a recent analysis of the 2000 Bay Area TravelSurvey (see page 8), Bay Area residents both livingand working within a half-mile of rail and ferry stopsuse transit for 42 percent of their work trips, whilethose who both live and work outside of this half-milerange use transit for just 4 percent of their commutetrips. Transit use also was found to be higher for nonworktrips as well — such as shopping, recreation andmedical appointments.Higher levels of transit use can improve the costeffectivenessof transit investments, bolster the financialstability of our transit systems and supporthigher-quality transit — such as more frequent trainsand buses. The use of transit for commute trips bringsrevenues to the transit system and reduces highwaycongestion during the peak period, when our highwaysare at or beyond capacity. Transit use duringoff-peak periods brings additional revenues to transitagencies at a time when there is often excess passengercapacity available.These facts are important, because the Bay Area’slong-range transportation plans call for public transitto play an increasingly important role in the decadesahead — indeed, 19 new transit expansion projects arebeing planned across the region at a cost of morethan $11 billion. Since people are far more likely touse these transit systems if they offer convenientaccess to the places they need to go, it only makessense to strive to locate more housing, jobs and serviceswithin walking distance of transit stations. Inshort, TOD is one of the most important determinantsof whether our Bay Area transit expansions will becost-effective and financially sustainable over time.Demand for Housing and JobsNear TransitA recent MTC-commissioned study* found thatall nine Bay Area counties will experience a significantincrease in the demand for housing andjobs near public transit hubs and corridors overthe next 25 years. Currently, about 600,000households in the Bay Area are located withina half-mile of an existing rail transit or busstation. Over the next 25 years, an estimatedadditional 250,000 households will be seekingtransit-oriented homes, an increase of 40 percent.(People living alone and couples withoutchildren will generate nearly two-thirds of thedemand for housing near transit.) This estimateof potential demand for TOD living is deliberatelyconservative, including only a very modestincrease in consumer preference for this kindof housing; the future demand could be significantlyhigher — particularly if there is a longtermincrease in the price of gasoline.The same study found that the demand forjobs near transit stations in the Bay Area is alsoexpected to increase significantly. Based on thetypes of jobs that tend to locate close to transitand the growth in these employment sectorsin the Bay Area, demand for employment neartransit is expected to increase by 800,000new jobs, constituting more than 40 percentof all new jobs expected to be created in theregion over the next 25 years.*The study was conducted by the Center for Transit-OrientedDevelopment and Strategic Economics in 2005.5

TOD Benefits: EnvironmentTOD Benefits: Healthier LivingLiving and Traveling Lighteron the LandImproved transit and walking/biking opportunitiesavailable through TOD provide individuals with anopportunity to cut back on driving — the largestsource of air pollution in the Bay Area — and act ontheir concerns for air and water quality, climate protection,use of fossil fuels, and the preservation ofopen space and agricultural land.In 2002, the Bay Area’s “Smart Growth Strategy” —a landmark, long-range regional visioning effort —found that promoting transit-oriented developmentand focusing housing, jobs and retail along transitcorridors would preserve as much as 66,000 acresof open space by 2020, compared with current developmenttrends. Such a strategy also would reduceaverage weekday driving by as much as 3.6 millionvehicle miles in 2020, conserving 150,000 gallonsof gasoline a day and reducing daily carbon dioxideemissions (the principal greenhouse gas) by 2.9 millionpounds per day.Already, Bay Area households located close to transitstations make fewer driving trips than do others inthe region. Households within a half-mile of trainstations and ferry stops log only 20 vehicle milesof travel per day, just 56 percent of the regionalaverage. The fewer trips people make, the fewer thepollution-producing “cold starts” of their cars. Thesefactors combine to result in lower fuel use and lowertailpipe emissions by those households living closeto transit — and they also add up to powerfully persuasiveevidence of the environmental benefits ofTOD in the Bay Area.People who live close to transit walkfor more of their short trips.*Within 1/2 Mile of Rail or Ferry StopVehicle37%Transit9%Bicycle3%Other2%Walk50%Keys to Success for TODsMore Than 1/2 Mile from Rail or Ferry Stop6While successful TODs come in a variety ofshapes and sizes, and attention to local conditionsand communities is vital, certain factorsare generally recognized as important for success.Based on studies to date, the benefitsof TOD arise from what are sometimes calledthe “4 Ds.”• Distance — Proximity to transit is crucial;the closer housing and jobs are to transit,the more often transit is used.• Density — More residents per acre in livingareas and greater concentration of jobsin urban centers lead to more walking andtransit use.• Diversity — A mix of land uses provides morewalkable destinations.• Design — Ideally, TOD connects transit,housing and retail centers with good walkingand biking routes in a safe and pleasingenvironment.Walking and Cycling Your Wayto Better HealthRecent research suggests a link between physicalactivity and the built environment. In reviewing 50studies on the subject, the Transportation ResearchBoard concluded in 2005 that land-use patterns,transportation systems and design features are importantcontributors to levels of physical activity,especially walking and biking. Factors that influencemore walking and biking are:• population, employment and retail density• diversity and mix of land uses• close destinations• grid street networks and sidewalks• neighborhoods that are well served by transitand walkableWhile personal characteristics and preferencesplay a strong role in how we get around, an appealingbuilt environment can encourage walking and biking.Even people without a predisposition for walking willwalk to more destinations in urban areas than willsimilarly minded people in more suburban areas. Andpeople will walk more if there are useful destinationsnearby. MTC analyses show that people who live closeto transit walk for far more of their trips — especiallyshort trips — than do people who live farther fromtransit. (See pie charts this page.)For walking to catch on, planners and developersneed to pay attention to the safety of the environment— through safe sidewalks, crosswalks andstreets. And extra consideration needs to be given toolder people and younger people, who make up asignificant proportion of the walkers in most neighborhoods.The appeal of bicycling also hinges onVehicle67%*A “short trip” is a trip of 1 mile or less.Note: Figures do not add up to 100% due to rounding.Source: MTCsafety in the form of on-street bike routes, off-streetbike paths and secure bicycle parking. 7Transit1%Bicycle3%Other1%Walk27%

Measuring the Benefits of TODUsing data gathered from over 15,000 households,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission conductedan in-depth analysis of the travel behaviors ofBay Area residents who live in close proximity to railand ferry stops in the region. The results, containedin Characteristics of Rail and Ferry Station AreaResidents in the San Francisco Bay Area: Evidencefrom the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey, published inSeptember 2006, clearly indicate that those living(and working) close to rail and ferry transit stops usetransit, walk and bike much more than people livingfarther from these facilities.The study does recognize that “self-selection,” orthe tendency for individuals with a high propensityfor using transit to live in TODs, may also be a factorin these travel behaviors. Still, the study concludesthat: “Whether being near rail/ferry transit simplyallows people who prefer to drive less that personalchoice, or whether it creates a greater interest insuch travel options, this research demonstrates thatpolicies to support transit-oriented development holdpromise as one important tool, among others, inaddressing congestion, transit usage, non-motorizedtravel, and air pollution in the Bay Area.”Here we spotlight some of the study’s key findings,which provide a kind of rough gauge to measure thepotential benefits of individual TOD projects.Mode Shares for Total Trips,by Proximity to Rail or Ferry StopsWithin 1/2 Mile of Rail or Ferry StopWalk20%Transit19%Proximity MattersBicycle3%Other3%Vehicle Driveror Passenger55%More Than 1/2 Mile from Rail or Ferry StopWalk9%Transit5%Bicycle1%Other2%Vehicle Driveror Passenger83%Bay Area residents who live within a half-mile of railor ferry stops are four times as likely to use transit,three times as likely to bike, and twice as likely towalk as are those who live at greater distances.Commute Trips: Transit Mode ShareUse of Transit for Commute Trips,by Proximity to Rail or Ferry Stops50%40%30%20%10%0%Live and Work 1/2, Work 1/2Distance in Miles from Rail or Ferry StopsTransit Favored for CommutePeople who both live and work close to transit use itextensively to travel to their jobs. Individuals livingand working within a half-mile of rail stations andferry terminals use transit for 42 percent of theirwork commute trips, while people who neither livenor work within a half-mile of such facilities use transitfor only 4 percent of their work commute trips.4%Vehicle Ownership byHousehold LocationWithin 1/2 Mile of Rail or Ferry StopOne-vehicle39%One-vehicle31%Fewer Cars OwnedZero-vehicle29%More Than 1/2 Mile from Rail or Ferry StopZero-vehicle7%Two-vehicle32%Two-vehicle62%Almost 30 percent of households within a half-mileof rail or ferry stations do not have a car — they are“zero-vehicle households.” This means that fewerparking spaces are needed in these areas, allowingmore land to be used for housing, parks, amenitiesand local-serving retail.Average Vehicle Miles Traveled per HouseholdAverage Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled,by Proximity to Rail or Ferry Stops6050403020100Live < 1/2Less Driving2038Live >1Higher Density SuburbanLive >1Lower Density SuburbanDistance in Miles from Rail or Ferry StopsLive >1RuralPeople living close to transit log fewer miles in the carsthey do own — these households produce about halfof the vehicle miles of travel of their suburban andrural counterparts. This dramatically reduces the levelof air pollutants and congestion per household.4455Percentage of Trips by Walking/BikingPercentage of Trips Made byWalking and Biking, by Proximityto Rail or Ferry Stops40%30%20%10%0%16%25%Live < 1/2Work TripLive < 1/2Non-work TripMore Walking and BikingLive >1Work TripLive >1Non-work TripPeople living close to transit also walk and bike forfar more of their trips. Those who live within a halfmileof rail and ferry stops walk or bike for 16 percentof their work trips and 25 percent of their non-worktrips, adding a vibrant presence on local streetsand supporting a healthy lifestyle. This compareswith 4 percent and 12 percent walk/bike rates forpeople farther from transit for work and non-worktrips, respectively.4%Distance in Miles from Rail or Ferry Stops12%89

The Challenges for TODMoving Forward10Fulfilling TOD’s PromiseWill Take Careful PlanningWhile TOD offers housing, travel and living optionsand opportunities, it also presents its own set ofchallenges. Mitigating or eliminating these stumblingblocks will require thoughtful and coordinated planningand implementation. Issues include the following:• Higher-density developments may cause local trafficcongestion, if not properly planned. To minimizetraffic impacts, the travel alternatives must be safe,convenient and affordable, and amenities such asgrocery stores and restaurants must be developedin concert with new housing and offices.• TODs are more complicated for developers toachieve in terms of financing and marketing, sincethey do not fit the real estate model that has beenmost commonly used in the last few decades. Theyalso require more complex and integrated planning,and early and frequent participation by thepublic, community groups and transit agencies.• TOD can accelerate gentrification. High demand forTOD living tends to drive up prices for market-rateunits, sometimes resulting in prices significantlyhigher than the surrounding area. While the inclusionof some below-market rate housing can helpmitigate this effect, additional efforts to minimizedisplacement of existing residents and businessesmay also be needed.• Existing urban areas may not have sufficient infrastructure— including water, electricity, sewers,schools and parks — to serve a larger population,and may need to invest in additional facilities. (Withrespect to schools, of course, it is not just the physicaladequacy but the quality of the schools thatmatter. Urban areas with perceived deficiencies inlocal school quality can find it difficult to attractfamilies with school-age children, for whom schoolquality is often a decisive factor in choosing whereto live.) As to physical infrastructure, it is usuallyless expensive to upgrade public facilities and utilitiesin existing urbanized areas than to invest innew infrastructure to support sprawl-type developmentat the urban fringe.• Some possible TOD sites in the Bay Area may belocated near abandoned industrial sites, freewaysor busy arterials, and other sources of pollution. Allpotential hazards must be adequately addressedbefore development can occur at these sites.Supporting TOD at the Regional LevelWhile the lead role in planning and building TODbelongs to cities, developers and transit agencies,regional agencies also have a crucial role to play. TheAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), theBay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) have joined together to advance theconcept of transit-oriented development. All of theseagencies agree that TOD is a vital piece of our futureas a livable region.TOD is at the heart of a regional growth strategyunveiled in 2002 emphasizing compact developmentpatterns that focus growth in downtowns, towncenters and along the region’s transit corridors.This “Smart Growth Strategy” was developed by theregional agencies mentioned above with the input ofmore than 2,000 Bay Area residents who participatedin a series of workshops held throughout the region.(See Appendix A, page 36.)In keeping with the Strategy, ABAG has developeda program to promote transit-oriented developmentalong multimodal corridors, and particularly heavilyused bus corridors. Targeted corridors in the EastBay include San Pablo Avenue and InternationalBoulevard/East 14th Street through Oakland andSan Leandro. On the Peninsula, ABAG is focusing onEl Camino Real through San Mateo and Santa Claracounties. The goal is to revitalize the corridors andtransform them into “grand boulevards” with newhousing, shops, eateries and jobs all served by stateof-the-artrapid bus lines and other transit.Also in support of the Strategy, MTC in 2005 adopteda ground-breaking policy requiring TOD as part ofthe planning requirements for new Bay Area transitextensions receiving regional discretionary funds.(See Appendix B, page 38.) The policy affects some$1 1 billion in transit investments over the next25 years. Concurrently, MTC has initiated a grantprogram to help local governments map out plansfor housing, shops and offices in the vicinity of stationsalong future transit routes. MTC’s longstandingTransportation for Livable Communities Program andHousing Incentive Program grants likewise have beenimportant catalysts in revitalizing communities andfostering TOD-style projects.Acting together as the Joint Policy Committee, theregional agencies also have launched a major initiativeto refine and update the 2002 Smart GrowthStrategy. Known as “Focusing Our Vision,” the effortis engaging local governments and other stakeholdersin building consensus around the creation ofregional priority areas for housing and other infilldevelopment. Another goal is to identify open spaceand other priority conservation areas deserving ofprotection from future development.Taking TOD to the Next Level:How You Fit InWhether you are a resident looking for your nexthome, a developer wanting to tap into the demand forhomes and offices next to transit, or a local official orcommunity advocate working to revitalize your city,there is a role for you to play in making TOD thelifestyle of choice in the Bay Area. For details on howyou can get involved, consult the agency Web siteslisted at the back of this report. 11

Profiles of 10 Bay Area TOD Projects15 Hayward — Downtown17 Oakland — Jack London Square19 Pleasant Hill — Contra Costa Centre Transit Village21 Redwood City — Downtown23 Richmond — Transit Village25 San Francisco — Third Street Corridor27 San Jose — Downtown29 San Pablo Avenue — Rapid Bus Corridor31 Santa Rosa — Downtown33 Vallejo — Downtown/WaterfrontThe Appeal and Diversity of Bay Area TODIn pockets around the region, TOD is leaping off the pages of planning textbooksand manifesting in the real world. From Vallejo and Santa Rosa in the NorthBay to San Jose in the South Bay, and San Francisco in the West Bay to Oakland andPleasant Hill in the East Bay, TOD is combating long commutes and traffic,revitalizing neighborhoods, and fostering a more convenient lifestyle whilealso addressing the region’s chronic housing shortage, particularly in the realm ofaffordable housing. In this section we profile 10 Bay Area projects thatillustrate the variety — and the appeal — of the TOD development pattern. Using words,maps and photos, we spotlight a few of the many new places offering new choicesto the region’s residents.10 1213

DOWNTOWNHaywardResidents of new housing units in downtownHayward are six times more likely to commuteregularly by transit (38 percent) than residentscitywide (6 percent).Downtown Hayward has achieved a goodbalance of commercial, residential andcivic development — all transit-orientedIn the early 1990s, downtown Hayward was home tomany struggling businesses and empty parking lots.After a decade of steady commercial and residentialdevelopment, including over 700 new housing units,the streets and sidewalks of the area around HaywardBART have come back to life.The transit-oriented development of downtownHayward has been a collaborative effort. The city ofHayward’s Core Area Plan (1992) set the stage forgrowth, while BART and the Hayward RedevelopmentAuthority exchanged land to facilitate projects adjacentto the station.All parties recognized the need to balance developmentof commercial, residential and civic land usesin the downtown core area. Today, a new city hall andpublic plaza (1998), streetscape improvements, andretail and residential development show that thisobjective has largely been achieved.Residents of Hayward’s new transit-oriented housingare now just a short walk away from a full-servicesupermarket, drugstore and a variety of new shops, inaddition to local retail institutions such as Hayward AceHardware. Nighttime dining and entertainment optionsalso will soon be within reach of BART riders and downtownresidents when Cinema Place opens in 2007.In addition to reviving downtown, the new developmentnear Hayward BART has boosted transit ridership.Residents of these transit-oriented housing unitscommute by bus and rail at a rate nearly six timeshigher than the citywide average.The next generation of transit-oriented developmentis planned for the industrial lands of the CanneryArea, west of downtown. Development there is expectedto bring 850 additional housing units, including 127affordable units within walking distance of both theHayward Amtrak and BART stations. Residents will bewell served with a new elementary school and anexpanded Cannery Park. The combination of schools,civic facilities, parks and family entertainment venuesdemonstrates that transit-oriented developments arenot just for young professionals and “empty nesters,”but can become complete, family-friendly communities. 15

Hayward — DowntownTransit:• Hayward BART Station: BART; AC Transit• Hayward Amtrak Station: Capitol Corridor rail service;AC TransitDevelopment highlights:• Atherton Place: 83 units (Sares-Regis Homes, 1995)• Pinnacle City Centre Apartments: 192 units(Legacy Partners, 2000)• City Walk: 77 townhomes (The Olson Company, 2003)• Renaissance Walk: 46 condos (22 affordable)(The Olson Company, 2004)• Studio Walk: 70 lofts (Ryland Homes)• Grand Terrace Apartments: 235 townhouses (Pulte Homes)Amenities:• New streetlights, signalized crosswalks, sidewalk landscapingand street furniture on B Street retail corridorlinking BART to the downtown core• New city hall and public plaza (1998)• New Albertson’s supermarket/Sav-On drugstore (2002)• Hayward Ace Hardware store• Newman Park and Giuliani Plaza• Saturday Farmers’ Market at B Street and MainPlanning:• Hayward Core Area Plan (1992)• The Cannery Area Design Plan (2001)• Hayward General Plan (2002)Innovations:• City provides rebates for façade improvements onB Street and other pedestrian corridors• Shared parking structure for city hall and downtownretail, lined with ground-floor retail on B StreetFuture development:• Cinema Place: Entertainment complex (2007)• Cannery Area: Mixed-use development with 850residential units (127 affordable); planning entitlementshave been approved for 735 of these units• New Burbank Elementary School (2008)• Expanded Cannery Park (2008)• Offices planned for 0.75 acre parcel west of city hall• Senior housing complex with 60 units combined with newoffices for nonprofit developer Eden HousingInyo StWillow CtPoplar AveWillow AveA StElmwood LnRonald LnSunset BlvdPrinceton StAmador StWestfield AveLaurel AveLegendSmalley AveAmtrak/Capitol CorridorHayward StationCanneryParkCentennialParkVallejo StWestern BlvdFlagg StFilbert Sttgomery StSimon StLion StKiwanis StOptimist StCanneryAreaMeek AveBART Line andStationAmtrak/CapitolsLine and StationBus LineProject/AmenitySouza CtPeralta StPearce StMission BlvdGrace StHaywardBART StationArnoldMyrtle StDOWNTOWNHaywardClaire StHazProspect StDotson CtM StMelvin CtSpire StPinnacleCity CentreGrandTerraceCtSupermarket/DrugstoreD StPark StHaywardCity HallAlice StSonomaMarinSan FranciscoMcKeever AveA StDean StNapaSanMateoMaple CtMain StFrancisco StSutro StCity Center DrB StAtherton StJacksonSilva AveSolanoC StD StContra CostaAlamedaSanta ClaraA StCinemaPlaceRussell WayWatkins St2nd StSaturdayHayward Farmers’ MarketAce HardwareB StreetMarketplaceCityWalkRenaissance WalkAtherton PlaceStudio WalkGrandStFoothill BlvdAlves St0 0.5 MilesHayward1st StB SArmstrongE StFletcherPinedale Ct3rdLilly AveEllenL

JACK LONDON SQUAREOaklandGood transit access is a major selling pointfor the new housing sprouting up aroundJack London Square.Jack London Square is evolvinginto a transit-accessible, 24-hour,urban residential neighborhoodSituated on the Oakland waterfront between Oak andClay streets, Jack London Square was the originalhome of the Port of Oakland. In the 1960s, the Portmoved its main functions to container terminals in theouter harbor, and in the 1970s, a major redevelopmentproject brought offices, hotels, shops and restaurantsto Jack London Square. The area’s central locationdraws customers from throughout the Bay Area todining and entertainment venues such as Yoshi’s jazzclub and the Jack London Cinema.During the dot-com boom of the 1990s, residentsbegan to settle in larger numbers near Jack LondonSquare, drawn by the area’s proximity to downtownOakland offices and excellent regional transit connections.This pattern continues today. Much of the areais within walking distance of both the Lake MerrittBART Station and the C.L. Dellums Amtrak Station,which provides Capitol Corridor commuter train serviceto San Jose and Sacramento, as well as Amtrakintercity rail, and local AC Transit bus connections.Nearby, at the foot of Clay Street, Alameda/Oaklandferries depart for 13 daily roundtrips to the FerryBuilding in San Francisco.Prior to 2000, most residential development in thearea involved the renovation and conversion of oldwarehouse buildings into condominiums and flexiblelive/work spaces designed to accommodate an influxof professionals and home-based Internet entrepreneurs.Since that year, 1,000 additional residentialunits have been built, mostly loft-style apartmentsand condominiums in newly constructed, mixed-usebuildings clustered tightly around the C.L. DellumsAmtrak Station.More condos and loft apartments are planned forJack London Square, along with regional attractionssuch as the California Harvest Hall, a public marketand culinary exhibition center to be located nearthe train station. All of this development, includingnew retail stores, offices, condos and entertainmentvenues, will benefit from good regional transit connections,as well as plans to enhance public access tothe waterfront via the San Francisco Bay Trail. 17

Mariner Square DrOakland — Jack London SquareTransit:• C.L. Dellums Amtrak Station: Capitol Corridor rail service;Amtrak Coast Starlight & San Joaquins; AC Transit• Oakland Ferry Terminal: Alameda/Oakland Ferry; AC Transit• Lake Merritt BART Station: BART; AC TransitDevelopment highlights:• Fourth Street Lofts: 37-unit warehouse conversion (1992)• Brick House Lofts: Warehouse converted to 13 for-sale live/workunits and ground-floor retail/office (Horizon Pacific, 1999).• New Market Lofts: Former Safeway headquarters and warehousebuilding converted to 46 live/work units and four officecondos (Urban Bay Properties, 2001)• Aqua Via: 100 apartments in nine-story Art Deco building(Embarcadero Pacific and Urban Development, 2006)• The Sierra: 229 residential units and two levels of retail andlive/work space in a 12-story building (Crescent Heights, 2003)• The Landing: 282 apartments in a multiple-building site atAlice Street and Embarcadero (Legacy Partners, 2001)• The Allegro: Five-story, 312-unit rental project at 240 ThirdStreet (SNK Development, 2001)Amenities:• Sunday Jack London Square Farmers’ Market• Jack London Cinema• Waterfront restaurants and cafes• Nightclubs including Yoshi’s at Jack London Square• Proximity to downtown Oakland offices and retailPlanning:• Land Use and Transportation Element, Oakland General Plan(adopted 1998)• Oakland Estuary Policy Plan (adopted 1999)Innovations:• Adaptive reuse of light industrial and warehouse buildings forresidential and live/work purposesFuture development:• 200 Second Street: 74 condos and live/work units, retail spacein six-story structure (Metrovation, 2006)• 288 Third Street: 91 for-sale units in new six-story warehousetypebuilding under construction (Signature Properties, 2007)• Jack London Square Phase II: New office building, multitheatercinema, hotel/conference center and California HarvestHall — a new public market, culinary school and chefs’ hall offame (Jack London Square Partners, LLC)Castro9805th StMLK Jr WayEmbarcadero WJefferson StJeffersonSquare Rec CenterClay StOaklandFerry Terminal2nd StOakland EstuaryLegendClay St4th St3rd StWebster Tube7th StBART Line andStationAmtrak/CapitolsLine and StationFerry Terminaland RouteBus LineTrail8th StWashington StPosey TubeBroadwayProject/AmenityFranklin StWebster St9th StHarrison St11th St10th St12th StAlice St1st St Embarcadero WMitchell Ave6th StJack London Square Cinema288 Third StreetAllegroHarrisonSquareJackson St13th StLincoln SquareRec Center ParkMadisonParkFourth Street LoftsNew Market LoftsCalifornia Brick House LoftsHarvestThe SierraJack LondonHall200 Second StSquare Phase IIThe LandingAqua ViaC. L.DellumsAmtrakStationMarina VillagSan FranciscoBay TrailEstuaryParkJackson St0 0.5 MileOak StMadison StFallonVictory Ct14th StSt12th StOak StFallon StLakeside DE 12th StLakesideParkLake MerrittBART Station8800 0.5 MilesJ A CK LONDON SQUAREOaklandSonomaMarinSan FranciscoNapaSanMateoSolanoContra CostaOaklandAlamedaSanta ClaraEmbarcadero5th Ave

CONTRA COSTA CENTREPleasant HillTRANSIT VILLAGEA survey of residents from several developmentsclose to Pleasant Hill BART found that45 percent commuted by transit.In the heart of suburban Contra CostaCounty lies one of the Bay Area’s mostsuccessful TOD projectsPleasant Hill was the first suburban BART station tosee significant development activity in the 1970s and1980s. The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency(CCCRA) acquired and assembled parcels of land forlarge-scale redevelopment around the perimeter ofthe BART parking lots. By the mid-1990s, the PleasantHill Station area had emerged as a major employmentcenter and activity node, with 1.5 million square feetof office space rented by companies such as Vodafone,Nextel Communications and Bank of the West,while some 1,200 housing units established a strongresidential presence.The second generation of transit-oriented developmentin the late 1990s brought new amenities toPleasant Hill, along with additional office and residentialdevelopment, including the Coggins Squareaffordable housing project. New streetlights, landscapingand public art enlivened pedestrian corridorsleading to the BART station, including the improvedIron Horse Trail, which links cyclists and pedestriansto cities north and south.While development proceeded around the stationsite, controversy stalled the original plan to constructa mixed-use town center on the BART parking lots. Todevelop a consensus plan for this highly accessiblesite, CCCRA, BART and the developers involved stakeholdersin a six-day charrette planning process in2001. The resulting design guidelines and Final DevelopmentPlan (2005) are guiding current developmentactivities at what is now called Contra Costa CentreTransit Village. Construction is under way, and whenit is complete in 2010, the transit village will includeseveral mixed-use buildings up to 12 stories in heightclustered around a new pedestrian plaza located justoutside the BART fare-gates.A survey of residents from several developmentsclose to Pleasant Hill BART found that 45 percent commutedby transit. Planners are hopeful that the transitusage of new employees and residents of the transitvillage will match this rate, providing further evidencethat transit-oriented development can help improveaccess while reducing traffic congestion and pollution.19

Roxie LnHook AveEsther DrPleasant Hill —Contra Costa Centre Transit VillageTransit:• Pleasant Hill BART Station: BART; Benicia Breeze; CountyConnection; Fairfield-Suisun Transit; Livermore AmadorValley Transit (Wheels)Development highlights:• Vodafone Plaza: 200,000-square foot office building withground-floor restaurant (Taylor Widrow, 1991)• Iron Horse Lofts: 54 market-rate townhouses (HollidayDevelopment, 2001)• Coggins Square: 87 units of affordable housing adjacent toIron Horse Lofts (Bridge Housing, 2001)Amenities:• The Iron Horse Trail: Bicycle/pedestrian path connects toMartinez, Concord, Walnut Creek and San Ramon• Major employers: Bank of the West, John Muir/Mt. DiabloHealth, Nextel Communications, Vodafone• Embassy Suites HotelPlanning:• Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1983)• Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment Plan (1984)• Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan (as amended in 1998)• Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Regulating Plan (2002)• Pleasant Hill BART Final Development Plan (2005)Innovations:• Formation of a Joint Powers Authority (Pleasant HillLeasing Authority) by BART, the Contra Costa CountyRedevelopment Agency and Contra Costa County to managenegotiations with private developers• Innovative land lease: BART property leased to developersfor 100-year term• Collaborative charrette planning process used to involvestakeholders and develop consensus planFuture development:• Contra Costa Centre Transit Village will include 209,000square feet of offices, a 20,000-square foot conventioncenter, over 35,000 square feet of retail space and over550 housing units (20 percent affordable). (Pleasant HillTransit Village, LLC, a consortium of Millennium Partnersand Avalon Bay Communities)• Affordable housing on Las Juntas Swim Club parking lot, eastof BART station (Contra Costa Co. Redevelopment Agency)ViaSierra Grndel2nd AveS o lPioneerSunnyvale AveWesley CtveAGobel WayN Main Stleasant Valley DrService DrMarbi LnMazda DrOakSun Valley DrLesnick LnGeary RdCoggins DrJuana CtOak RdParnellCtLudell DrCONTRA COSTA CENTREPleasant HillTRANSIT VILLAGELegendPark Blvd680980Buskirk AveVodafonePlazaWayne CtEmbassySuitesHotelElena CtEleana DrWayside PlzIron Horse LnIron Horse LoftsCoggins SquareOak RdBART Line andStationBus LineTrailProject/AmenityFrancesIron Horse TrailBirch DrCalleHaven LnGreenwoodPleasant HillBART StationContra Costa CentreTransit VillageJ ones RdWayRobleRdPatina CtCirNogalesLas Juntas WayHoney TrailElmwood DrCherry LnSantos LnCora CtCanal TrailElmwood CtLe Jean WayClemson CtAlderwood RdTreatJillian CtSheppardCandeleroCtOakshire CtN San CarlosBentley StDavid AveBancroft RdCtBlvdNorthcreDrMinertHeatherFarms Park0 0.5 MilesSonomaMarinSan FranciscoNapaPleasant HillSanMateoSolanoContra CostaAlamedaSanta Clara

DOWNTOWNRedwood City“Much of the work we’ve done is [public]education… emphasizing that it’s really allabout design, not density.”— Susan Moeller,Redwood City Redevelopment ManagerPlanners in Redwood City are hopingto attract movie patrons and concertgoersfrom all over the Bay Area“We have the potential to be the nighttime entertainmentcapital of the Peninsula,” says Redwood CityRedevelopment Manager Susan Moeller. While othercities plan office and residential development neartransit, Redwood City is building a transit-orienteddestination by leveraging the assets of its lively andhistoric downtown.The city is well on its way to fulfilling this ambitiousvision, as downtown residents and merchantseagerly await the fall 2006 opening of a 20-screencinema complex near the popular Fox and Little FoxTheaters. With these marquee entertainment venues,bars, restaurants and cafes all located within walkingdistance of the Caltrain station, city leaders hope toentice people from throughout the Bay Area to leavetheir cars at home and take the train to celebrate a“night on the town” in Redwood City.Regardless of how they get downtown, people areencouraged to walk from place to place once theyarrive. Broad tree-lined sidewalks, with ample roomfor window shoppers and outdoor diners, line majorretail streets like Broadway and Middlefield Road. Twonew pedestrian plazas and the existing City CenterPlaza — which officials tout as the city’s “outdoorliving rooms” — provide yet more space for publicgathering, outdoor entertainment and civic functions.The strong employment base and growing nightlifehave increased the attractiveness of Redwood City forresidential development. Over 350 new housing unitshave been built near the Caltrain station in recentyears. However, with the rising premium on land, developerscan no longer afford to build new housing, unlessthey are able to build at least eight stories high.Recognizing that the prospect of residential towersmight alarm neighbors, the city embarked on a proactivecampaign to educate and involve residents earlyin the development planning process. Planners hosteda series of neighborhood workshops, employing visualaids to demonstrate that, with good design, higherdensitydevelopment can have a place in downtownRedwood City. 21

Redwood City — DowntownTransit:• Redwood City Caltrain Station: Caltrain; SamTrans• El Camino Real: SamTransDevelopment highlights:• City Center Plaza Apartments: 139 affordable units withground-floor restaurants (Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition)• Franklin Street Apartments: 206 units (30 affordable) aboveretail space (Irvine Apartment Communities, 2002)• Montgomery Village: Apartments under construction (FirstCommunity Housing)• On Broadway: 20-screen movie theater with 85,000 squarefeet of ground-floor restaurant and retail space (JohnAnagnostou/Broadway Entertainment, LLC, 2006)• Le Coeur de la Ville (formerly Tuscan Towers): 21 affordabletownhomes; another 88 units proposed (Habitat for Humanity)Amenities:• City Center Plaza just east of city hall• Theatre Way: new pedestrian-priority promenade• Courthouse Square• Post Office Paseo linking surface public parking with the newcinema block, and expanding outdoor dining venue• Fox and Little Fox Theaters on Broadway• Whole Foods Market• Sequoia Station retail center includes supermarket, café,drugstore and other conveniencesPlanning:• Redwood City General Plan (2001, update in progress)• Downtown Area Plan (introduced 2001)• Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan and Program EIR (duefor adoption in early 2007)Innovations:• Parking management strategy with on-street and off-streetparking rates that vary by location and time of day• Tax credits for rehabilitation of landmarks in Main StreetHistoric District• Sidewalk Café Design Guidelines encourage outdoor dining,adding vitality to downtown streets.Future development:• Downtown Precise Plan proposes higher density with8- to 12-story residential and mixed-use development consideredin downtown core and east side of El Camino Realbetween Brewster and Maple.DC StStafford StBirch StClinton StDuane StElwood StFulton StGrand StJeter StArch StHudson StIris StB StA StWhipple AveKatherine AveBroadwayBrewster AveLegendHarrison AveMezesParkHowlandHopkins AveCommercial WayStandish StSamson StArguello StWarren StPerry StJames AveAlden StCleveland StCaltrainLine and StationBus LineProject/AmenityWinslow StAllerton StFuller StRedwood CityCaltrain StationSequoia StationEl Camino RealWhole Foods MarketJefferson AveJackson Aveice AveLe Coeurde la VilleHamilton StAdams StMiddlefield Rd.Franklin StMain StBradford StMarshall StCourthouseSquareFox TheaterTheatreWayWilson StCityHallFranklin StreetApartmentsVera AveMontgomery VillageLincoln Avenvention WayVeterans BlvdMain StCityCenterPlazaMiddlefield Rd.Pennsylvania AveLathrop StCedar StWalnut StSpring StPost Office PaseoOn-BroadwayCinemaCassia StHeller StMain St0 0.5 MilesDOWNTOWNRedwood CitySonomaMarinSan FranciscoRedwood CityNapaSanMateoSolanoContra CostaAlamedaSanta ClaraMaple StHilton StElm StBeechShasta SPine St

TRANSIT VILLAGERichmond“Our household has cut down car useby half since we moved here.”— Resident of Richmond’s Metro Walk developmentTransit accessibility is a strategicasset in this economicallydisadvantaged East Bay locationRichmond Transit Village, the new community underconstruction adjacent to the Richmond BART/AmtrakStation, is a quintessential “new urbanist” development.From its location to its layout, design and impact,everything about the Village reflects its transitand pedestrian orientation.Residents of Metro Walk, the completed first phaseof the transit village, can walk across Nevin Plaza toRichmond Station in just two minutes to catch trainsor buses to destinations throughout the Bay Areaand Northern California. Currently being renovated,the station is also a bus hub for AC Transit andGolden Gate Transit.Future phases of the transit village will add moretownhouses, bungalows and live/work lofts, whileretail stores will be located in the southwest quadrantof the site in order to revitalize MacdonaldAvenue and the city’s historic commercial core.There were many challenges to development inthis location, including neighbors’ skepticism of urbanrenewal, as well as the area’s economic difficulties andreputation for crime. To overcome these challenges,the city’s redevelopment agency hired consultants tolead public involvement, analyze development feasibilityat the site and aggressively market their requestfor developer proposals.Although it is still under construction, the RichmondTransit Village is already having an impact. One blockwest of the Village, a mixed-use project is under development.Most importantly, the transit orientationof the Richmond Transit Village is achieving results.Over 90 percent of residents surveyed report thatproximity to transit was an important part of theirdecision to move to the area. These residents aremodifying their travel behavior in turn. “Our householdhas cut car use by half since we moved here,”stated one resident who appreciates the convenienceof living near quality transit service.23

9th StHarbour WayHarbour Way S11th St12th St23rd StS 27th StRichmond — Transit VillageTransit:• Richmond Station: BART; Amtrak/Capitol Corridor;AC Transit; Golden Gate TransitDevelopment highlights:• Metro Walk: Phase I of the Richmond Transit Village;includes 132 owner-occupied townhouses(The Olson Company, 2004)Amenities:• Station upgrades: New elevators, platforms, canopiesand bus transfer center (under construction)• Neighborhood park at center of Metro Walk complex• Nevin Plaza and walkway links station to Metro Walkand the rest of downtown Richmond• Nearby offices of Kaiser PermanentePlanning:• Calthorpe Associates’ plan for the Richmond TransitVillage won a design competition sponsored by BARTand the Richmond Redevelopment Agency.Innovations:• Development on transit agency property (BART parking lots)• Use of design competition to develop site planFuture development:• Phase II of Metro Walk at the Richmond Transit Villagewill include an additional 100 units and will bring 27,000square feet of commercial retail space to the site, with6,000 square feet fronting on the historic MacdonaldAvenue commercial corridor.• 12th and Macdonald: A new mixed-use project (underdevelopment by AF Evans) one block west of the transitvillage will have 238 condominiums and 20,000 squarefeet of ground-floor retail space.• Richmond Greenway bike path (under development) willlink downtown Richmond with the Ohlone and Bay Trails.8th StS 8th StElmPark10tLucas ParkPlaygroundBarrett AveOhio AveKearney12th & MacdonaldS 11th StMemorialParkBissell WayS 12th StSS 13th St 13th St14th StMacdonald AveMarina Way15th StMetro WalkPhase I16th StPortolaChanslor Ave17th StRoosevelt AveAveNevin PlazaMetro WalkPhase IIWoodPark18th StGarvin AveBurbeck Ave19th StHill Ave20th StFuture Richmond GreenwayTRANSIT VILLAGERichmondLegendBART Line andStationAmtrak/CapitolsLine and StationBus LineTrailProject/Amenity21st StFutureDevelopment SiteRichmond StationEspee Ave22nd StTo El CerritoGarvin AveDowner AveClinton AveBrooks AveHayes StBissell Ave22nd StGrant AvePreble AveNevin AveRoosevelt Ave24th StCarlson BlvdFlorida Ave25th StBroadway0 0.5 MilesSonomaMarinSan FranciscoNapaSolanoRichmondContra CostaCivic Center St26th StMurdock StGrove StAlamedaSanMateoSanta Clara

THIRD STREET CORRIDORSan Francisco“The Third Street corridor clearly demonstratesthat there is no one-size-fits-all approach totransit-oriented development.”Jose Luis Moscovich, Executive Director,San Francisco County Transportation AuthorityMuni’s new 5.4-mile-long light-railline reconnects and revitalizes a keycity corridor“I can’t wait for the trains to roll,” says John Colon, aresident of Visitacion Valley, near the southern terminusof San Francisco Muni’s Third Street Light RailProject, which is due to begin service in 2007. Whilethe new rail line will speed Colon to his job in theBayview and reconnect the eastern neighborhoodsto the rest of San Francisco, it represents more thanjust a transportation improvement. The Third Streetproject has magnified development concerns andopportunities, which vary significantly up and downthe corridor, along with community priorities. “TheThird Street corridor clearly demonstrates that thereis no one-size-fits-all approach to transit-orienteddevelopment,” says San Francisco County TransportationAuthority Executive Director Jose Luis Moscovich.In Mission Bay, at the northern end of the rail line,a new urban neighborhood is emerging alongsidethe tracks. The undeveloped 303-acre site presentedplanners with a unique opportunity to develop a highdensity,transit-oriented urban neighborhood fromscratch. Today, a new research campus of the Universityof California/San Francisco is up and running,and over 1,000 housing units have been built. At fullbuild-out, more than 10,000 residents and 31,000employees will live and work in Mission Bay, all withinwalking distance of Muni’s Third Street light-rail line.A different approach is required in the southernend of the corridor. The challenge in these neighborhoodsis to provide new, affordable housing choicesthrough renovation of existing buildings and targeteddevelopment of vacant lots, without displacing longtimeresidents and businesses. The city is supportingthis effort by providing low-interest building renovationloans to businesses and homeowners.For these under-served neighborhoods along ThirdStreet, the transportation investment and transitorientedeconomic development associated with thenew Muni rail line are long overdue. In the wordsof Moscovich, “This project is about repaying a debt.We are helping a neighborhood catch up with the restof San Francisco.” 25

San Francisco — Third Street CorridorTransit:San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail:• Phase I adds 5.7 miles to the Muni Metro System, with 18 newstations between 4th and King streets and Visitacion Valley.• Connects to Caltrain at its depot in San Francisco, and toBART, Muni buses and other Muni trains at Market Street.• Phase II will extend the Third Street line north to UnionSquare and Chinatown, via a new Central Subway.Development highlights:• Mission Bay: 1,224 new housing units and portions ofthe University of California/San Francisco (UCSF) campuscompleted to date (Catellus Development Corporation)• Bayview Commons: 29 apartments for very-low-income families(San Francisco Housing Development Corporation, 2002)Amenities:• New Oakdale-Palou Triangle public plaza and enhancedpedestrian connections to the Oakdale Station• Bayview Opera House & Ruth Williams Memorial Theater• UCSF biomedical research campus in Mission Bay• San Francisco Giants Ballpark in China Basin• New Mission Bay Branch LibraryPlanning:• Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan (1998)• Bayview/Hunters Point Community Revitalization ConceptPlan (2000)• Better Neighborhoods Plan for the Central Waterfront (2002)Innovations:• Light rail is part of the economic development strategy forSan Francisco’s eastern neighborhoods, along with streetscapeand façade improvements, and business retention programs.Future development:• Mission Bay will include 6 million square feet of officespace, 800,000 square feet of retail, 6,000 housing units(1,700 affordable), and 51 acres of parks and open space.• Bayview/Hunters Point: 3,700 new housing units(925 below-market-rate) proposed in redevelopment area.• Better Neighborhoods Plan for the Central Waterfront allowsbetween 1,100 and 1,400 new housing units near Third Street.• Schlage Lock Redevelopment: 800 housing units (15 percentaffordable) and 100,000 square feet of retail, includinga grocery store proposed for site near the Third Street LightRail terminus in Visitacion Valley8th St9th StYork St80Potrero AveFelton StDwight StMansell St6th StBrannan St101Clara StRolphPlaygroundSan Bruno AveCampbellRutlandPlaygroundArleta AveTHIRD STREET CORRIDORSan FranciscoBryant St7th StTownsend StSilver AveIrwin St4th StCaltrain4th &King16th StArkansas StPotrero HillRecreationCenterCesar ChavezToland StOakdale AvePaul AveBerry StOwens StJacksonPlaygroundNapoleon StThornton Ave18th StQuint St3rd StKing StMissionRock StMissionBayChannel St6th StIowa StJerrold AveEgbert Ave3rd St25th StIngalls StGilmanCargo WayKirkwood AveBayview Commons Apts.Plaza/BayviewFarmers’ Market Bayview Opera HousePalou AvePalou TriangleIndia Basin Shoreline ParkPlaza Hilltop ParkCaltrainPaulAvenueCaltrain22nd StBayshore BlvdKey AveBayviewParkSF Giants BallparkMission Creek SeniorCommunity Center/SF Public LibraryBayviewPlaygroundCarroll AveUCSF Research CampusAgua Vista ParkGilman ParkSchlage Lock Redevelopment SiteCaltrain BayshoreIntermodalSunnydale TerminalGilmanAveLeConte Ave101280Terry FrancoisStMariposa St20th St23rd StMarin StIslais Creek ChannelEvans AveHudson AvePalou AveInnes AveAdam Rogers ParkThomas AveMilton Myer Recreation CenterVan Dyke AveJamestown AveSouth BasinAveDonne rAveCrisp RdSpearCandlestick PtState Rec AreaLegendSonomaMarinSan FranciscoAve6th AveJ StEarl StI StH StHussey StThird StreetLight Rail Lineand StationCaltrainLine and StationBus LineProject/AmenityNapaSanMateoSan Francisco BayHill DrCochrane StE StSolanoContra CostaSan FranciscoAlamedaSanta Clara0 0.5 Miles

DOWNTOWNSan JoseResidents of downtown San Jose can walkto transit, parks, jobs, classes at the downtowncampus of San Jose State University, anda growing array of entertainment options.Long known as a sprawling, cardependentcity, San Jose is remakingits downtown into the urban heartof Silicon ValleyWhen the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) beganlaying light-rail tracks through San Jose’s strugglingcentral business district in the 1980s, planners andcivic leaders saw an opportunity to simultaneously reinin suburban sprawl and revive downtown by encouragingtransit-oriented development. Their vision andefforts are now paying off.Over 12,000 housing units have been constructedin transit corridors since the city began implementingrecommendations from a 1991 housing study thatcalled for increases in allowable building heights anddensities near rail stations. Much of this growthhas occurred along the VTA’s light-rail lines in thedowntown area. Improved commuter rail service onCaltrain, the Amtrak Capitols and the Altamont CommuterExpress — all of which serve the recently renovatedDiridon Station on the west edge of downtown— also have added to the area’s allure. Meanwhile, thecity’s Redevelopment Agency has invested more than$1 billion to improve the infrastructure and servicesin downtown San Jose.Transit-oriented redevelopment projects in downtownSan Jose include the Paseo Plaza Apartmentsnear Paseo de San Antonio Station, the 101 San FernandoApartments near Santa Clara Street Stationand the Villa Torino complex near the St. JamesStation. These mid-rise projects are located withina block or two of the parallel transit malls on Firstand Second streets and include a significant share ofbelow-market-rate units.With a critical mass of new downtown residentsand amenities, and plans for yet more transit services— including a long-awaited BART connection tothe East Bay — San Jose is now attracting investmentin higher-profile, transit-oriented development projects.Recent zoning changes have spurred proposalsfor at least 10 high-rise residential projects, which,if realized, would surely transform the skyline of SanJose, provide new urban housing choices, and fillseats on the growing network of buses and trainsserving the Silicon Valley.27

Sonoma StPalm StDelmas AveLocust StVine StN 1st StS 1st StN 3rd StN 9th StN 11th StN 2nd StN 12th StN 5th StN 14th StN 15th StN 6th StS 6th StS 7th StN 8th StS 11th StS 12th StN 16th StS 17th StN 4th StN 7th StS 10th StS 13th StN 13th StN 17th StSan Jose — DowntownTransit:• VTA Light Rail• San Jose Diridon Station: Caltrain; Altamont CommuterExpress; Amtrak/Capitol CorridorDevelopment highlights:• Legacy Fountain Plaza: 433 apartments (2003)• Paseo Plaza Apartments: 210 apartments with ground-floorretail, near Paseo de San Antonio Station (Goldrich & Kest)• 101 San Fernando Apartments: 323 apartments and 10,000square feet of retail located one block from Santa Clara Station• Villa Torino Apartments: 198 apartments (40 percent affordable)one block north of St. James Park and light rail station• Ryland Mews: 171 for-sale townhouses (25 percent affordable)near Japantown/Ayer Station (Barry Swenson Builder)• Park Townsend: Condominiums at Julian and Market streets,near the St. James Station (Goldrich & Kest)• Vendome Place: Recently completed high-rise developmentwith 106 rental units (Barry Swenson Builder)Amenities:• Paseo de San Antonio pedestrian walkway• San Jose Museum of Art; Tech Museum of Innovation• Parks: St. James Park, Guadalupe River Park, Plaza Chavez• Theaters: California Theatre; San Jose Repertory TheatrePlanning:• San Jose 2020 General Plan (as amended in 2006)• Redevelopment Agency 5-Year Implementation Plan (2005-09)Innovations:• 1989 Housing Initiative Program encouraged TOD• Zoning amended to allow 55 units per acre near transitFuture development:• Tower 88 at Central Place: 197 condos, gym and 32,000square feet of retail space (WMS/CIM Group; opening 2009)• City Front Square: Three 25-story condo towers with 659 units(Urban West/Preservation Partners)• 360 Residences: High-rise tower with 203 condominiumsand 11,000 square feet of retail (Mesa)• Axis: High-rise project with 329 condominiums (SpringCapital Group; opening in 2008)• City Heights: High-rise apartment complex under constructionnear St. James Station (Barry Swenson Builder)• Heart of the City: 76 units in mixed-use buildings underconstruction at 2nd and Santa Clara streetsMcKendrie StUniversity AveThe AlamedaMyrtle StGrand AveElm StVilla AveHarding AvePershing AveAtlas AveW San Carlos StRiverside DrW Taylor StSchiele AveLenzen AveSanta Clara StCleaves AveSunol StDupont StWilson AveAuzerais Ave980 280Bird AveW Hedding StBush StWhite StFuller AveHull AveAtlanta AveAsbury St0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1MilesCoe AvMontgomeryeWSpring StColeman AveJulian StSan JoseDiridonStationAutumnSan CarlosRyland StMiller StHobson StFox AveSan Jose Museum Heart of the Cityof Art101 San Fernando ApartmentsTech MuseumTower 88 at Central Placeof InnovationPaseo Plaza ApartmentsPaseo de San Antonio Repertory The ColonnadeCity Front Square Theatre San JoseStateCalifornia TheatreUniversityGuadalupe 360 ResidencesRiver ParkMcLellan AveWoz WayN San PeVendome PlaceApartmentsN Market StRylandLegacy Fountain Plaza ParkBassett StVilla Torino ApartmentsPark Townsend CondominiumsRyland MewsCityHeightsBiebrachParkHeritageRose GardenDemonstrationOrchard87AxisW Santa Clara StDOWNTOWNSan JoseLegendVTA Light-RailLine and StationCaltrainLine and StationBus LineTrailProject/AmenityW Reed StMarketUnion StOak StS 2nd StSaintJamesPark980280SonomaS 4th StMarinSan FranciscoBernalParkE Julian StE Reed StE Taylor StS 14th StE San Carlos StS 15th St0 0.5 MilesNapaSanMateoSan JoseSolanoContra CostaAlamedaSanta ClaraSt16thS

RAPID BUS CORRIDORSan Pablo AvenueSince the 1990s, a new pattern of transitorienteddevelopment has emerged alongthis very busy East Bay thoroughfare.New “Rapid Bus” service is helpingto reinvigorate neighborhoods alongthe San Pablo Avenue corridorStretching 20 miles from downtown Oakland in thesouth to Hercules in the north, San Pablo Avenue wasonce an important link in the Key Route network ofEast Bay streetcar lines. Neighborhoods adjacent tothe transit line in Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley andAlbany evolved as streetcar suburbs, with apartmenthomes and neighborhood-serving retail establishmentsflanking the corridor.With the demise of the streetcars after World War II,San Pablo Avenue became a more car-oriented corridor,crowded with gas stations, fast-food restaurantsand auto repair shops.Since the 1990s, however, a new pattern of transitorientedurban infill development has emerged alongthis busy thoroughfare. Today, visionary developersand civic leaders are sounding hopeful notes about thefuture of the corridor, with state Assemblymemberand former Berkeley Mayor Loni Hancock citing thepotential of transit-oriented development to remakeSan Pablo Avenue as a “world class boulevard.”The return of fast, reliable and frequent transitservice to the corridor is a major catalyst. In 2004,AC Transit instituted the new 72-R San Pablo RapidBus service, with express service every 12 minutesto stations every half-mile along the corridor. Bymimicking the frequency, speed, convenience andreliability of light rail, the new express bus servicehas boosted ridership by 66 percent. Increasedridership has, in turn, spurred greater interest intransit-oriented development along the corridor —each supporting the other in a virtuous cycle of neighborhoodrevitalization. Along the Oakland/Emeryvilleborder, for example, mid-rise, mixed-use buildingssuch as the Andante Condominiums and Key RouteLofts are helping to reframe San Pablo Avenue andreconnect residents and businesses with transit.Cities are also pitching in. El Cerrito and Richmondare entering into a joint effort to plan their sharedsection of San Pablo Avenue. Albany, Berkeley, Emeryvilleand Oakland already have dedicated plans or programsthat focus on the avenue and attempt to bringmore transit-supportive development to the corridor. 29

2nd St29th StSan Pablo Avenue — Rapid Bus CorridorTransit• San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus Corridor: AC Transit; BART• Uptown Transit Center: New transit hub under developmentnear 19th St. BART will provide increased passenger amenities.Development highlights:• Sylvester Rutledge Manor: 65 affordable apartments forseniors (Oakland Community Housing, Inc., 2003)• Andante Condominiums: 125 condos (25 affordable) inmixed-use building in Emeryville (SNK Development, 2006)• Key Route Lofts: 22 live/work lofts and three commercialunits at 40th Street and Adeline in Emeryville (Urban Bay)• Artisan Walk Condominiums: 72 condos (six below marketrate) in Oakland (The Olson Company, 2006)• Margaret Breland Homes: 28 senior housing units inBerkeley (Resources for Community Development, 2006)• Creekside Apartments: 16 affordable rental units in convertedmotel in Albany (Resources for Community Development, 2001)• Albany Commons: 22 condos in mixed-use project at SolanoAvenue (Alexander Development Co., 2005)• The Village at Town Center: 158 units in mixed-use developmenton former lumberyard in El Cerrito (Legacy Homes, 2005)• Del Norte Place: 135 apartments (21 percent for seniors) andretail near BART station (John Stewart Co., 1993)• Monte Vista Senior Apartments: 82 rental units in SanPablo (Simpson Housing Solutions, 2003)Amenities:• Ohlone Greenway (Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito)• International Marketplace retail district (Berkeley)• Richmond Greenway (under development)Planning:• San Pablo Avenue SMART Corridor Project (multi-agency)Innovations:• First rapid bus corridor and first bus-transit-orienteddevelopment site in the Bay AreaFuture development:• Uptown Oakland: 1,300-unit mixed-use development indowntown Oakland (Forest City, 2006)• Creekside at El Cerrito Plaza: 128 condos (Forest PlazaPartners/Bill Garlock & Assoc.)• Vitale Mixed-Use Project: 31 condos in El Cerrito• Mayfair site: 58 condos near El Cerrito del Norte BART(The Olson Company)SAN PABLO AVENUE CORRIDORTransit Oriented Development AreaCastro StRichmond PkwyGarrardParr BlvdBlvd3rd StHarbor ChannelRAPID BUS CORRIDORSan Pablo AvenueGiant RdRumrill Blvd580SanMateo0 0.5 Miles22nd30th StCutting BlvdMaricopa AvRichmondBARTAmtrakRichmondFuture Richmond Greenway23rd St34th St37th StS 37th StMarina ParkRichmond Inner HarborSan Francisco BayLegendSonomaMarinSan FranciscoCounty Hwy 2080Monte VistaSenior ApartmentsAlvaradoParkSan Pablo AveDelNortePlacePotrero AveAC Transit RapidBus Line and StopAmtrakLine and StationBARTLine and StationBus LineTrailProject/AmenityNapaSolanoContra CostaSan PabloAvenueAlamedaSanta ClaraEastshoreState ParkBarrett AveMayfair SiteEl Cerritodel Norte BARTRichmond StThe Village atTown CenterVitale SiteAppian WayOhlone GreenwayCreeksideParkAlbany CommonsMaritime StArlington Blvd80580Wildcat CanyonRegional ParkPeralta StUnion StCurtis StSolano AveCreekside ApartmentsCesarChavezStateNorth BerkeleyParkInternationalMarketplace DistrictAmtrakBerkeleyAmtrak EmeryvilleMoeser LnAshbury AvePowell StRose StUniversity Ave5th StClay StPinole ParkKennedy GroveRec AreaEl Cerrito Plaza BARTCreekside at El Cerrito PlazaMarinGilman StMargaret BrelandHomesBARTArlington AveColusa AveAveHopkins StSacramento StThe AlamedaDwight WayAshby AveAshbyArtisan Walk BARTCondominiumsTelegraph AveSan Pablo ReservoTildenRegionalParkDowntownBerkeley BARTClaremont AveRockridgeBART24MacArthurBART80Sylvester RutledgeManor580Uptown Transit880CenterUptown Oakland19th StreetBARTWest Oakland980BART12th Street BARTLake MerrittBARTAmtrak Jack London SquareMiddle7th StHarbor RdSan Pablo AveAndante CondominiumsW Grand AveMarket StMartin Luther King Jr WayKey0 0.5 MilesRouteLoftsSpruce StSan Pablo Dam RdGrizzly Peak BlvdCollege Ave51st StBroadwayMPiedmont AveGran

DOWNTOWNSanta RosaSanta Rosa’s Railroad Square is set to becomeone of the busiest stations on the proposedSonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) line.New development and expandeddowntown offerings are enhancingSanta Rosa’s urban allureSanta Rosa, the North Bay’s largest city (pop. 157,145),is fast becoming a true urban center, with expandedtransportation choices, pedestrian-friendly streetscapesand taller buildings to match. Most of the newurban development planned or built to date is nearthe city’s existing and planned transit hubs.The Transit Mall on 2nd Street brings local andregional accessibility to the heart of downtown SantaRosa. This prime location has provided an incentivefor urban-scale development throughout downtown,with new housing projects such as the Burbank Apartmentsbringing affordable housing to the city. Othermajor downtown developments include the ComstockMall Project, currently under review, at the eastend of the Transit Mall and a mixed-use developmentproject on the former White House department storesite adjacent to the post office. At 14 and 12 storiesrespectively, these are the types of projects neededto bring a sufficient number of new residents andworkers downtown to support additional transit serviceand local businesses, including restaurants andother retail services.New residents will find an inviting scene downtown,where evening and weekend events are adding vitalityto the streets. The Santa Rosa Downtown Marketoffers fresh local produce one night a week, and amonthly Art Walk showcases local artists. Nighttimeentertainment venues like the Roxy Stadium-14 movietheater and the 6th Street Playhouse are within walkingdistance of new condos and apartments and theTransit Mall.Across U.S. 101, Santa Rosa’s dormant rail yard isset to become one of the busiest stations on the proposedSonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) line,which awaits voter-approved funding. The winningproposal for the vacant site west of the city’s historicrail station includes plans for a Sonoma County Food& Wine Center, which city leaders hope will attractcommuters and visitors alike.Whether or not commuter trains return to SantaRosa, the market for urban-scale development in thetransit-accessible downtown is likely to remain strong.31

Santa Rosa — DowntownTransit:• Santa Rosa Transit Mall: Sonoma County Transit; GoldenGate Transit; Santa Rosa CityBus; Mendocino Transit• Railroad Square SMART Station: Proposed commuter trainservice from Cloverdale to Larkspur via Santa RosaDevelopment highlights:• Railroad Square Terrace: 29 condos in mixed-use buildingnear Railroad Square Station (Hugh Futrell)• The Burbank Apartments: 26 affordable housing units on7th Street (Hugh Futrell)Amenities:• New 4th Street pedestrian corridor• Historic Railroad Square commercial district• 6th Street Playhouse• Roxy Stadium-14 movie theater• Prince Memorial Greenway along Santa Rosa Creek• Santa Rosa Downtown MarketPlanning:• Santa Rosa General Plan (as amended 2002)• Downtown Mid-Rise Policy (2005)• Downtown Santa Rosa Market Study (2005)Innovations:• Adaptive re-use of historic structures• Green building features in the New Railroad Square project• Public/private development partnershipFuture development:• New Railroad Square project includes a public plaza, 250condos (15 percent affordable), 51,750-square foot food andwine center, 8,000 square feet of retail space and 29,400square feet of community uses (Creative Housing Associates).• ‘White House’ Mixed-Use Project: 183 condos, 16,000square feet of ground floor commercial space in 12-storybuilding (Monahan Pacific Associates)• Traverso Site: 10-story mixed-use project with 54 condos• The Moore Center Apartments: 80 residential units above9,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space (JamesHornmer and Assoc.)• Comstock Mall Project: 14-story building with 115 condos and8,400 square feet of ground-floor retail (West Bay Developers)• Canners Project: Adaptive re-use of cannery building with65 condos and 15 live/work units (John Stewart Co.)Maxwell DrN Dutton AveBoyceTrowbridgeHewettStW 8th StCentral AvCleveland AMaxwell CtDecker StStSebastopol RdWest AveW 9th StStPolk StW 3rd StAvalon AveLincoln St11th StW 7th StHull StArmory DrW College Ave10th StGarden StDutton AvePierson StWilson St0 0.5 MilesSMART SANTA ROSA RAILROAD SQUARE STATIONTransit Oriented DOWNTOWNDevelopment AreaGoodman AveMorgan St9th St6th StPlayhouseW 6th StIowa St101Scott StDavis StNewRailroadSquareCannersProjectRobertsAveTimothy RdGlenn StDenton WayBenton StCarrillo StThe Moore CenterApartmentsMorgan StRailroadSquareTerraceBoyd StB St8th StOlive StRosaSantaCorby AveOlive StPlzOlive ParkSlater St7th StRoss St4th StPedestrianCorridorFutureRailroad SquareSMART StationRailroadSquareHistoricDistrictMendocino AveA StS A StBarnett StEarle StHumboldt StOrchard StRiley StBosley St1st StBeaver StSonoma AveJuilliardParkKing StCherry StPalm StSanta Rosa AveD StE StWright St14th StRoyal StNorth St5th StFremont ParkThe BurbankApartmentsLutherBurbankGardens4th StS E StRae St3rd St2nd StTupper StCharles StMill StPine StOak StBennett Valley RdWare St13th St12th StComstockMallProject White House/Rises SiteMixed-Use ProjectCourthouse SquareSanta RosaTraverso Transit MallSite Roxy Rae ParkStadium-14TheaterSanta RosaDowntownMarketPrince Memorial GreenwayJuilliard Park DrMaple AveCollege AveAllison WaySt4thBrookwood AveSonoma AveWheeler StMontgomeryClark St12 12Santa RosaLegendFuture SMARTLine and StationBus LineTrailProject/Amenity101Temple Ave0 0.5 MilesSonomaMarinSan FranciscoSanta RosaNapaSanMateoSolanoContra CostaAlamedaSanta ClaraGray CtBush StHendley St

DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONTVallejoA strong incentive for development indowntown Vallejo is the regional accessibilityprovided by the Vallejo Ferry Terminal.Waterfront location and historicdowntown spur Vallejo’s developmentWhile other Bay Area cities prospered during the1990s, Vallejo’s fortunes waned with the closure of thenearby Mare Island Naval Shipyard in 1996. As the citybegan a long redevelopment process in 1997, plannerstook stock of Vallejo’s remaining assets, including itslocation by the Bay and its historic and pedestrianorientedstreet grid. With small blocks, ample sidewalks,and mid-block alleys and paseos, downtownVallejo is easy to traverse on foot or by bike.Perhaps the strongest incentive for developmentin downtown Vallejo is the regional accessibility providedby the Vallejo Ferry Terminal and a future bustransfer center that is being built nearby. Baylinkferries provide direct service to San Francisco, whileexpress buses will link downtown Vallejo with otherdestinations in the North Bay and East Bay.Vallejo was able to take advantage of these assetsand harness its full development potential by makingunderutilized, city-owned parking lots available fordevelopment. Vallejo Station, developed by Callahan/DeSilva Vallejo LLC, is one of two major transit-orienteddevelopments now in the works. Plans call for building265 live/work units and 75,000 square feet of officespace on parking lots located between the FerryTerminal and the future bus transfer center. As excessparking spaces are converted to higher uses, the cityof Vallejo is also pursuing innovative new parkingpolicies to help support TOD-style development.More transit-oriented development is planned forsites scattered throughout downtown Vallejo. The citywill sell several of its parking lots to Triad Communities,LLC, which intends to construct seven mixed-usebuildings with retail and office space at street level,and up to 1,000 residential units on upper floors.The first project slated for construction will be a fivetoseven-story mixed-use building on a lot acrossfrom the Empress Theatre — one of the key “catalystprojects” that planners hope will bring enough newresidents and activity downtown to spark a widerrevitalization.33

Harbor WayLouisiana StCity ParkVallejo — Downtown/WaterfrontTransit:• Vallejo Ferry Terminal: Baylink ferries and buses toSan Francisco; Benicia Breeze• Future Bus Transfer Center: Vallejo Transit; BeniciaBreeze; Napa Valley VINE; Baylink busesFuture Development:• Vallejo Station: 265 live/work units, a 200-room hoteland conference center and 75,000 square feet of officespace proposed for site across Mare Island Way from theVallejo Ferry Terminal (Callahan/DeSilva Vallejo LLC)• Triad “catalyst” development sites: Seven mixed-usebuildings are planned for construction on city-ownedparking lots throughout downtown, providing 1,000 residentialunits, and 100,000 square feet of ground-floorretail space (Triad Communities, LLC.)Amenities:• Georgia Street Extension reconnects downtown Vallejowith the waterfront and Ferry Terminal• Unity Plaza, situated at the west end of downtown,is a venue for civic functions such as the weekly farmers’market and Vallejo Wednesday Night celebrations.• The historic Empress Theatre is currently being renovatedand will reopen in 2007 as a live performing arts theater.• Vallejo Waterfront Promenade• Walkable street grid, with wide alleys (16 feet wide)Planning:• Vallejo Downtown/Waterfront Master Plan (2000)• Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan (2005)Innovations:• Density bonus: Vallejo allows developers to constructat least one additional floor if they use sustainablebuilding practices.• Parking management: Vallejo is developing new parkingmanagement strategies for downtown, includingshared parking and coordinated pricing of on-streetand off-street parking.5th StRailroad AveOak AveWaterfront Ave7th St8th StAzuar AveFerry StNapa RiverMareIsland9th StWalnut AveNimitz AveVallejo Watarfront PromenadeMare Island WayTo San Francisco0 0.5 MilesVALLEJO FERRY TERMINALOhio StTransit Oriented Development AreaLegend12th StTrinity StFerry Terminaland RouteBus LineTrailProject/AmenityButte StMarina VistaMemorial ParkVallejoFerryTerminalBranciforte StCity Hall Access RdSanta Clara StUnityPlazaVallejoStationIndependenceParkSacramento StFlorida StCarolina StCapitol StNantucket LnTriad Phase IDevelopmentFuture BusTransfer CenterMarin StEmpressTheatreMarin StKentucky StVirginia StGeorgia StYork StSonoma StMaine StPennsylvania StCurtola Pkwy0 0.5 MilesDOWNTOWN/WATERFRONTVallejoSonomaMarinSan FranciscoVallejoNapaSolanoContra CostaAlamedaCoral RdSanMateoSanta Clara

SonomaWindsor — DowntownSanta Rosa — DowntownNapaMapping the Landscape of Bay Area TODOn the GroundUnder WayComing SoonBay Area TOD SitesOn the GroundUnder WayComing SoonMarinPetaluma — DowntownSan Mateo — DowntownSan MateoHerculesSolanoSan Rafael — DowntownRichmond Transit VillagePleasant Hill — Contra Costa Centre Transit VillageEl Cerrito del Norte BARTWalnut Creek BARTSan Pablo Avenue — Rapid Bus CorridorBerkeley — Downtown Contra CostaEmeryville Amtrak StationOakland — Rockridge BARTOakland — MacArthur BARTSan Francisco — Treasure IslandOakland — 19th St BARTSan Francisco — Transbay TerminalOakland — West Oakland BARTSan Francisco — Third Street Corridor SanOakland — Fruitvale Transit VillageSan Francisco — Balboa Park BARTOakland — Coliseum BARTFranciscoOakland — Jack London SquareSan Leandro — Downtown Dublin/Pleasanton BARTAlameda PointLivermore — DowntownColma BARTHayward — DowntownSouth San Francisco BARTSouth Hayward BARTRedwood City — DowntownVallejo — DowntownFairfield/VacavilleSuisun CityAntioch — DowntownPittsburg/Bay Point BARTConcord BARTUnion City BARTAlamedaBerkeley — DowntownBART, Bus, Future Rapid BusEmeryville Amtrak StationAmtrak, Bus, Emery Go RoundHayward — DowntownBART, Bus, AmtrakMountain View — DowntownCaltrain, Bus, Light RailMountain View — The CrossingsCaltrain, BusMountain View —Whisman StationLight RailOakland —Fruitvale Transit VillageBART, BusOakland — Rockridge BARTBART, BusSan Jose — Ohlone/ChynowethLight RailSan Mateo — DowntownCaltrain, BusCampbell — DowntownLight Rail, BusColma BARTBART, BusConcord BARTBART, BusEl Cerrito del Norte BARTBART, BusHerculesBus, Future Ferry,Future AmtrakMorgan Hill — Downtown(not mapped)Caltrain, BusOakland — 19th Street BARTBART, BusOakland — Coliseum BARTBART, Bus, Future OaklandAirport ConnectorOakland — Jack London SquareAmtrak, BART, Bus, FerryOakland — West Oakland BARTBART, BusPalo Alto — DowntownCaltrain, BusPetaluma — DowntownBus, Future Commuter RailPittsburg/Bay Point BARTBART, BusRedwood City — DowntownCaltrain, BusRichmond Transit VillageBART, Bus, AmtrakSan Francisco —Third Street CorridorLight Rail, Bus, CaltrainSan Pablo Avenue —Rapid Bus CorridorBus, BART, AmtrakSan Rafael — DowntownBus Transfer Center,Future Commuter RailSuisun CityAmtrak, BusWalnut Creek BARTBART, BusWindsor — DowntownBus, Future Commuter RailAlameda PointFuture Bus, FerryAntioch — DowntownBus, Amtrak, Future Ferry,Future Commuter RailDublin/Pleasanton BARTBART, BusFairfield/VacavilleFuture AmtrakLivermore — DowntownACE Commuter Rail, Bus,Future BART ConnectionMilpitas — MidtownBus, Future BARTOakland — MacArthur BARTBART, Bus, Future Rapid BusPleasant Hill — Contra CostaCentre Transit VillageBART, BusSan Francisco —Balboa Park BARTBART, BusSan Francisco —Transbay TerminalBus, Future Caltrain,Future High Speed RailSan Francisco —Treasure IslandBus, Future FerrySan Jose — DowntownCaltrain, ACE, Bus, Future BARTSan Leandro — DowntownBART, Bus, Future Rapid BusSanta ClaraCaltrain, ACE, Future BARTSanta Rosa — DowntownBus, Future Commuter RailSouth Hayward BARTBART, BusSouth San Francisco BARTBART, BusUnion City BARTBART, Bus,Future Commuter RailVallejo — DowntownFerry, BusNote: Though broad, this list cannotclaim to be comprehensive. The authorsalso recognize that some existingneighborhoods — in San Francisco,especially — provide excellent examplesof transit-oriented development.34Palo Alto — DowntownMountain View — The CrossingsMountain View — DowntownMountain View — Whisman StationMilpitas — MidtownSanta ClaraSan Jose — DowntownCampbell — DowntownSanta Clara35San Jose — Ohlone/Chynoweth

Smart Growth Preamble and Policies Adopted 2002Appendix AAssociation of Bay Area GovernmentsBay Area Air Quality Management DistrictBay Conservation and Development CommissionMetropolitan Transportation CommissionPreambleCurrent land-use patterns in the San Francisco BayArea are putting intense pressure on the economic,environmental and social well-being of the Bay Areaand of surrounding regions. The projected additionof over one million new residents and one millionnew jobs in the coming decades will further challengeour ability to sustain the high quality of life weenjoy today.To help meet this challenge, the five regional agenciesof the Bay Region — the Association of Bay AreaGovernments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Bay Conservation and Development Commission,Metropolitan Transportation Commission and theRegional Water Quality Control Board — along with theeconomy, environment and social equity caucuses ofthe Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities,developed a set of smart growth policies.The policies reflect the values articulated by workshopparticipants of the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project and addressBay Area conditions. The policies are consistent withwidely accepted notions of smart growth. They aremeant to encourage meaningful participation fromlocal governments, stakeholders and residents.The policies provide a framework for decisionmakingon development patterns, housing, transportation,environment, infrastructure, governmentalfiscal health and social equity that can lead us towarddevelopment of vibrant neighborhoods, preservationof open space, clean air and water, and enhancedmobility choices, while enhancing the Bay Area’s relationshipwith surrounding regions.PoliciesJobs/Housing Balance and MatchImprove the jobs/housing linkages through the developmentof housing in proximity to jobs, and both inproximity to public transportation. Increase the supplyof affordable housing and support efforts to matchjob income and housing affordability levels.Housing and DisplacementImprove existing housing and develop sufficient newhousing to provide for the housing needs of the BayArea community. Support efforts to improve housingaffordability and limit the displacement of existingresidents and businesses.Social Justice and EquityImprove conditions in disadvantaged neighborhoods,ensure environmental justice, and increase access tojobs, housing, and public services for all residents inthe region.Environmental, Natural Resource, Open Spaceand Agricultural PreservationProtect and enhance open space, agricultural lands,other valued lands, watersheds and ecosystemsthroughout the region. Promote development patternsthat protect and improve air quality. Protectand enhance the San Francisco Bay and Estuary.Mobility, Livability and Transit SupportEnhance community livability by promoting infill,transit-oriented and walkable communities, andcompact development as appropriate. Develop multifamilyhousing, mixed-use development, and alternativetransportation to improve opportunities for allmembers of the community.Local and Regional Transportation EfficienciesPromote opportunities for transit use and alternativemodes of transportation including improved rail, bus,high occupancy (HOV) systems and ferry services, aswell as enhanced walking and biking. Increase connectivitybetween and strengthen alternative modesof transportation, including improved rail, bus, rideshareand ferry services, as well as walking andbiking. Promote investments that adequately maintainthe existing transportation system and improvethe efficiency of transportation infrastructure.Infrastructure InvestmentsImprove and maintain existing infrastructure and supportfuture investments that promote smart growth,including water and land recycling, brownfield cleanupand re-use, multi-use and school facilities, smartbuilding codes, retention of historic character and resources,and educational improvements.Local Government Fiscal HealthImprove the fiscal health of local government by promotingstable and secure revenue sources, and by reducingservice provision costs through smart growth,targeted infrastructure improvement, and state andregional sponsored fiscal incentives. Support cooperativeefforts among local jurisdictions to addresshousing and commercial development, infrastructurecosts and provision of services.Cooperation on Smart Growth PoliciesEncourage local governments, stakeholders and otherconstituents in the Bay Area to cooperate in supportingactions consistent with the adopted SmartGrowth Policies. Forge cooperative relationships withgovernments and stakeholders in surrounding regionsto support actions that will lead to inter-regionalsmart growth benefits.3637

MTC Resolution 3434: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)Policy for Regional Transit Expansion Projects Adopted 200538Appendix B1. PurposeThe San Francisco Bay Area — widely recognized forits beauty and innovation — is projected to grow byalmost two million people and one and a half millionjobs by 2030. This presents a daunting challenge tothe sustainability and the quality of life in the region.Where and how we accommodate this future growth,in particular where people live and work, will helpdetermine how effectively the transportation systemcan handle this growth.The more people who live, work and study in closeproximity to public transit stations and corridors, themore likely they are to use the transit systems, andmore transit riders means fewer vehicles competingfor valuable road space. The policy also provides supportfor a growing market demand for more vibrant,walkable and transit-convenient lifestyles by stimulatingthe construction of at least 42,000 new housingunits along the region’s major new transit corridorsand will help to contribute to a forecasted 59 percentincrease in transit ridership by the year 2030.This TOD policy addresses multiple goals: improvingthe cost-effectiveness of regional investments innew transit expansions, easing the Bay Area’s chronichousing shortage, creating vibrant new communities,and helping preserve regional open space. The policyensures that transportation agencies, local jurisdictions,members of the public and the private sectorwork together to create development patterns thatare more supportive of transit.Table 1: Resolution 3434 Transit Extension Projects Subject to Corridor ThresholdsThreshold is met withProject Sponsor Type current development?BART East Contra Costa Rail Extension BART/CCTA Commuter Rail NoBART — Downtown Fremont toSan Jose/Santa Clara(a) Fremont to Warm Springs (a) BART BART extension No(b) Warm Springs to San Jose/Santa Clara (b) VTAAC Transit Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro Bus Rapid Transit: Phase 1 AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit YesCaltrain Downtown Extension/Rebuilt Transbay Terminal TJPA Commuter Rail YesMUNI Third Street Light Rail TransitProject Phase 2 — New Central Subway MUNI Light Rail YesSonoma-Marin Rail SMART Commuter Rail NoDumbarton RailThere are three key elements of the regional TODpolicy:(1) Corridor-level thresholds to quantify appropriateminimum levels of development around transit stationsalong new corridors;(2) Local station area plans that address future landusechanges, station access needs, circulation improvements,pedestrian-friendly design, and otherkey features in a transit-oriented development; andACCMA, ACTIA, SMTA, VTA,Capitol Corridor Commuter Rail NoExpanded Ferry Service Phase 1:Alameda/Oakland/Harbor Bay, Berkeley,and South San Francisco to San Francisco* WTA Ferry NoExpanded Ferry Service Phase 2:Alameda to South San Francisco, and Antioch,Hercules, Redwood City, Richmond andTreasure Island to San Francisco* WTA Ferry No* The WTA Ferry Expansion “Corridor” for the purposes of the TOD policy consists of all new terminals planned in Phase 1 and Phase 2.(3) Corridor working groups that bring togethercongestion management agencies (CMAs), city andcounty planning staff, transit agencies, and otherkey stakeholders to define expectations, timelines,roles and responsibilities for key stages ofthe transit project development process.2. TOD Policy ApplicationThe TOD policy only applies to physical transitextensions funded in Resolution 3434 (see Table 1).The policy applies to any physical transit extensionproject with regional discretionary funds, regardlessof level of funding. Resolution 3434 investments thatonly entail level of service improvements or otherenhancements without physically extending thesystem are not subject to the TOD policy requirements.Single station extensions to internationalairports are not subject to the TOD policy due to theinfeasibility of housing development.3. Definitions and Conditionsof FundingFor purposes of this policy “regional discretionaryfunding” consists of the following sources identifiedin the Resolution 3434 funding plan:• FTA Section 5309 — New Starts• FTA Section 5309 — Bus and Bus FacilitiesDiscretionary• FTA Section 5309 — Rail Modernization• Regional Measure 1 — Rail (bridge tolls)• Regional Measure 2 (bridge tolls)• Interregional Transportation Improvement Program• Interregional Transportation ImprovementProgram-Intercity rail• Federal Ferryboat Discretionary• AB 1171 (bridge tolls)• CARB-Carl Moyer/AB 434 (Bay Area Air QualityManagement District)** The Carl Moyer funds and AB 434 funds are controlled directly by theCalifornia Air Resources Board and Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict. Resolution 3434 identifies these funds for the Caltrain electrificationproject, which is not subject to the TOD policy.Table 2: Regional TOD Policy Implementation Process for Transit Extension ProjectsTransit Agency Action City Action MTC/CMA/ABAG ActionAll parties in corridors that do not currently meet thresholds (see Table 1) establish Corridor Working Groupto address corridor threshold. Conduct initial corridor performance evaluation, initiate station area planning.Environmental ReviewPreliminary Engineering/Right-of-WayFinal DesignThese regional funds may be programmed and allocatedfor environmental and design related work, inpreparation for addressing the requirements of theTOD policy. Regional funds may be programmed andallocated for right-of-way acquisition in advance ofmeeting all requirements in the policy, if land preservationfor TOD or project delivery purposes isessential. No regional funds will be programmed andallocated for construction until the requirements ofthis policy have been satisfied. See Table 2 for a moredetailed overview of the planning process.Conduct Station Area PlansStep 1 — Threshold Check: the combination of new Station Area Plansand existing development patterns exceeds corridor housing thresholds.Coordination of corridorworking group, fundingof station area plansStep 2 — Threshold Check the (a) local policies adopted for station areas;(b) implementation mechanisms in place per adopted Station Area Plan by the time Final Design is completed.ConstructionAdopt Station Area Plans.Revise general plan policies andzoning, environmental reviewsImplementation (financing, MOUs)Solicit developmentRegional and county agenciesassist local jurisdictions inimplementing station area plansTLC planning and capital funding,HIP funding4. Corridor-Level ThresholdsEach transit extension project funded in Resolution3434 must plan for a minimum number of housingunits along the corridor. These corridor-level thresholdsvary by mode of transit, with more capitalintensivemodes requiring higher numbers of housingunits (see Table 3). The corridor thresholds havebeen developed based on potential for increasedtransit ridership, exemplary existing station sites inthe Bay Area, local general plan data, predictedmarket demand for TOD-oriented housing in each39

40Table 3: Corridor Thresholds Housing Units — Average per Station AreaProject Type BART Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail FerryHousing Threshold 3,850 3,300 2,750 2,200 750Each corridor is evaluated for the Housing Threshold. For example, a four station commuter rail extension (including the existingend-of-the-line station) would be required to meet a corridor-level threshold of 8,800 housing units.Threshold figures above are an average per station area based on both existing land uses and planned development within a half-mileof all stations. New below market rate housing is provided a 50% bonus towards meeting housing unit threshold.county, and an independent analysis of feasible developmentpotential in each transit corridor.• Meeting the corridor-level thresholds requires thatwithin a half-mile of all stations, a combination ofexisting land uses and planned land uses meets orexceeds the overall corridor threshold for housing(see Table 3).• Physical transit extension projects that do not currentlymeet the corridor thresholds with developmentthat is already built will receive the highestpriority for the award of MTC’s Station AreaPlanning Grants.• To be counted toward the threshold, planned landuses must be adopted through general plans, andthe appropriate implementation processes mustbe put in place, such as zoning codes. General planlanguage alone without supportive implementationpolicies, such as zoning, is not sufficient forthe purposes of this policy. Ideally, planned landuses will be formally adopted through a specificplan (or equivalent), zoning codes and general planamendments along with an accompanying programmaticEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) aspart of the overall station area planning process.Minimum densities will be used in the calculationsto assess achievement of the thresholds.• An existing end station is included as part of thetransit corridor for the purposes of calculating thecorridor thresholds; optional stations will not beincluded in calculating the corridor thresholds.• New below-market housing units will receive a50 percent bonus toward meeting the corridorthreshold (i.e., one planned below-market housingunit counts for 1.5 housing units for the purposesof meeting the corridor threshold). Below marketfor the purposes of the Resolution 3434 TOD policyis affordable to 60 percent of area median incomefor rental units and 100 percent of area medianincome for owner-occupied units.• The local jurisdictions in each corridor will determinejob and housing placement, type, density anddesign.• The Corridor Working Groups are encouraged toplan for a level of housing that will significantlyexceed the housing unit thresholds stated hereduring the planning process. This will ensure thatthe Housing Unit Threshold is exceeded corridorwideand that the ridership potential from TOD ismaximized.5. Station Area PlansEach proposed physical transit extension projectseeking funding through Resolution 3434 mustdemonstrate that the thresholds for the corridor aremet through existing development and adoptedstation area plans that commit local jurisdictions toa level of housing that meets the threshold. This requirementmay be met by existing station area plansaccompanied by appropriate zoning and implementationmechanisms. If new station area plans areneeded to meet the corridor threshold, MTC willassist in funding the plans. The Station Area Plansshall be conducted by local governments in coordinationwith transit agencies, Association of Bay AreaGovernments (ABAG), MTC and the congestion managementagencies.Station Area Plans are opportunities to definevibrant mixed-use, accessible transit villages andquality transit-oriented development — places wherepeople will want to live, work, shop and spend time.These plans should incorporate mixed-use developments,including new housing, neighborhood-servingretail, employment, schools, day care centers, parksand other amenities to serve the local community.At a minimum, Station Area Plans will define boththe land-use plan for the area as well as the policies— zoning, design standards, parking policies, etc. —for implementation. The plans shall at a minimuminclude the following elements:• Current and proposed land use by type of use anddensity within the half-mile radius, with a clearidentification of the number of existing and plannedhousing units and jobs;• Station access and circulation plans for motorized,non-motorized and transit access. The station areaplan should clearly identify any barriers for pedestrian,bicycle and wheelchair access to the stationfrom surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., freeways,railroad tracks, arterials with inadequate pedestriancrossings), and should propose strategiesthat will remove these barriers and maximize thenumber of residents and employees that canaccess the station by these means. The stationarea and transit village public spaces shall be madeaccessible to persons with disabilities.• Estimates of transit riders walking from the halfmilestation area to the transit station to use transit;• Transit village design policies and standards,including mixed-use developments and pedestrianscaledblock size, to promote the livability andwalkability of the station area;• TOD-oriented parking demand and parking requirementsfor station area land uses, including considerationof pricing and provisions for shared parking;• Implementation plan for the station area plan,including local policies required for developmentper the plan, market demand for the proposeddevelopment, potential phasing of developmentand demand analysis for proposed development.The Station Area Plans shall be conducted usingexisting TOD design guidelines that have alreadybeen developed by ABAG, local jurisdictions, transitagencies, the CMAs and others. MTC will work withABAG to provide more specific guidance on theissues listed above that must be addressed in thestation area plans and references and information tosupport this effort. MTC is conducting an analysis ofparking policies that will be made available whencomplete, and shall be considered in developing localparking policies for TODs.6. Corridor Working GroupsThe goal of the Corridor Working Groups is to createa more coordinated approach to planning for transitorienteddevelopment along Resolution 3434 transitcorridors. Each of the transit extensions subject tothe corridor threshold process, as identified in Table 1,will need a Corridor Working Group, unless the currentlevel of development already meets the corridorthreshold. Many of the corridors already have atransit project working group that may be adjusted totake on this role. The Corridor Working Group shall becoordinated by the relevant CMAs, and will includethe sponsoring transit agency, the local jurisdictionsin the corridor, and representatives from ABAG, MTCand other parties as appropriate.The Corridor Working Group will assess whetherthe planned level of development satisfies the corridorthreshold as defined for the mode, and assist inaddressing any deficit in meeting the threshold byworking to identify opportunities and strategies atthe local level. This will include the key task of distributingthe required housing units to each of theaffected station sites within the defined corridor. TheCorridor Working Group will continue with corridorevaluation, station area planning, and any necessaryrefinements to station locations until the corridorthreshold is met and supporting Station Area Plansare adopted by the local jurisdictions.MTC will confirm that each corridor meets thehousing threshold prior to the release of regional discretionaryfunds for construction of the transitproject.7. Review of the TOD PolicyMTC staff will conduct a review of the TOD policy andits application to each of the affected Resolution 3434corridors, and present findings to the Commission,within 12 months of the adoption of the TOD policy.For More InformationJames Corlessjcorless@mtc.ca.gov510.817.5709Valerie Kneppervknepper@mtc.ca.gov510.817.582441

CreditsProject Staff (MTC, unless noted)Doug KimseyDirector, PlanningJames Corless, Valerie KnepperProject ManagersDavid Burch (BAAQMD)Ted Droettboom (Joint Policy Committee)Rachel GossenLindy Lowe (BCDC)Janet McBride (ABAG)Kevin Shively (MTC intern)Project StaffJoe CurleyEditorKarin Betts, Brenda Kahn, Valerie Knepper,Kevin Shively (MTC intern)Editorial StaffPeter Beeler, Garlynn WoodsongMapsPhotography/ArtCover:Noah BergerPages Steve Price/Urban Advantage2-11: (with special thanks for permission touse the computer-generated imageson these pages)Hayward — DowntownPage 14: Noah BergerPage 15:(Top row, left to right) Peter Beeler;Arlene Finger; Arlene Finger; Peter Beeler(Bottom row, left to right) Noah Berger; ArleneFinger; Noah Berger; Noah BergerOakland — Jack London SquarePage 16: Noah BergerPage 17: (Top row, left to right) Arlene Finger;MTC archives; Arlene Finger; Noah Berger(Bottom row) Arlene Finger (all)Pleasant Hill — Contra Costa Centre Transit VillagePage 18: Arlene FingerPage 19: (Top row) Arlene Finger (all)(Bottom row, left to right) Arlene Finger;Arlene Finger; California PATH; Arlene FingerRedwood City — DowntownPage 20: Peter BeelerPage 21: (Top row) Peter Beeler (all)(Bottom row) Peter Beeler (all)Richmond Transit VillagePage 22: Peter BeelerPage 23: (Top row, left to right) MTC archives;Arlene Finger; Arlene Finger(Bottom row) Arlene Finger (all)San Francisco — Third Street CorridorPage 24: David MorrisPage 25: (Top row) Peter Beeler (all)(Bottom row) Peter Beeler (all)San Jose — DowntownPage 26: Noah BergerPage 27: (Top row) Noah Berger (all)(Bottom row) Noah Berger (all)San Pablo Avenue — Rapid Bus CorridorPage 28: Peter BeelerPage 29: (Top row) Peter Beeler (all)(Bottom row) Peter Beeler (all)Santa Rosa — DowntownPage 30: Noah BergerPage 31: (Top row) Peter Beeler (all)(Bottom row, left to right) Peter Beeler;Peter Beeler; Noah Berger; Peter Beeler;Peter BeelerVallejo — Downtown/WaterfrontPage 32: Peter BeelerPage 33: (Top row) Peter Beeler (all)(Bottom row) Peter Beeler (all)ResourcesMore information on transit-oriented development,smart growth, and related topics and policies is availableon our agency Web sites.Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)For more on the “Focusing Our Vision” regionalsmart-growth initiative and other ABAG efforts, see:www.bayareavision.org and www.abag.ca.gov.Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)To learn about the air-quality programs of the BAAQMD,see: www.baaqmd.gov.Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)To learn more about BCDC’s work on developmentaffecting the Bay, see: www.bcdc.ca.gov.Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)For additional information on MTC’s Transit-OrientedDevelopment Policy and other smart-growth programsand smart-growth issues generally see:www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth.To order additional copies of this publication,contact the MTC-ABAG Library:510.817.5836 PHONElibrary@mtc.ca.gov E-MAILThe preparation of this report has been financed in part by agrant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), administeredby the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the officialviews or policies of either FTA or Caltrans.Graphic Design: Finger Design Associates, Oakland Printing: ColorGraphics, San Francisco42

Dumbarton TOD - Final Environmental Impact Report - City of Newark

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?