168
Transaction Ledger
As of December 31, 2021
City of Dublin Consolidated
Account #10221
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
CUSIP
Quantity
Security Description
Price
Acq/Disp
Yield
Amount
Interest
Pur/Sold
Total Amount
Gain/Loss
ACQUISITIONS
Purchase
12/15/2021
31846V203
94,036.29
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
94,036.29
0.00 94,036.29
0.00 Purchase
12/15/2021
31846V203
65,591.51
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
65,591.51
0.00 65,591.51
0.00 Purchase
12/16/2021
31846V203
331.50
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
331.50
0.00 331.50
0.00 Purchase
12/17/2021
31846V203
8,587.50
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
8,587.50
0.00 8,587.50
0.00 Purchase
12/18/2021
31846V203
13,978.13
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
13,978.13
0.00 13,978.13
0.00 Purchase
12/19/2021
31846V203
27,500.00
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
27,500.00
0.00 27,500.00
0.00 Purchase
12/20/2021
31846V203
345.33
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
345.33
0.00 345.33
0.00 Purchase
12/20/2021
31846V203
381.50
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
381.50
0.00 381.50
0.00 Purchase
12/21/2021
31846V203
504.90
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
504.90
0.00 504.90
0.00 Purchase
12/22/2021
91282CDG3
1,750,000.00
US Treasury Note
1.125%
Due
10/31/2026
99.520
1.23%
1,741,591.80
2,828.04
1,744,419.84
0.00 Purchase
12/23/2021
31846V203
1,010,864.58
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
1,010,864.58
0.00 1,010,864.58
0.00 Purchase
12/24/2021
31846V203
42,455.00
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
42,455.00
0.00 42,455.00
0.00 Purchase
12/26/2021
31846V203
23,460.00
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
23,460.00
0.00 23,460.00
0.00 Purchase
12/27/2021
31846V203
18,000.00
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
18,000.00
0.00 18,000.00
0.00 Purchase
12/27/2021
31846V203
195.25
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
195.25
0.00 195.25
0.00 Purchase
12/27/2021
31846V203
5,285.00
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
5,285.00
0.00 5,285.00
0.00 Execution Time: 1/24/2022 1:15:30 PM
Chandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL
169
Transaction Ledger
As of December 31, 2021
City of Dublin Consolidated
Account #10221
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
CUSIP
Quantity
Security Description
Price
Acq/Disp
Yield
Amount
Interest
Pur/Sold
Total Amount
Gain/Loss
ACQUISITIONS
Purchase
12/29/2021
31846V203
5.23 First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
5.23 0.00
5.23 0.00
Purchase
12/29/2021
91282CDG3
1,250,000.00
US Treasury Note
1.125%
Due
10/31/2026
99.406
1.25%
1,242,578.13
2,291.95
1,244,870.08
0.00 Purchase
12/31/2021
31846V203
28,125.00
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
28,125.00
0.00 28,125.00
0.00 Purchase
12/31/2021
90CAMP$00
3,400.69
California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP
1.000
0.05%
3,400.69
0.00 3,400.69
0.00 Subtotal
4,615,466.55
4,599,636.48
5,119.99
4,604,756.47
0.00 Security
Contribution
12/03/2021
90CAMP$00
2,500,000.00
California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP
1.000
2,500,000.00
0.00 2,500,000.00
0.00 Security
Contribution
12/23/2021
90CAMP$00
28,000,000.00
California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP
1.000
28,000,000.00
0.00 28,000,000.00
0.00 Subtotal
30,500,000.00
30,500,000.00
0.00 30,500,000.00
0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS
35,115,466.55
35,099,636.48
5,119.99
35,104,756.47
0.00 DISPOSITIONS
Sale
12/22/2021
31846V203
484,113.34
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
484,113.34
0.00 484,113.34
0.00 Sale
12/22/2021
912828XR6
1,250,000.00
US Treasury Note
1.75%
Due
5/31/2022
100.719
1.81%
1,258,984.38
1,322.12
1,260,306.50
9,279.64
Sale
12/29/2021
31846V203
1,244,870.08
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
0.01%
1,244,870.08
0.00 1,244,870.08
0.00 Subtotal
2,978,983.42
2,987,967.80
1,322.12
2,989,289.92
9,279.64
Call
12/23/2021
91159HHP8
1,000,000.00
US Bancorp Callable Note Cont
12/23/2021
2.625%
Due
1/24/2022
100.000
2.35%
1,000,000.00
10,864.58
1,010,864.58
0.00 Subtotal
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
10,864.58
1,010,864.58
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
44891VAC5
0.00 Hyundai Auto Lease Trust
2021
-B A
3 0.33%
Due
6/17/2024
100.000
0.00 390.50
390.50
0.00 Execution Time: 1/24/2022 1:15:30 PM
Chandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL
170
Transaction Ledger
As of December 31, 2021
City of Dublin Consolidated
Account #10221
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
CUSIP
Quantity
Security Description
Price
Acq/Disp
Yield
Amount
Interest
Pur/Sold
Total Amount
Gain/Loss
DISPOSITIONS
Paydown
12/15/2021
44933LAC7
0.00 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2021
-A
A
3 0.38%
Due
9/15/2025
100.000
0.00 229.58
229.58
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
44934KAC8
0.00 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2021
-B
A
3 0.38%
Due
1/15/2026
100.000
0.00 653.92
653.92
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
44935FAD6
0.00 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2021
-C
A
3 0.74%
Due
5/15/2026
100.000
0.00 313.68
313.68
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
47787NAC3
0.00 John Deere Owner Trust
2020
-B A
3 0.51%
Due
11/15/2024
100.000
0.00 218.88
218.88
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
47788UAC6
0.00 John Deere Owner Trust
2021
-A A
3 0.36%
Due
9/15/2025
100.000
0.00 240.00
240.00
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
47789QAC4
0.00 John Deere Owner Trust
2021
-B A
3 0.52%
Due
3/16/2026
100.000
0.00 418.17
418.17
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
58769KAD6
0.00 Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust
2021
-
B A
3 0.4%
Due
11/15/2024
100.000
0.00 378.33
378.33
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
65479GAD1
44,228.45
Nissan Auto Receivables Trust
2018
-B
A
3 3.06%
Due
3/15/2023
100.000
44,228.45
364.15
44,592.60
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
65479JAD5
92,233.35
Nissan Auto Receivables Owner
2019
-C
A
3 1.93%
Due
7/15/2024
100.000
92,233.35
1,802.94
94,036.29
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
89231PAD0
64,873.11
Toyota Auto Receivables Trust
2018
-D
A
3 3.18%
Due
3/15/2023
100.000
64,873.11
718.40
65,591.51
0.00 Paydown
12/15/2021
89237VAB5
0.00 Toyota Auto Receivables Trust
2020
-C
A
3 0.44%
Due
10/15/2024
100.000
0.00 375.83
375.83
0.00 Paydown
12/16/2021
362554AC1
0.00 GM Financial Securitized Term
2021-4
A
3 0.68%
Due
9/16/2026
100.000
0.00 331.50
331.50
0.00 Execution Time: 1/24/2022 1:15:30 PM
Chandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL
171
Transaction Ledger
As of December 31, 2021
City of Dublin Consolidated
Account #10221
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
CUSIP
Quantity
Security Description
Price
Acq/Disp
Yield
Amount
Interest
Pur/Sold
Total Amount
Gain/Loss
DISPOSITIONS
Paydown
12/20/2021
43813KAC6
0.00 Honda Auto Receivables Trust
2020-3
A
3 0.37%
Due
10/18/2024
100.000
0.00 345.33
345.33
0.00 Paydown
12/20/2021
89239CAC3
0.00 Toyota Lease Owner Trust
2021
-B A
3 0.42%
Due
10/21/2024
100.000
0.00 381.50
381.50
0.00 Paydown
12/21/2021
43815GAC3
0.00 Honda Auto Receivables Trust
2021-4
A
3 0.88%
Due
1/21/2026
100.000
0.00 504.90
504.90
0.00 Paydown
12/27/2021
09690AAC7
0.00 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust
2021-2
A
3 0.33%
Due
12/26/2024
100.000
0.00 195.25
195.25
0.00 Paydown
12/27/2021
3137BFE98
0.00 FHLMC K
041
A
2 3.171%
Due
10/25/2024
100.000
0.00 5,285.00
5,285.00
0.00 Subtotal
201,334.91
201,334.91
13,147.86
214,482.77
0.00 Security
Withdrawal
12/10/2021
90CAMP$00
2,100,000.00
California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP
1.000
2,100,000.00
0.00 2,100,000.00
0.00 Security
Withdrawal
12/23/2021
31846V203
104.17
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
1.000
104.17
0.00 104.17
0.00 Subtotal
2,100,104.17
2,100,104.17
0.00 2,100,104.17
0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS
6,280,422.50
6,289,406.88
25,334.56
6,314,741.44
9,279.64
OTHER TRANSACTIONS
Interest
12/01/2021
438516CB0
2,500,000.00
Honeywell Intl Callable Note Cont
5/1/2025
1.35%
Due
6/1/2025
0.000
16,875.00
0.00 16,875.00
0.00 Interest
12/08/2021
3130A0F70
5,000,000.00
FHLB Note
3.375%
Due
12/8/2023
0.000
84,375.00
0.00 84,375.00
0.00 Interest
12/08/2021
69353RFL7
2,210,000.00
PNC Bank Callable Note Cont
5/9/2023
3.5%
Due
6/8/2023
0.000
38,675.00
0.00 38,675.00
0.00 Interest
12/09/2021
313383QR5
1,500,000.00
FHLB Note
3.25%
Due
6/9/2023
0.000
24,375.00
0.00 24,375.00
0.00 Execution Time: 1/24/2022 1:15:30 PM
Chandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL
172
Transaction Ledger
As of December 31, 2021
City of Dublin Consolidated
Account #10221
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
CUSIP
Quantity
Security Description
Price
Acq/Disp
Yield
Amount
Interest
Pur/Sold
Total Amount
Gain/Loss
OTHER TRANSACTIONS
Interest
12/10/2021
78015K7H1
1,000,000.00
Royal Bank of Canada Note
1.15%
Due
6/10/2025
0.000
5,750.00
0.00 5,750.00
0.00 Interest
12/14/2021
3130A1XJ2
3,795,000.00
FHLB Note
2.875%
Due
6/14/2024
0.000
54,553.13
0.00 54,553.13
0.00 Interest
12/17/2021
3135G04Z3
3,435,000.00
FNMA Note
0.5%
Due
6/17/2025
0.000
8,587.50
0.00 8,587.50
0.00 Interest
12/18/2021
89236TJK2
2,485,000.00
Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note
1.125%
Due
6/18/2026
0.000
13,978.13
0.00 13,978.13
0.00 Interest
12/19/2021
3137EAEN5
2,000,000.00
FHLMC Note
2.75%
Due
6/19/2023
0.000
27,500.00
0.00 27,500.00
0.00 Interest
12/24/2021
166764AH3
1,000,000.00
Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont
3/24/2023
3.191%
Due
6/24/2023
0.000
15,955.00
0.00 15,955.00
0.00 Interest
12/24/2021
24422ETT6
2,000,000.00
John Deere Capital Corp Note
2.65%
Due
6/24/2024
0.000
26,500.00
0.00 26,500.00
0.00 Interest
12/26/2021
931142EK5
1,380,000.00
Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont
5/26/2023
3.4%
Due
6/26/2023
0.000
23,460.00
0.00 23,460.00
0.00 Interest
12/27/2021
02665WCZ2
1,500,000.00
American Honda Finance Note
2.4%
Due
6/27/2024
0.000
18,000.00
0.00 18,000.00
0.00 Interest
12/31/2021
912828XW5
3,000,000.00
US Treasury Note
1.75%
Due
6/30/2022
0.000
26,250.00
0.00 26,250.00
0.00 Interest
12/31/2021
91282CBC4
1,000,000.00
US Treasury Note
0.375%
Due
12/31/2025
0.000
1,875.00
0.00 1,875.00
0.00 Subtotal
33,805,000.00
386,708.76
0.00 386,708.76
0.00 Dividend
12/01/2021
31846V203
421,046.92
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
0.000
4.52 0.00
4.52 0.00
Dividend
12/29/2021
31846V203
259,019.96
First American Govt Obligation Fund
Class Y
0.000
5.23 0.00
5.23 0.00
Execution Time: 1/24/2022 1:15:30 PM
Chandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL
173
Transaction Ledger
As of December 31, 2021
City of Dublin Consolidated
Account #10221
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date
CUSIP
Quantity
Security Description
Price
Acq/Disp
Yield
Amount
Interest
Pur/Sold
Total Amount
Gain/Loss
OTHER TRANSACTIONS
Dividend
12/31/2021
90CAMP$00
99,034,641.11
California Asset Mgmt Program CAMP
0.000
3,400.69
0.00 3,400.69
0.00 Subtotal
99,714,707.99
3,410.44
0.00 3,410.44
0.00 TOTAL OTHER TRANSACTIONS
133,519,707.99
390,119.20
0.00 390,119.20
0.00 Execution Time: 1/24/2022 1:15:30 PM
Chandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL
174
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 4.4
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Payment Issuance Report and Electronic Funds Transfers Prepared by: Veronica Briggs, Senior Finance Technician EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a listing of payments issued from January 1, 2022 – January 31, 2022 totaling $13,690,767.41.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS ISSUED
January 1, 2022 – January 31, 2022
Total Number of Payments: 269
Total Amount of Payments: $13,690,767.41
DESCRIPTION:
The Payment Issuance Report (Attachment 1) provides a listing of all payments for the period beginning January 1, 2022 through January 31, 2022. This report is provided in accordance with the policy adopted November 15, 2011, in Resolution No. 189-11. The listing of payments has been reviewed in accordance with the policies for processing payments and expenditures.
The City’s practice of reporting payments to the City Council after the payments have been made is in compliance with California Government Code Sections 37208 (b) and (c), which allow for an agency to make payments without first being audited by the legislative body, as long as such payments are: 1) conforming to a budget approved by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body; and 2) presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval in the form of an 175
audited comprehensive annual financial report.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Payment Issuance Report for January 2022
176
Print Date: 02/01/20
22 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
01/04/2022 4LEAF INC. 61,210.00 BL DG INSP/PLAN CHECK SVCS NOV 2021 01/04/20
22 AMP PRINTING, INC. 166.03 BUSINESS CARDS
01/04/2022 APEX GRADING 17,580.00 MAINTENANCE SVCS-FALLON VILLAGE GHAD 18,800.00 MAINTENANCE SVCS-SCHAEFER RANCH GHAD
Check Total: 36,380.00
01/04/2022 AT&T - CALNET 3 784.05 SERVICE TO 12/14/2021 01/04/2022 BAY ALARM COMPANY 270.00 ALARM SERVICES CORP YARD 207.00 ALARM SERVICES SENIOR CENTER
Check Total: 477.00
01/04/2022 CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP, INC 4,798.75 SB 1383 IMPL EMENTATION ASSISTANCE 01/04/2022 CENTRO LEGAL 1,539.75 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT OCT 2021 01/04/2022 CINTAS CORP 93.48 FIRST AID KIT SUPPLIES
01/04/2
022 DR MANAGEMENT, LLC 56,000.00 IMPACT FEE RIGHTS TO REIMBURSEMENT 01/04/2022 ENGEO INC 362.00 FALLON CROSSING GHAD PROFESSIONAL SVCS
2,212.75 FALLON VILLAGE GHAD PROFESSIONAL SVCS
5,402.25 SCHAEFER RANCH GHAD PROFESSIONAL SVCS
Check Total: 7,977.00
01/04/2022 J+C ENTERPRISES 154.00 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES
01/04/2
022 LIVERMORE AUTO GROUP 1,620.19 POLICE VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIRS 01/04/2
022 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION 2,636.36 CIVIC SPARK PRGM TO SUPPORT CLIMATE ACTION PLN 01/04/2022 NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPT OF SAFETY 600.00 DRUG AWARENESS TRAINING REG-COWENS 01/04/20
22 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 967.50 ENGINEERING SERVICES - JUL 202 1 01/04/2022 PG&E 9,152.74 SERVICE TO 11/14/2 021
50,686.48 SERVICE TO 12/06/2021
2,883.11 SERVICE TO 12/07/2021
Check Total: 62,722.33
01/04/2022 PHOENIX GROUP INFO SYS. 247.59 PARKING CITATION PROCESSING - NOV 2021 01/04/2
022 PRIME TIME ENTERTAINMENT 1,250.00 TREE LIGHTING EVENT AUDIO SYSTEM RENTAL 01/04/2
022 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC. 1,073.36 NEOPOST MAIL MACHINE LEASE NOV 2021-JAN 2022 01/04/2022 SELECT IMAGING 441.57 ELECTRICAL METER TAGS 674.01 SENIOR CENTER BALLROOM SIGN
Check Total: 1,115.58
01/04/2022 SPECTRUM COMMUNITY SVCS INC. 1,677.08 HUMAN SERV ICES GRANT NOV 2021 01/04/2022 SURF TO SNOW ENVIRONMENTAL 411. 00 SPILL RESPONSE ASSISTANCE & MRP INSPECTION 01/04/20
22 THE ECOHERO SHOW, LLC. 5,000.00 DUBLIN SCHOOLS RECYCLING EDUCATION 01/04/2022 TIREHUB, LLC. 4,695.45 POLICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 01/04/20
22 TREASURER ALAMEDA COUNTY 3, 017.26 RETURN OF ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS 01/04/2
022 TREASURER ALAMEDA COUNTY 1,145.00 PARKING CITATIONS COLLECTED - NOV 202 1 Vendor Total: 4,162.26
01/04/2022 TYLER BUSINESS FO RMS 65.73 TAX FORMS
01/04/2022 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, IN C. 5,015.85 TYLER MUNIS ERP SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION 01/04/2022 WILLDAN HOMELAND SO LUTIONS 190,185.2 5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY/INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROV Payments Issued 1/4/2022 Total: 453,025.59
01/07/2022 CAL PERS 75,857.33 PER S RETIREMENT PLAN: PE 12/31/2 1 01/07/2022 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 26,076.08 CA STATE WITHHOLDING: PE 12/31/21 01/07/2022 I C M A 401 PLAN 1,129. 78 DEFE RRED COMP 401A: PE 12/31/21 01/07/2022 I C M A 457 PLAN 29,433. 18 DEFE RRED COMP 457: PE 12/31/21 01/07/2022 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 83, 071.10 FE DERAL WITHHOLDING: PE 12/31/21 Attachment 1
177
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
01/07/2022 US BANK - PARS 738.94 PARS: PE 12/31/21
Payments Issued 1/7/2022 Total: 216,306.41
01/10/2022 ADVANCED INTEGRATED PEST 5, 060.00 PEST CONTROL SERVICES DEC 2021 01/10/2022 AMP PRINTING, INC. 219.40 PRIN TING SERVICES FOR HOLIDAY HOME DECOR 01/10/2022 AT&T 2,204.92 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX DATA SERVICES
51.07 SERVICES FOR TO LL FREE NUMBER TO 12/11/21
Check Total: 2,255.99
01/10/2022 AT&T - CALNET 3 313.07 SERVICE TO 12/26/2021
135.77 SERVICE TO 12/27/2021
Check Total: 448.84
01/10/2022 BAY ALARM COMPANY 541.86 ALARM SERVICES SHANNON CENTER
264.00 ALARM SERVICES CIVIC CENTER
330.00 ALARM SERVICES CORP YARD
138.00 ALARM SERVICES FIRE STATION #16
352.75 ALARM SERVICES FIRE STATION #17
108.00 ALARM SERVICES HERITAGE CENTER
1,802.13 ALARM SERVICES HERITAGE PARK
484.30 ALARM SERVICES SENIOR CENTER
842.41 ALARM SERVICES SHANNON CENTER
1,972.00 ALARM SERVICES THE WAVE
Check Total: 6,835.45
01/10/2022 BFS LANDSCAPE ARCHITE CTURE 15,642.50 FALLON SPORTS PARK DESIGN SVCS - PHASE 3 01/10/2022 BKF ENGINEERS 38,494.50 A NNUAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
251.00 SAN RAMON RD TRAIL LIGHTING DESIGN
9,993.75 TASSAJARA RD GAP CLOSURE PROJECT
Check Total: 48,739.25
01/10/2022 BLUETOAD, INC. 570.00 SPRIN G 2022 ACTIVITY GUIDE DIGITAL EDITION 01/10/2022 BSK ASSOCIATES INC. 4,930.50 PRE-CONSTRUCTION SOIL SAMPLING
1,018.25 TESTING/INSP DON BIDDLE COMMUNITY PARK
419.25 TESTING/INSP FALLON SPORTS PARK PH3
2,511.50 TESTING/INSP HERITAGE PARK CEMETARY IMPROV
Check Total: 8,879.50
01/10/2022 CAL PERS HEALTH PREMIUM 141,804.07 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM - JAN 2022 01/10/2022 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES INC. 37,203.51 WALLIS RANCH PARK DESIGN SERVICES 01/10/2022 COMCAST 118.63 CIVIC CENTER CABLE SERVICE JAN 2022 01/10/2022 DEDECKER SCULPTURES INC. 650. 00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR HCAC PRESENTATION 01/10/2022 DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC 999.90 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT WRITE-UP 01/10/2022 DUTCHOVER & ASSOCIAT ES 880.00 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK & INSPECTIONS 01/10/2022 EAST BAY CHAPTER ICC 180.00 I CC EAST BAY CHAPTER MEMBERSHIP-SHREEVE 01/10/2022 EVERYTHING GROWS INTERIOR 204.51 PLANT SERVICE JAN 2021 01/10/2022 HARRELL HARRIS PHOTOGRAPHY 300.00 BASKETBALL LEAGUE PHOTOGRAPHY 01/10/2022 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 1,080.00 DESIGN/CONSTR SUPPORT-2021 SLURRY SEAL PROJ 01/10/2022 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOC. INC. 11,777.46 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CONSULTING SERVICES
2,851.50 PREPARE CEQA DOCS FOR EAST RANCH PROJECT
Check Total: 14,628.96
01/10/2022 LANLOGIC INC. 31,773.05 SONICWALL FOR VARIOUS FACILITIES 01/10/2022 MCE CORPORATION 9,497.42 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DSRSD DEC 2021 01/10/2022 MNS ENGINEERS, INC. 77.50 CONSTR MGMT/INSP-SLIDE TOWER ANCHOR INSTALL
178
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
4,340.00 DON BIDDLE CO MMUNITY PARK INSPECTIONS
4,840.48 FALLON SPORTS PARK PH3 PW INSPECTIONS
2,015.00 INSPECTIONS/CONSTR MGMT SR RD TRAIL LIGHTING
8,082.00 IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BLVD
Check Total: 19,354.98
01/10/2022 PAKPOUR CONSULTING GROU P, INC. 8,550.00 CONSTRUCTION MGMT-DON BIDDLE COMM PARK
16,371.50 CONSTRUCTION MG MT-FALLON SPORTS PARK PH3
Check Total: 24,921.50
01/10/2022 PG&E 836.06 SERVICE TO 11/30/2021
247.38 SERVICE TO 12/02/2021
5,427.59 SERVICE TO 12/07/2021
258.06 SERVICE TO 12/08/2021
82.81 SERVICE TO 12/09/2021
4,026.91 SERVICE TO 12/12/2021
428.68 SERVICE TO 12/13/2021
9,665.21 SERVICE TO 12/14/2021
65.56 SERVICE TO 12/15/2021
Check Total: 21,038.26
01/10/2022 PGADESIGN INC. 11,029.18 HERITAGE PARK IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN SVCS 01/10/2022 PLEASANTON EVENT RENTALS INC 123.48 VETERANS DAY LUNCH SUPPLIES 01/10/2022 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 86.12 MAT SERVICE - SENIOR CENTER 01/10/2022 RAYNE OF SAN JOSE 194.00 WA TER SOFTENER SERVICE-FIRE STATION 17 01/10/2022 ROBERT HALF INC 792.00 PW TEMPORARY OFFICE STAFF-DYER 01/10/2022 RRM DESIGN GROUP, A CA CORP 5, 867.75 CONSULTING SVCS-MULTI-FAM DEV & ADU'S 01/10/2022 SAN FRANCISCO ELEVATOR SVC INC 394. 70 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION DEC 2021 01/10/2022 SELECT IMAGING 71.28 EMPLOYEE NAME BADGES
297.99 NAME PLATES, CAR MAGNETS FOR CC MEMBERS
Check Total: 369.27
01/10/2022 SESAC, INC. 1,025.00 ANNUAL MUSIC LICENSE 2022 01/10/2022 SNG & ASSOCIATES INC. 5,585.00 ON-CALL PLAN REVIEW SERVICES-CIP/PARKS 01/10/2022 SUAREZ & MUNOZ CONS TRUCTION 424,737.58 FALLON SPORT S PARK-PH 3 CONSTRUCTION 01/10/2022 T-MOBILE USA, INC. 6, 066.77 EQUIPMENT-IPADS & IPHONES 01/10/2022 TPX COMMUNICATIONS 2,805.53 INTERNET & PHONE SERVICES T0 12/09/21 01/10/2022 TREASURER ALAMEDA COUNTY 4,253, 730.11 POLICE SERVICES 8/22/21 - 10/30/21 01/10/2022 TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY TV 1,257.99 RECORD/TELEVISE CITY COUNCIL/PLNG COMM MTGS 01/10/2022 TRI-VALLEY JANITORIAL INC. 22,002.75 JANITORIAL SERVICES DEC 2021
30,228.39 JANITORIAL SERVICES-CAMP PARKS DEC 2021
Check Total: 52,231.14
01/10/2022 URBAN PLANNERS PARTNERS, INC. 5,316.50 PLA NNING SVCS-REGIONAL ST. AFFORDABLE HSNG 01/10/2022 W. BRADLEY ELECTRIC 15,671.20 LIGHT POLE INSTALL/FOUNDATION-SR RD TRAIL Payments Issued 1/10/2022 Total: 5,180,569.04
01/11/2022 HEALTHEQUITY, INC. 90, 287.37 HEALTHEQUITY: PE 12/31/21 Payments Issued 1/11/2022 Total: 90,287.37
01/12/2022 CALPERS 89,999.28 2022 REPL ACEMENT CHARGES FOR CITY OF DUBLIN Payments Issued 1/12/2022 Total: 89,999.28
179
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
01/14/2022 DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA 12, 632.02 DELTA DENTAL PREMIUM - JAN 2022 01/14/2022 UNUM LIFE INS CO OF AMERICA 9, 956.54 LIFE AND AD&D PREMIUM - JAN 2022 01/14/2022 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) 1, 867.65 VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM - JAN 2022 Payments Issued 1/14/2022 Total: 24,456.21
01/18/2022 ACCOPSA -ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEFS 950.00 POLICE POST EXECUTIVE SEMINAR 2022-HOLMES 01/18/2022 ADVANCED MOBILITY GROUP 600.00 TASSAJARA RD ARTERIAL MGMT PROJECT
14,030.00 TASSAJARA RD ARTERIAL MGMT PROJECT
10,930.00 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS SUPPORT
Check Total: 25,560.00
01/18/2022 ALAMEDA CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE 93.06 CRIME PREVENTION PRINTING
150.51 POLICE LETTERHEAD STOCK
25.68 POLICE PHOTO PRINTING
Check Total: 269.25
01/18/2022 ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMEN T 1,239,753.25 FIRE SERVICES JAN 2022 01/18/2022 ALEX, ROSEMARY 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SVCS INC 15, 156.00 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES 10/31/21-11/13/21
6,971.76 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES 11/14/21-11/27/21
16,766.33 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES 11/28/21-12/11/21
Check Total: 38,894.09
01/18/2022 AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES LLC 25,693.83 CAMPS PARKS SOLID WASTE SERVICES DEC 2021 01/18/2022 AMP PRINTING, INC. 79.38 BUSINESS CARDS-THE WAVE 01/18/2022 AT&T - CALNET 3 129.06 SERVICE TO 01/01/2022
49.55 SERVICE TO 01/06/2022
Check Total: 178.61
01/18/2022 BAKSA, JAY 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 451.92 LEGAL NOTICES DEC 2021 01/18/2022 BHATIA, PRATYUSH 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 BIG O'TIRES #7 128.46 POLICE VEHICLE MAINT & TIRE INSTALLATION
305.88 POLICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
Check Total: 434.34
01/18/2022 BLAISDELL'S BUSI NESS PRODUCTS 2,725.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES-DEC 2021
1,820.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-OCT 21
Check Total: 4,545.43
01/18/2022 BLANCO, ROEL 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 BRIGGS, VERONICA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 BRINKS, INC. 31.71 ARMORED CAR SERVICE-DEC 2021
230.75 ARMORED CAR SERVICE-JAN 2022
Check Total: 262.46
01/18/2022 CAIRES, SANDRA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 CASS, MICHAEL 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 CENTENO, CAMILLE 6.27 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT DEC 2021 01/18/2022 CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT 13, 061.03 INVESTMENT CONSULTING SERVICES 01/18/2022 CHARGE POINT, INC. 10,437.00 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR EV CHARGING STATIONS 01/18/2022 CHILKOTOWSKY, SH AUN 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 CHING, ERWIN 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 CLEVENGER, MARISSA 85.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING 1,175. 00 STANDARDS FOR MICRO TRENCHING SERVICES 01/18/2022 DETERMAN, EMILY 89.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL BAND 3, 951.00 2021 BREAKFAST WITH SANTA EVENT 180
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
01/18/2022 DUTCHOVER & ASSOCIAT ES 1,571.25 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK & INSPECTIONS 01/18/2022 DWYER, ANDREA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 ECS IMAGING INC. 8,100.00 PROFESSIONAL SVCS & LASERFICHE LICENSES 01/18/2022 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 270.00 2020 EMPLOYMENT & WAGE DATA 01/18/2022 EUROPEAN MOBILE WERKS 6,092.01 POLICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 01/18/2022 FABRIGAS, CIERRA L. 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 FOSS, JORDAN 150.00 WELLN ESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 FRANKLIN, RHONDA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 GOLDEN STATE FLEET SVCS INC 375.00 POLICE VEHICLE TOW 01/18/2022 HANNA, MEAGAN C. 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 HATZIKOKOLAKIS, JA CQUI 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 HISATOMI, LISA 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 IRON MOUNTAIN 341.39 PO LICE RECORDS STORAGE - JAN 2022 01/18/2022 JACKMAN, SHARLENE 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 JAMMAL, LAURA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 JOHE, JILL 75.00 WELLN ESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 8,306.00 CITYWIDE BIKE/PED MASTER PLAN UPDATE
7,620.00 DOWNTOWN PREF ERRED VISION MODELING
1,583.00 ENGINEERING SVCS-LOCAL RD SAFETY PLAN
3,470.00 SB 743 VMT IMPLEMENTATION & MODEL
Check Total: 20,979.00
01/18/2022 KLOSS, DAVID A. 2,000.00 EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT-KLOSS
150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021
Check Total: 2,150.00
01/18/2022 LI MARZI, JENNIFER 126.08 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 LI, CARY 79.99 WELLN ESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 LIVERMORE AUTO GROUP 3,506.74 POLICE VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIRS 01/18/2022 LSA ASSOCIATES INC. 633.16 CEQA DOC PREP-BRANAUGH PROP STAGE 2 DEV
455.15 CEQA DOC PREP-RIGHETTI PROPERTY STAGE 2
Check Total: 1,088.31
01/18/2022 MARRIOTT, LAUREN 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 MCE CORPORATION 571,870. 94 MAINTENANCE SERVICES NOV 2021 01/18/2022 MCGUIRE, SHARON 125.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 MENDEZ, JENNIFER 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 M-GROUP 6,270.00 PLANNING SVCS-BLVD PH1-5 & TASSAJARA HILLS 01/18/2022 MIDIDIDDI, SAI 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 MOORE, MARSHA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 MORAN, RYAN 75.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 NOVANI, LLC. 3,000.00 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES 01/18/2022 PATEL, MAYANK 75.00 WELLN ESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 PG&E 7,985.38 SERVICE TO 12/07/2021
1,628.86 SERVICE TO 12/12/2021
26,484.29 SERVICE TO 12/15/2021
590.75 SERVICE TO 12/23/2021
119.04 SERVICE TO 12/24/2021
154.65 SERVICE TO 12/27/2021
2,901.15 SERVICE TO 12/28/2021
470.90 SERVICE TO 12/29/2021
145.91 SERVICE TO 12/31/2021
181
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
Check Total: 40,480.93
01/18/2022 PRO CYCLES 920.66 POLICE MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE - 19M73 01/18/2022 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 86.12 MAT SERVICE - SENIOR CENTER 01/18/2022 QUADIENT, INC. 99.06 POLICE POSTAGE METER LEASE 01/18/2022 RAYNE OF SAN JOSE 172.90 WA TER SOFTENER SERVICE-FIRE STATION 16
145.35 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE-FIRE STATION 18
Check Total: 318.25
01/18/2022 REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY LAB. INC. 632.00 FORE NSIC DRUG AND ALCOHOL EXAMS 01/18/2022 SABOO INC. 131,420. 62 CONSTRUCTION-HERITAGE PARK CEMETARY IMPROV 01/18/2022 SANTA RITA TOW 345.00 POLICE VEHICLE TOW
01/18/2022 SHREEVE, GREGORY 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 SIMPLER SYSTEMS, INC 1,500.00 SIMPLER SO FTWARE LICENSING SUPPORT 01/18/2022 SOLIS, LISA 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 SUCGANG, LAURIE 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 TAYLOR, YVONNE L. 100.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 TJENG, YULIANA 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 TRI-VALLEY JANITORIAL INC. 4,030.63 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES NOV 2021 01/18/2022 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 665.57 BLDG INSP TRAILER SEPTIC TANK SERVICES 01/18/2022 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVIC ES & 566.00 CARPET CLEANING SER VICES-CIVIC CENTER DEC 2021
1,298.00 CARPET CLEANING SER VICES-SHANNAN CTR DEC 2021
828.00 CARPET CLEANING SERVICES-THE WAVE DEC 2021
700.00 WINDOW CLEANING SVCS LIBRARY DEC 2021
Check Total: 3,392.00
01/18/2022 VALES, NORMAN 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 VISION COMMUNICATIONS CO 425.00 SPLATTER FESTIVAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL 01/18/2022 WAHBEH, WILLIAM 145.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 WANZENRIED, NICO LE 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 WEBER, DANIEL 150.00 WE LLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 WELLS, CATHY 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 WETHERFORD, HAZEL 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 WHEELER, KRISTIE 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 XU, KAN 99.66 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 YIP, KA WUN 118.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 01/18/2022 YOUNG, SHANNAN 150.00 WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT JUL-DEC 2021 Payments Issued 1/18/2022 Total: 2,181,776.07
01/21/2022 CAL PERS 80,988.92 PERS RETIREMENT PLAN: PE 1/14/22 01/21/2022 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 18,548.75 CA STATE WITHHOLDING: PE 1/14/22 01/21/2022 HEALTHEQUITY, INC. 3, 287.37 HEALTHEQUITY: PE 1/14/22 01/21/2022 I C M A 401 PLAN 979.78 DEFERRED COMP 401A: PE 1/14/22 01/21/2022 I C M A 457 PLAN 30,816.23 DEFERRED COMP 457: PE 1/14/22 01/21/2022 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 60, 088.50 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING: PE 1/14/22 01/21/2022 US BANK - PARS 1,745.05 PARS: PE 1/14/22
Payments Issued 1/21/2022 Total: 196,454.60
01/24/2022 AMP PRINTING, INC. 331. 36 BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE SERVICES 01/24/2022 ANGEL HOUZE CLAY ART 70.00 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/24/2022 ARORA, AKSHAY 16, 904.40 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/24/2022 AT&T - CALNET 3 1,207.56 SERVICE TO 01/12/2022 01/24/2022 CA DEPT. OF TAX & FEE ADMIN 2, 722.00 SALES & USE TAX RETURN CAL YR 2021 182
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
01/24/2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS 7,132.50 GREEN BUILDING FEES OCT-DEC 2021 01/24/2022 CARBONIC SERVICE 369.20 POOL CHEMICALS FOR THE WAVE 01/24/2022 CMC NEPTUNE 1, 200.00 WAVE PUBLIC MUSIC & ANNOUNCEMENT SYSTEM 01/24/2022 COMMUNICATION ACADEM Y 90.30 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/24/2022 CONTRACT SWEEPING SE RVICES 26,539.59 STREET SW EEPING SERVICES DEC 2021 01/24/2022 DEAM, VALERIE 1,861.29 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/24/2022 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 288.00 EMPLOYEE FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 01/24/2022 DEPT OF CONSERVAT ION 46,682.30 SEISMIC HAZA RD MAPPING FEE OCT-DEC 2021 01/24/2022 DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 998.75 THE WAVE SLIDE INSPECTION 01/24/2022 DISABILITY ACCESS DAC 2,650.00 ADA TRANSITION PLAN CONSULTING SVCS 01/24/2022 DUBLIN CHEVROLET 1,880.62 POLICE VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIRS 01/24/2022 ECUBE LABS CO. 24,994.30 SOLAR POWERED WASTE COMPACTORS 01/24/2022 FOLSOM CHEVROLET 149,281.58 R EPLACE POLICE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 01/24/2022 FRANCISCO & ASSOCIATES, INC. 13,972.50 ACQUISITION AUDIT CFD SERVICES 01/24/2022 GIRISH, VIDYA 156.00 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR
01/24/2022 GRAFIX SHOPPE 1,905.77 POLICE VEHICLE GRAPHICS 01/24/2022 HEALTHEQUITY, INC. 590.75 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT FEES DEC 2021
5.25 TRANSIT SERVICE FEE JAN 2022
50.00 WAGEWORKS MONTHLY COMPLIANCE FEE JAN 2022
Check Total: 646.00
01/24/2022 IMAGE SALES, INC. 166.74 BADGE PRINTER RIBBONS 01/24/2022 JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURITY 580.00 FIRE ALARM INSTALLATION 01/24/2022 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 8,638.75 CITYWIDE BIKE/PED MASTER PLAN UPDATE
7,909.00 ENGINEERING SVCS-LOCAL RD SAFETY PLAN
Check Total: 16,547.75
01/24/2022 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 2,520.00 EM PLOYMENT RELATIONS CONSORTIUM MEMBERSHIP 01/24/2022 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION 2,636.36 CIVIC SPARK PRGM TO SUPPORT CLIMATE ACTION PLN 01/24/2022 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L, INC. 4,855.00 CONSULTING SVCS-AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING 01/24/2022 MILLER STARR REGALI A A 6,655.00 LEGAL CONSULTING FEES-SOFI APARTMENTS 01/24/2022 MONKEY BEAR YOGA, INC. 210.00 PRESCHOOL IN-HOUSE FIELD TRIP 01/24/2022 NOVANI, LLC. 6,735.00 TRAFFIC HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE 01/24/2022 PARS 967.50 TRUSTEE A ND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FY 20-21 01/24/2022 PG&E 2,865.14 SERVICE TO 01/04/2022
1,516.06 SERVICE TO 01/05/2022
9,890.67 SERVICE TO 12/14/2021
2,068.87 SERVICE TO 12/29/2021
1,555.89 SERVICE TO 12/30/2021
Check Total: 17,896.63
01/24/2022 POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE 2,100.00 JUNIOR WARRIORS COACHING WORKSHOP 01/24/2022 PRO CYCLES 826.82 PO LICE MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE 01/24/2022 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC. 250.00 POSTAGE FOR POLICE DEPT - DEC 2021 01/24/2022 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2,138.52 HR ADVERTISING SERVICES
1,775.00 HR RECRUITMENT SERVICES
Check Total: 3,913.52
01/24/2022 SHIR MARTIAL ARTS 249.90 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/24/2022 SHUMS CODA ASSOCIATES INC 625.00 PLAN CHECK SERVICES AUG 2021
125.00 PLAN CHECK SERVICES DEC 2021
Check Total: 750.00
01/24/2022 SQUAD ESTATES 396. 00 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR
01/24/2022 STANFORD HEALTH -VALLEYCAR E 216.76 EMPLOYEE MEDICAL SERVICES 183
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
01/24/2022 TERRYBERRY 1,119.05 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD 01/24/2022 TIREHUB, LLC. 165.29 POLICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - D36 01/24/2022 TRB AND ASSOCIAT ES, INC. 74,450.00 BL DG INSP/PLAN CHECK & CODE ENFORCEMENT SVCS 01/24/2022 TRI-VALLEY JANITORIAL INC. 6,777.25 EXTRA JANITORIAL SERVICES NOV 2021 01/24/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS 1,748.46 PO LICE SITCAM SIM CARDS TO 01/03/22
638.92 POLICE VEHICLE MODEM & CITY CELL PHONES
Check Total: 2,387.38
01/24/2022 WC3-WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANT 12,651.25 BLDG INSP/PLAN CHECK SVCS DEC 2021 01/24/2022 WESCO GRAPHICS INC 2,144.53 CITY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY POSTCARDS Payments Issued 1/24/2022 Total: 470,051.75
01/27/2022 U S BANK ST. PAUL 2,431,899.91 SPECIAL TAX REVENUE COLLECTED CFD 2015-1 01/27/2022 U S BANK ST. PAUL 294,336.15 SPECIA L TAX REVENUE COLLECTED CFD 2015-1 Vendor Total: 2,726,236.06
Payments Issued 1/27/2022 Total: 2,726,236.06
01/31/2022 ALPHA OMEGA WIRELESS, INC 2,530.00 ANNUAL WIRELESS SUPPORT TO CORP YARD 01/31/2022 APWA-AMERICAN PUBLIC WORK ASSN 2,978. 50 PUBLIC WORKS ASSN AGENGY MEMBERSHIP DUES 01/31/2022 ARORA, AKSHAY 17, 612.40 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/31/2022 AT&T 2,090.50 CI VIC CENTER FIBER SERVICES
425.31 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX DATA SERVICES
44.52 SERVICES FOR TOLL-FREE NUMBER TO 01/11/22
Check Total: 2,560.33
01/31/2022 AT&T - CALNET 3 623.97 SERVICE TO 01/14/2022 01/31/2022 AXIS COMMUNITY HEALTH 2,283. 75 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT OCT-DEC 2021 01/31/2022 CAL-ALHFA 300.00 CAL-ALHFA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 01/31/2022 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 4,737.62 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 01/31/2022 CENTRO LEGAL 2,286.17 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT DEC 2021
1,880.47 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT NOV 2021
Check Total: 4,166.64
01/31/2022 CIVICPLUS, LL C 48,366.81 SEECLICKFIX SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION 01/31/2022 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC 4,438. 00 CIVIC CENTER INTERNET SERVICE DEC 2021 01/31/2022 COMCAST 2,300. 00 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION INTERNET 01/31/2022 COMCAST 1,863.08 INTERNET / CABLE SVC VARIOUS CITY DEPTS 01/31/2022 CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING 5,204.00 CONCEPT PLANS- CIVIC CENTER BACK PARKING 01/31/2022 DIV OF THE STATE ARCHITE CT 406.40 DIVISION OF STAT E ARCHITECT CASP OCT-DEC 2021 01/31/2022 DSRSD 1,152.46 SERVICE TO 12/31/2021
01/31/2022 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 165.00 2019 EMPLOYMENT & WAGE DATA
538.00 2020 EMPLOYMENT & WAGE DATA
Check Total: 703.00
01/31/2022 ENGEO INC 6,790.85 FALLON VILLAGE GHAD PROFESSIONAL SVCS
3,881.10 SCHAEFER RANCH GHAD PROFESSIONAL SVCS
Check Total: 10,671.95
01/31/2022 EVERBRIDGE, INC. 5,000.00 EMERGENCY ALERT SOFTWARE 01/31/2022 HARRELL HARRIS PHOTOGRAPHY 750.00 TREE LIGHTING PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES 01/31/2022 HUBER, JENNIFER B. 1,000.00 UTILITY BOX PAINTING 01/31/2022 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSO C. INC. 3,627.50 TRAFFIC & ENGINEERING SERVICE 01/31/2022 LANLOGIC INC. 4,992.50 IN FORMATION SYSTEMS CONSULTING SVCS
1,050.00 MALWARE PROTECTION SERVICES
425.00 NETWORK MONITORING SERVICES
184
Print Date: 02/01/2022 City of Dublin
Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
Date Issued Payee Amount Description
Check Total: 6,467.50
01/31/2022 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 20, 859.00 LEAGE OF CA CITIES MEMBERSHIP 2022 01/31/2022 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 4,500.00 GIS CONSULTING SERVICES FY21-22 01/31/2022 OPEN HEART KITCHEN 8,500.00 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT OCT-DEC 2021 01/31/2022 PETIT, CHRISTINE 67.20 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR 01/31/2022 PG&E 43,120.15 SERVICE TO 01/04/2022
7,777.69 SERVICE TO 01/05/2022
Check Total: 50,897.84
01/31/2022 QUINCY ENGINEERING 7,905.00 BR IDGE & STRUCTURE ASSET INSPECTION PH1 01/31/2022 SHAMROCK OFFICE SOLUTION S, LLC 2,107.23 COPIER CHARGES 01/31/2022 SKATESATIONAL 540. 00 REC CLASS INSTRUCTOR
01/31/2022 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL 26,498.00 STATE WATER RESOURCES ANNUAL PERMIT FEE 01/31/2022 TREASURER ALAMEDA COUNTY 9,500.60 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES FY21-22
46,326.59 EAST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER SVCS FY21-22
Check Total: 55,827.19
01/31/2022 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 3,994.70 POSTAGE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY POSTCARDS 01/31/2022 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 4,510.24 POSTAGE FOR 2022 SPRING ACTIVITY GUIDE & Vendor Total: 8,504.94
01/31/2022 URBAN FIELD STUDIO 2,292.25 DOWNTOWN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES 01/31/2022 VALES, NORMAN 12.10 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT AUG 2021 01/31/2022 WESCO GRAPHICS INC 8,591.27 CITY REPORT & ACTIVITY GUIDE PRINTING 01/31/2022 WESTEK SYSTEMS INC. 7,215.00 AMAG SOFTWARE MAINT & SUPPORT 01/31/2022 WILLDAN HOMELAND SOLU TIONS 1,722,044.10 ENERGY EFFICIENCY/INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROV 01/31/2022 WILLIAM AVERY & ASSOCI ATES INC 5,500.00 HUMAN R ESOURCES RECRUITMENT SERVICES Payments Issued 1/31/2022 Total: 2,061,605.03
Grand Total for Payments Dated 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022: 13,690,767.41 Total Number of Payments Issued: 269
185
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 6.1
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Fallon East General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (PLPA-2021-00009)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for approximately 73 acres east of Fallon Road on the GH PacVest and Alameda properties. The amendment would change the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office. Additionally, the City Council will consider an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and adopt the Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25- Acre Alameda Property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of looking to establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, and supporting infrastructure. The properties east of Fallon Road are situated along the designated right-of-way 186
for the future Dublin Boulevard extension. The GH PacVest property (approximately 190 acres) is bound by Fallon Road to the west, I-580 to the south, and Croak Road to the south and east. The Alameda property (1.25 acres) is located north of the I-580 off ramp bound by Fallon Road to the west, and Croak Road to the north and east. See Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Location Map and Property Ownership
On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators.
On October 20, 2020, the City Council received a second report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework that provided the initial framework for the creation of an Economic Development Zone (EDZ).
On March 16, 2021, the City Council received a third report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework and initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the proposed amendment. On April 20, 2021, the City Council’s Economic Development Committee (EDC) received a presentation on the proposed EDZ incentives package, and supported it as presented.
On May 18, 2021, the City Council established the Fallon East Economic Development Zone to encourage private investment in the targeted industry sectors as prioritized by the City Council.
Establishment of the economic development zone included a description of the properties within the zone, and an Incentives Package to assist with the attraction of job-rich and/or high-wage 187
businesses within the targeted industries.
Over the past year, the City has been holding discussions with the larger landowners of these properties to better understand their vision for developing their properties. These meetings also included discussions on proposed land use changes, creation of the economic development zone and the Dublin Boulevard extension project.
Proposed Amendment
The proposed project is a City-led General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003- 00). The project also includes amending the land use designation for these properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). Figure 2 shows the existing Land Use Map and Figure 3 shows the proposed Land Use Map.
Figure 2. Existing Land Use Map
188
Figure 3. Proposed Land Use Map
The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will retain all the land uses currently allowed under the General Commercial designation and create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the area.
The project area is located within the Fallon Gateway area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In response to City Council’s input at their March 16, 2021 meeting on the vision for sustainable development of this area in conjunction with the future economic development zone, the amendment also includes the following additional language encouraging sustainable development for the Fallon Gateway area:
The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and south of the Airport Protection Area serves as the entry to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for sustainable development that provides employment opportunities and connects those jobs to the regional and local public transportation system. Developments are required to incorporate the following sustainability practices:
Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streets concepts within the private development’s circulation system to ensure strong bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections within and between the private developments and connections to the City’s streets and existing and future transit hubs.
189
Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Electric vehicle charging stations within each development. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand of single occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles, showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs. Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric grid management, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, battery storage and micro-grids.
Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment toward zero-waste goals. Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-optic communications infrastructure.
Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streets certified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold or greater or similar equivalent.
Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Gold status or above.
The City Council Resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1.
Planned Development Zoning
The existing zoning for the GH PacVest portion of the project area is Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05, which is the Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village. The existing zoning for the Alameda property is Planned Development Ordinance No. 11-94, adopted with the annexation of 1,538 acres west of Fallon Village as part of the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development zoning for these properties designated them as General Commercial which is consistent with the existing General Commercial and proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designations and, therefore, no amendment to the Planned Development zoning districts is required at this time. However, all future development would need, at minimum, a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan. It is anticipated that future development on these parcels will include an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning to broaden the allowable uses to incorporate all new land uses allowed under the General Commercial/ Campus Office land use designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Prior CEQA analysis for the Fallon East project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR 190
(2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs.” Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines and using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, the City assessed whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project and determined an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review. The Addendum is included as Attachment 2. Staff recommends that the City Council to approve the Addendum to the EDSP EIRs before approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
Strategy 5: Large Land Tract Development and Open Space.
Objective A: Look to Establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road.
Objective B: Work with the area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Blvd. extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
On December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Three representatives of the property owner, GH PacVest, spoke during the public hearing and requested that action on the proposed amendment be postponed to incorporate land use changes they would like to pursue for a future development on their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes.
After discussing the property owners request, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend postponement to the City Council (Attachment 3). In their deliberations, the Planning Commission said they did not see any draw back in postponing action and also commented that they liked the economic development zone and vision for the area east of Fallon Road and thought the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment was a move in the right direction.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing.
A public notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the City Council agenda was posted, and all Fallon East property owners were notified of this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving an Addendum to the East Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25-Acre Alameda Property 2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – CEQA Addendum
3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-12 without Exhibit A 191
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 1 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
72.1 ACRES OF THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND THE 1.25-ACRE ALAMEDA PROPERTY APN: 985-0027-002-00 AND 985-0027-003-00
(PLPA-2021-00009)
WHEREAS, the City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of establishing an economic development zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework supporting the City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan objectives. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while also supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005).
Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs;” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for the Project (the “Addendum”) shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and 192
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 21-12, recommending that the City Council postpone taking action on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the EDSP EIRs referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 15, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, on February 15, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent.
The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the elements and will support additional employment opportunities through commercial and light industrial developments. The General Plan Amendment noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each element within the General Plan is internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan:
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the General Commercial land use designation to General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation as follows: NOTE: No changes are proposed to the Airport Protection Area or the Airport Safety Zone 6 overlay boundaries. The overlays have been removed from this image for clarity. 193
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 3 of 9 Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to read as follows:
Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1
RESIDENTIAL Acres Dwelling
Units/Acre
Dwelling Units Persons/
Dwelling Unit
Population
High Density 56.14 25 .1+ 1,409+ 2.7 3,804+
Medium-High
Density 137.81 14 .1-25 .0 1943-3,445 2.7 5,246-9,302
Medium-High
Density and Retail
Office
0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2.7 0
Medium-Density 405.4 6.1-14 .0 2,473-,5,676 2.7 6,667-15,325 Single Family 725 0.9-6.0 652-4,350 2.7 1,7,60-11,745
Estate Residential 30 .5 0.01-0.8 0-24 2.7 0-65
Rural Residential/
Agriculture
329.8 0.01 3 2.7 9
TOTAL: 1,684.65 6,415-14,757+ 17,321-39,845+
COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Square Feet
(millions)
Square Feet/
Employee
Jobs
General Commercial 225.75 .20- .60 1.9-5.9 510 3,856-11,569 General
Commercial/
Campus Office
168.57 .20- .80 1.46-5.87 385 3,814-15,258
Mixed Use 6.7 .30-1.00 . .9-.29 490 178-596
Mixed Use 2/
Campus Office
22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood
Commercial
0.4 .25- .60 .004-.01 490 9-21
Campus Office 195 .58 .25- .80 2.13-6.82 260 8,192-26,214 Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
194
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 4 of 9 Industrial Park/
Campus Office
0 .25- .35 0 425 0
Campus Office 137.58 .25- .80 1.50-4.79 260 5,763-18,440 Medical Campus 42.88 .25- .80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747
Medical Campus /
Commercial
15.85 .25- .80 .17-.41 510 338-812
TOTAL: 872.61 9.83-29.89 27,135-81,846
PUBLIC/SEMI-
PUBLIC/OPEN
SPACE
Acres Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Square Feet
(millions)
Square Feet/
Employee
Jobs
Public/Semi-Public 98.96 .50 max 2.15 590 3,653
Semi-Public 2.09 .50 max .045 590 77
Acres Number
Parks/Public
Recreation
204-.9
Regional Parks 1.2 1
Open Space 699 .56
Schools Acres Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Square Feet
(millions)
Square Feet/
Employee
Jobs
Elementary School 38 .50 max 1.06 590 1,797
Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034
High School 23.46 .50 max .51 590 866
TOTAL: 1,095.97 5.38 7,427
Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet
(millions)
Jobs
GRAND TOTAL: 3,653.23 6,415-14,757+ 17,321-39,845+ 15.21-35.27 51,883-129,118 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Section 2.3 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of Chen to GH PacVest as follows:
2.3 OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
Ownership patterns in the planning area as shown in Figure 2.4. There are 49 recorded parcels in the planning area which are owned by 33 different landowners. Since 1993, approval of subsequent amendments, such as the addition of the Dublin Transit Center and portions of Fallon Village, as well as the subdivision of land has increased the number of parcels and landowners.
Landowners' names and size of holdings are listed in Figure 2.4. Ownership holdings range in size from 0.4 acres to 1,251 acres. The acreage of two small properties, the EBJ Properties (1.1 acres) and Pleasanton Ranch Investment parcels (0.4 acres), was included on maps and in tables with the GH PacVest property prior to 2005. Figure 2.4 illustrates only the original parcels prior to their being subdivided.
Figure 2.4 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of 21 and 22 from Chen 195
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 5 of 9 and Anderson, respectively, to GH PacVest
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101- 15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-22)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 283.45 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.087 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office
160.37 acres .28 FAR 1.956 MSF
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 36.76 acres .30-.35 FAR .516 MSF Mixed Use 0 acres .30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** 25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF
Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF Subtotal 720.22 acres 9.848 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du
Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du
Medium Density** 492.71 acres (1) 10 du/ac 4,744 du
Single Family*** 947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du (3)
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric. 539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 0 acres 15 du/ac 115 du
Subtotal 2,225.26 acres 13,950 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 98.96 acres .24 FAR .99 MSF
Semi-Public 2.09 acres .25 FAR .03 MSF
Subtotal 101.05 acres 1.02 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 55.8 acres (2) 5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
High School 23.46 acres 1 school
Subtotal 100.56 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks
Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park
Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,058.75 acres
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes:
196
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 6 of 9 Section 4.9.4 Fallon Gateway shall be amended to update the land use concept for the area east of Fallon Road as follows:
4.9.4 FALLON GATEWAY
LOCATION
This subarea is located at the Fallon Road interchange with I-580 and occupies the areas east and west of Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and the freeway, and extending north to the Airport Protection Area boundary. The subarea also extends north to include the northeast and northwest quadrants of the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (see Figure 4.2). In 2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and north to encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Boulevard alignment had shifted north) except for the areas designated as Community Park and Medium High Density Residential. Also, the EBJ Partners, Pleasanton Ranch Investments parcels and the areas of the GH PacVest, Righetti and Branaugh properties within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway Subarea.
LAND USE CONCEPT
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151- 16, xx-22)
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office*
1.956 MSF 385 5,081
General Commercial 3.087 MSF 510 6,053
Neighborhood Commercial .516 MSF 490 1,053
Mixed Use** 0 MSF 490 0
Mixed Use 2/Campus
Office****
.497 MSF 260 1,910
Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077
Medical Campus .950 260 3,654
Medical Campus/
Commercial
.250 510 490
Public/Semi Public .99 MSF 590 1,678
Semi-Public 0.03 MSF 590 51
TOTAL: 10.863 MSF 28,313
Residential
High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112
Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264
Medium Density 4,749 2.0 9,498
Single Family***(1) 3,789 3.2 12,125
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use** 0 2.0 0
Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16
TOTAL: 13,735 32,028
197
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 7 of 9 The land use concept for the Fallon Gateway encourages the development of General Commercial and Campus Office uses that will benefit from the visibility and easy access provided by their location near I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road. The focus for this area is to develop with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators.
Given the subarea’s eastern location away from Downtown Dublin and the Town Center in eastern Dublin, it is anticipated that the commercial development will accommodate retail uses that are less suited for the commercial core areas either because they require larger land areas, better freeway access, and/or different development standards. Uses in this category include that segment of the retail market that typically deals with high sales volumes and/or bulky or big- ticket items; has relatively low-overhead; draws from a regional market area; and is highly auto- oriented. Examples of such uses include large-scale retail, commercial recreation and entertainment facilities, home improvement centers, nurseries, and similar uses. The subarea should not include uses that would directly compete with and/or decrease the vitality of the commercial areas in the Town Center or Downtown Dublin.
The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and extending north to the Airport Protection Area boundary serves as the entry to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for sustainable development that provides employment opportunities and connects those jobs to the regional and local public transportation system. Developments are required to incorporate the following sustainability practices:
Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streets concepts within the private development’s circulation system to ensure strong bicycle, pedestrian and transit connections within and between the private developments and connections to the City’s streets and existing and future transit hubs. Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Electric vehicle charging stations within each development. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand of single occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles, showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs. Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric grid management, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, battery storage and micro-grids. Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment toward zero-waste goals.
Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-optic communications infrastructure.
Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streets certified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold or greater or similar equivalent.
Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Gold status or above.
198
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 8 of 9 Table 4.7 (Fallon Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
1In 2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and north to encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Blvd. alignment had shifted north) except for the areas designated as Community Park and Medium High Density Residential. Additionally, the EBJ Partners and Pleasanton Ranch Investments parcels and the areas of the GH PacVest, Righ etti and Branaugh properties within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway Subarea. See Figure 4.2. Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR .950 msf Figure 4-1 ( Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use M ap) shall be amended to change the General Commercial land use designation to General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation for the Project site as follows:
Appendix 3 Land Use Summary by Planning Areas section “Fallon Gateway” shall be amended as follows:
APPENDIX 3
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS
Planning Subareas
Land Use Category Area Density Square Feet Units
Fallon Gateway
General Commercial 47.85 .25 521,087
TABLE 4.7
FALLON GATEWAY
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL1
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 47.85 .25 FAR 521,087
General Commercial/Campus
Office
146.05 .28 FAR 1,781,343
Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR 950,000
Industrial Park 61.3 .28 FAR 747,664
TOTAL 298.08 --- 4,000,094
199
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 9 of 9 General Commercial/ Campus
Office
146.05 .28 1,781,343
Medical Campus 42.88 .51 950,000
Industrial Park 61.3 .28 747,664
Total 298.08 --- 4,000,094
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owner “#21 GH PacVest” shall be amended to read as follows:
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #21 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY
CHEN)
Medium High Density
Residential 4.0 20 130
General Commercial /
Campus Office 90.6 .28 1,105,030
Semi-Public* 0
Public / Semi-Public* 2.5
Community Park 7.2
Open Space 35.8 -
Total 140.1 1,105,030 130
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#22 Anderson” shall be amended update the land ownership of Anderson to “#22 GH PacVest (Formerly Anderson)”.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
200
Fallon East
General Plan Amendment/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Addendum
August 25, 2021
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00009
201
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 1
8/27/21
Fallon East General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Addendum
August 25, 2021
Project Overview
The project, or proposed project, is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN:
985-0027-003-00). The proposed project would also include amending the land use designation in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The existing Planned Development zoning for these properties is generally consistent with the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation and, therefore, no amendment to the Planned Development zoning is required at this time.
The City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan includes an objective to look at establishing an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road. This action would further that strategic priority.
The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, and the Fallon Village project area.
Prior CEQA Analysis
Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993), 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002), and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA findings,” and are described below.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993) The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an addendum (1993 GPA/SP EIR) were certified by the City Council on August 22, 1994. This EIR analyzed General Plan Amendments affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), which encompassed a 3,328-acre area and provides a comprehensive planning framework for future development in Eastern Dublin. The area considered in this EIR included the project site within the General Plan Amendment area.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of natural gas, electric, and telephone service community facilities, consumption of non-renewable natural resources, 202
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
8/27/21
increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss/degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise, and aesthetics.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 53-93, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin. The Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with their certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002) In 2002, the City of Dublin approved an annexation, pre-zoning, and related PD-Planned Development District Stage I Development Plan for the East Dublin Properties area (same area later named “Fallon Village”). The East Dublin Properties project site consists of 1,132 acres within the EDSP area, and includes in its entirety the 165-acre East Ranch project site.
An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to determine if the East Dublin Properties project required additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The IS found that many of the anticipated impacts of the East Dublin Properties project were adequately addressed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR given: 1) the comprehensive planning for the development area; 2) the 1993 GPA/SP EIR‘s analysis of buildout under the EDSP land use designations and policies; 3) the long term 20-30 year focus of the EDSP and the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; 4) the fact that the East Dublin Properties project was specifically contemplated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; and 5) the fact that the East Dublin Properties project consisted of the same land uses analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Although the IS concluded that the 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the East Dublin Properties project, it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those previously analyzed. As a result, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was updated and supplemented by the Programmatic East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002 Supplemental EIR) which updated the analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities.
In certifying the 2002 Supplemental EIR, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program and a Statement of Considerations for cumulative air quality and traffic impacts that continues to apply to development in Eastern Dublin, including the project site.
Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)
In 2005, the City of Dublin considered additional approvals for the 1,132-acre Fallon Village area. These requested approvals had three components:
203
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
8/27/21
1. Amendments to the General Plan and EDSP to include the entire 1,132-acre Fallon Village area into the EDSP and to reflect changes to the land use designations on the site;
2. Revisions to the 2002 approval of the Stage I Planned Development Planned Zoning and Stage I Development Plan to increase the number of dwellings units by 582 to a total of 3,108 units and increase non-residential uses from 1,081,725 square feet to 2,503,175 square feet of commercial and office uses; and
3. A Stage II Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Lot Line Adjustment for the development of the northernly 488 acres of the Fallon Village area to allow 1,078 dwelling units, a school, parks and associated use.
The City approved all three components of the Fallon Village project request.
On December 6, 2005, the City certified the Final Supplemental Fallon Village Project Environmental Impact Report (2005 Supplemental EIR) that analyzed the new uses and revisions to the previous approvals for the Fallon Village project.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures. The City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program for this approval that continues to apply to development in the Fallon Village area, including the project site. In addition, as part of Resolution No. 222-05, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following significant and unavoidable impacts: traffic impact to Dublin/Dougherty intersection, cumulative impacts to local roadways, consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan, demolition of the Fallon Ranch House and an increase in regional emissions beyond Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds.
The City intended this 2005 Supplemental EIR to be used by state or regional agencies in their review of permits required for development in the Fallon Village area (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act) (see, Draft 2005 Supplemental EIR, p. 27).
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
The City prepared a CEQA analysis using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, dated August 25, 2021, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the project and an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review per the following:
204
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 4
8/27/21
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEOA Guidelines Section 15162 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts?
There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The proposed project would create additional flexibility allowed by the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation. This hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum- impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the surrounding industrial area. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does not constitute a substantial change to the EDSP EIRs analysis, will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts?
There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the EDSP EIRs. The proposed project would create additional flexibility allowed by the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the surrounding industrial area. This is documented in the attached Initial Study.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for the project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The EDSP EIRs adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the EDSP area.
205
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 5
8/27/21
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared?
No subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other standards for supplemental review under CEQA are met, as documented in the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
The City further determines that the EDSP EIRs adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the Fallon East General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.
As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project.
The Initial Study and EDSP EIRs are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
206
Fallon East
General Plan Amendment/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Environmental Checklist/Initial Study
August 25, 2021
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00009
207
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study| Page i
Table of Contents
Project Background 1
Project Purpose 2
Project Description 3
CEQA Analysis 9
Determination 10
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 11 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 13 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 15 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 18 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 22 Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 26 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 29 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 30 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 32 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 36 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 37 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 40 Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 41 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 44 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 46 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 53 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 54 Wildfires ..................................................................................................................................... 58
208
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study| Page ii
Appendices
A Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership
Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Figure 3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
List of Tables
Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Uses Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison
209
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 1
Fallon East
General Plan Amendment/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Initial Study
Project Background
Project Title
Fallon East General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment PLPA-2021-00009
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact
Amy Million
Principal Planner
Phone: 925-833-6610
[email protected]
Project Location & Setting
The project site is located east of Fallon Road and north of I-580. As shown in Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership, the project site is located in Eastern Dublin along the designated right-of-way for the future Dublin Boulevard extension. The project site consists of
72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and is bound by Fallon Road to the west, I-580 to the south, and Croak Road to the south and east. The 1.25-acres Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003-00) is located north of the I-580 off ramp and is bound by Fallon Road to the west, and Croak Road to the north and east. Combined, the two properties total
73.35 acres.
Both properties are currently undeveloped, consisting of open grassland. Surrounding land uses consists of open grassland to the north, east and south, and commercial development west of Fallon Road.
The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, and the Fallon Village project area.
210
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 2
Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership
Project Applicant
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Designation General Commercial
Zoning
PD Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 and Ordinance No. 11-94 Project Background and Purpose
The City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of looking to establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, and supporting infrastructure.
On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework. The City Council was supportive of the Staff 211
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 3
recommendation to utilize the hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators.
On October 20, 2020, the City Council received a second report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework that provided the initial framework for the creation of an Economic Development Zone. On May 18, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 50- 21 approving the establishment of the Fallon East Economic Development Zone Map and Incentives Package.
Over the past year, the City has been holding discussions with some of the larger landowners of these properties to better understand their vision for developing their properties. In January and February 2021, Staff met with the Fallon East property owners to discuss the City Council’s discussions to date including the preliminary land use changes, creation of the Economic Development Zone, and the Dublin Boulevard extension project.
Project Description
The project, or proposed project, is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN:
985-0027-003-00). The existing and proposed General Plan land use changes are shown in Figures 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map and Figure3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, respectively.
212
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 4
Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Figure 3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
213
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 5
The proposed project would also include amending the land use designations in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The existing zoning for the GH PacVest portion of the project area is Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05, which is the Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village. The existing zoning for the Alameda property is Planned Development Ordinance No. 11-94, adopted with the annexation of 1,538 acres west of Fallon Village as part of the General Plan Amendment and EDSP. The Planned Development zoning designations for these properties is generally consistent with the existing General Commercial and proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designations and, therefore, no amendments to the Planned Development zoning districts are required at this time. It is anticipated that future development on these parcels will include an amendment to the existing Planned Development zoning to broaden the allowable uses to incorporate all the new land uses allowed under the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation.
The proposed project does not propose any specific development project. Any such development would occur subsequently as part of a Stage 2 Development Plan application. As such, the analysis in this Initial Study is considered programmatic as it relates to a change in land use designation as a matter of policy and regulation.
The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will retain all the land uses currently allowed under the General Commercial designation and create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, job-rich and high- wage businesses, which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of an industrial area, and are consistent with the City Council’s strategic objectives. The target industry sectors prioritized by the City Council include:
J Life Sciences 1
J Advanced Manufacturing
J Clean/Green Technology
J Automation and Robotics
J Technology
J Startups and Incubators
The proposed project also includes additional policy language encouraging sustainable development for the Fallon Gateway area as provided in the EDSP. The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and south of the Airport Protection Area serves as the entry to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for sustainable development that provides employment opportunities and connects those jobs to the regional and local public transportation system. Developments would be required to incorporate sustainability practices
1 The life sciences sector includes but is not limited to companies operating in the fields of biotechnology (including genetics), pharmaceutical, medical device and diagnostics, food science/food processing, a nd other efforts towards the discovery, development and delivery of products to improve the lives of organisms. 214
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 6
related to transportation to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency, and waste reduction.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
215
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 7
For reference, the Dublin General Plan defines the relevant land use designations as follows:
General Commercial (FAR: .20 to .60; Employee Density: 510 square feet per employee) This designation accommodates a range of regional- and community-serving retail, service, and office uses. Uses allowed in this designation include, but are not limited to: retail uses, including major community-serving uses (e.g., supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores, apparel stores, etc.) and regionally-oriented retail uses (e.g., high-volume retail uses such as discount centers, promotional centers, home improvement centers, furniture outlets, and auto malls); all office uses; hotels; banks; service uses; and restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility.
Campus Office (FAR: .25 to .80; Employee Density: 260 square feet per employee) This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Allowed uses include, but are not limited to, the following:
professional and administrative offices; administrative headquarters; research and development; business and commercial services; and, limited light manufacturing, assembly and distribution activities. Ancillary uses which provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area are permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas stations, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banks, and other such services.
Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential peak-hour traffic generation, meet a specific housing need, encourage pedestrian access to employment and shopping, or create an attractive, socially-interactive neighborhood environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area.
General Commercial/Campus Office (FAR: .20 to .80; Employee Density: 385 square feet per employee)
Combined land use district. See designations under Eastern Extended Planning Area for General Commercial and Campus Office. Example: Lowe’s and Fallon Village.
For reference, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan defines the relevant land use designations as follows:
General Commercial (.20 to .60 Floor Area Ratio)
Accommodates a range of regional and community-serving retail, service, and office uses.
Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with 216
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 8
residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility.
Note: There is one area indicated on the amended land use map, located on the southwest quadrant of Area H of Dublin Ranch that could develop as either general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in this area to respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from general commercial (the underlying land use designation) to campus office would be permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studies may need to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination regarding traffic levels of service. The development of either general commercial or campus office uses will be established at the Stage 2 Planned Development application process.
Campus Office (.25 to .80 Floor Area Ratio)
Provides an attractive, campus-like setting or office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or outdoor storage and operations. Ancillary uses which provide support services to businesses and employees are permitted. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential traffic generation and/or contribute to greater social interaction and more vital live/work environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. A floor area ratio of up to 1.2 may be granted at the discretion of the City Council for the 37-acre parcel adjacent to the eastern Dublin BART station in the southwest quadrant of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. A 5-acre hotel site is anticipated within this 37-acre parcel. The precise location of the hotel site will be established through the planned development application process.
Note: There are several areas indicated on the land use map that could develop as either general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in these key areas to respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from campus office (the underlying land use designation) to general commercial would only be permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studies may need to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination regarding traffic levels of service.
General Commercial/Campus Office (.20 to .80 Floor Area Ratio) Provides flexibility in permitting a range of regional and community-serving retail and office uses. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service and office uses are encouraged. 217
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 9
CEQA Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. For convenience, this analysis uses Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework.
Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are the impact options included in this analysis.
Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA findings.”
The impact check-boxes indicate that the project would not result in a new impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, or an equal to or less severe impact, than those identified in previous CEQA findings.
As such, no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met which would trigger the need for additional CEQA documentation. There are no significant project changes, new information, or change in circumstances that result in a new or substantial increase in severity of a significant impact from those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no standards for requiring supplemental environmental review or documentation under CEQA are met and none are required for the project.
218
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 10
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
X
CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________ _____________________________
Amy Million, Principal Planner Date
219
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 11
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for visual resources:
▪ Impact 3.8/A: Standardized "Tract" Development within the project area which did not respond to natural site conditions could cause a significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires consistency with EDSP Goal 6.3.4, reduces this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 2, which would implement the EDSP plan with retention of predominant natural features and encourages a sense of place in Eastern Dublin.
▪ Impact 3.8/C: Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the potential of EDSP buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter existing features and reduce the visual uniqueness of the Eastern Dublin area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.8/3.0, which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28, reduces this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.8/D: Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the visual quality of the EDSP area.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 through 3.8/4.5 are included in the EDSP EIR to reduce Impact 3.8/D to an insignificant level. These mitigation measures require implementation of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38.
▪ Impact 3.8/E: Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of visually sensitive ridgelines.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 through 3.8/5.2 would reduce this 220
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 12
impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the implementation of EDSP Policies 6-29 and 5-30 and General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E. ▪ Impact 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. No mitigation measure has been identified which can either fully or partially reduce this impact.
▪ Impact 3.8/G: Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses which involves the potential for elimination of the visibility and function of watercourses would be mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 6.0, which required future development to implement EDSP Policy 6-39. ▪ Impact 3.8/H: Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City is mitigated to a level of insignificance by implementation of the EDSP land use plan (Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0).
▪ Impact 3.8/I: Scenic Vistas includes the alteration of the character of existing scenic vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1 this impact would be reduced to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure
3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP Policy 6-5 and Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.1 requires the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP site and to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas.
▪ Impact 3.8/J: Scenic Routes identifies that the urban development of the EDSP will significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 8.8 and 8.1 will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. These two measures require implementation of EDSP Action Programs 6Q and 6R.
The EDSP EIRs found significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts (Impact 3.8/B and Impact
3.8/F) associated with the alteration of the visual character of rural/open space and flatlands.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts, which includes the project.
No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in either the 2002 or 2005 Supplemental EIRs.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views
The project site is vacant and classified by the EDSP EIR as “dry-farming rotational cropland.” The EDSP does identify certain ridgelands and ridgelines as visually sensitive and the City pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-5 and Action Program 6Q adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor, Policies and Standards as means to preserve scenic vistas. 221
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 13
Previous CEQA findings found potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas and views. The impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5,
3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1. EDSP Policies 6-29 through 6-38, which provide guidelines for grading and building design as a means to preserve scenic vistas and view corridors, apply to the project and EDSP area.
(b) Scenic resources
The EDSP EIRs found potentially significant impacts to scenic resources. The impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8 and EDSP Policies 6- 30 through 6-31. These mitigation measures are implemented at a project level as means to preserve scenic vistas and view corridors.
No scenic resources exist on the project site, including but not limited to significant stands of trees, rock outcroppings, or bodies of water, so there would be no impact from future development as a result of this land use change.
(c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area The EDSP EIRs found that development within the EDSP area would alter the existing visual character of rural/open space and flatlands. No mitigation measure could be identified to fully or partially reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts; thus, no additional analysis was found necessary. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
Previous CEQA findings found less than significant impacts at both the program and development level. Future development associated with the project would not increase the amount of light and glare that was not previously anticipated in the EDSP and would be required to comply with adopted City regulations for lighting.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified aesthetic/visual impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
222
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 14
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for agricultural resources:
▪ Impact 3.1/C Discontinuation of Agricultural Uses states that agricultural uses within the area would be decreased as a result of the implementation of the EDSP. However, since most land owners at the time the ESDP EIR was written had filed non-renewal notices for their Williamson Act contracts it was assumed that agricultural uses would decline independent of the implementation of the EDSP so the impact was insignificant and no mitigation was required.
▪ Impact 3.1/D Loss of Farmland of Local Importance states that agricultural lands of local importance would be lost as a result of the EDSP. Since these agricultural lands of local 223
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 15
importance were not classified as prime farmland, however, the impact was insignificant and no mitigation was required.
The previous EDSP EIRs evaluated if the soils were considered as “prime agricultural soils” through the adopted criteria established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). It was determined that no additional prime or agricultural lands beyond those identified in previous EIRs were found.
No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in either the 2002 or 2005 Supplemental EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-e) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning
Previous CEQA findings found there were no significant impacts with respect to agricultural resources. No new conditions have been identified for the project with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a nonagricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would result from the project than were previously analyzed.
No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the project site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. There is no forest land within the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified agricultural impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X
224
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 16
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for air quality:
▪ Impact 3.11/A: Dust Deposition from Construction Activity states that project construction will generate respirable particulate matter that could potentially impact nearby areas significantly. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 mitigates this impact to an insignificant level but dust emissions remain a potentially significant cumulative impact. ▪ Impact 3.11/B: Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions acknowledges that operating construction equipment will generate exhaust pollutants. Since the build out of the EDSP is long-term the impact of these emissions is potentially significant. Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0 do not sufficiently reduce the anticipated ozone precursor emission to within Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards so air quality impacts remain potentially significant and contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact.
▪ Impact 3.11/C: Mobile Source Emissions ROG or NOx states that as a result of vehicle trips generated by the full build out of the EDSP ROG and NOx emissions will exceed the BAAQMD threshold causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 through
3.11/11.0 reduce this impact but not sufficiently to reduce it to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.11/D: Mobile Source Emissions CO2 notes that the EDSP will not cause any new CO2 emission standard violations and, therefore, has an insignificant impact. ▪ Impact 3.11/E: Stationary Source Emissions notes that project related NOx emissions from fuel consumption for energy demand exceeds BAAQMD’s significance threshold causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 3.11/13.0 reduce this impact but not sufficiently to reduce it an insignificant level. This impact also contributes to a potentially significant cumulative impact for the area.
The 1993 GP/SPA EIR determined that future project development will have a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality as a result of dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROG and NOx, and stationary source emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially mitigate these impacts, the impacts remain potentially significant, particularly given the region's existing non-compliance attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
225
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 17
with air quality standards. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these four impacts, which includes the project.
In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the 1993 GP/SPA EIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR included Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1 which requires compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for construction contractors including: to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, and sand; sweep daily impervious surfaces and staging areas; and installing erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff.
Future development projects resulting from the proposed land use change would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans
The project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by BAAQMD since the project site has been included in Dublin's planned growth as previously analyzed and is consistent with the City’s General Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. (b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants The project is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley where, per BAAQMD, air pollution is high. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone and there is a transport of pollutants that occurs between Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the thresholds with respect to air quality have been revised. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the national eight-hour standard for ozone from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The California Air Resources Board also lowered the state’s one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide to 0.18 ppm and retained the national average standard of 0.030 ppm. The new thresholds do not represent “new information” as specifically defined under CEQA as the information used to develop these new thresholds was known, or could have been known, when the EDSP EIRs were prepared.
The previous CEQA findings found that proposed development would result in a significant and unavoidable emission of air pollutants exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0, 3.11/5.0 through 3.11/11.0, 3.11/12.0, and 3.11/13.0 were recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant and unavoidable impacts that applies to the project.
(c-d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors The health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was previously analyzed. The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to 226
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 18
residences living close to freeways. (See studies cited in CARB's 2005 “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage lead agencies to address impacts to sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools and churches) to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high-volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines, p. 47).
The project site is adjacent to I-580 and future development would not include land uses that are considered sensitive receptors.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
227
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for biological resources:
▪ Impact 3.7/A: Direct Habitat Loss found that the implementation of the EDSP would result in substantial reduction of habitat and range, a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/4.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level though the project does still contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact and does result in a significant irreversible change.
▪ Impact 3.7/B: Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal recognizes that dust generation from construction, increased erosion, sedimentation, and potential for slope failure, and alteration of drainage patterns could cause a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.7/5.0, 3.6/ 18.0, 3.6/22.0, 3.6/23.0, and 3.11/8 reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat recognizes that habitat could be lost directly or indirectly as a result of the implementation of the EDSP resulting in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through
3.7/17.0 reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. ▪ Impacts 3.7/D and 3.7/E pertain to threatened and endangered species. Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0 and 3.7/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.7/F through 3.7/I pertain to species who are federal candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.7/J through 3.7/R pertain to California species of special concern. Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0 through 3.7/28.0, 3.4/42.0, 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17, and 3.7/21.0 228
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 20
reduce all impacts to less than significant.
The EDSP EIRs found a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (Impact 3.7/A) associated with direct habitat loss. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact, which includes the project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 SEIR discussed potential impacts to special-status plants and included mitigation to address these impacts. See, e.g., 2002 Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2; 2005 Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-1 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-4). The previously adopted mitigation would be applied to the current project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 SEIR discussed potential impacts to California Red- legged frog (CRLF) and California Tiger Salamander (CTS) and included mitigation. See, e.g., 2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-2 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-14) for CLRF. See, e.g., 2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measures SSM-BIO-3 & SSM-BIO-4 (revising 2002 SM-BIO- 19) for CTS. The previously adopted mitigation would be applied to the current project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR also included mitigation for impacts to aquatic features. See, e.g., 2002 Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 and SM-BIO-6.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the EDSP EIRs.
The EDSP EIRs included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife resources (i.e., riparian habitat, natural community, and wetlands). They identified potential impacts related to the general effect of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7 / A, B, and C). The EDSP EIRs also identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, CRLF, CTS, and others (Impact 3.7 /D - S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high-voltage power lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (Impact 3.7 /L), and included a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 3.7 / 26.0a-d). Mitigation measures were adopted to, among other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid development in sensitive areas, and revegetate disturbed areas (generally Mitigation Measures
3.7 / 1.0 - 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed project.
Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.7 / A). The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93). 229
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 21
The 2002 SEIR determined that species and habitats not previously considered or analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR could occur in the project area. Furthermore, designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog and changes in regulatory standards for this and other species since the certification of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR were thought to create new potentially significant impacts. To address these issues, the 2002 SEIR described a number of impacts and mitigation measures to supplement those in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measure SM-B1O-1 in the 2002 SEIR required preparation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP). The purpose of the RMP was to address biological resource impacts of future development in a coordinated manner rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis as development plans for individual parcels are prepared over time. The RMP was completed in 2004.
The mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs fulfill the City's obligations under CEQA with respect to biological resources. However, the City recognizes that future development activity within the project area may require one or more permits from a variety of state and federal resources agencies. Development project proponents will be responsible for obtaining all such necessary permits. Those permits may impose mitigation requirements which are different from and/ or greater than the mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs. (b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, natural community, or wetlands Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts would be equal or less severe than those identified in the EDSP EIRs, and no further mitigation is required.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife The existing vegetation within the project site consists of mostly grasses which are not native habitat for migratory species. There are no creeks or streams on the project site that would allow for migration of fish species. Therefore, impacts to migratory fish or wildlife would be insignificant.
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans.
The protection of heritage trees in the City of Dublin is covered by Chapter 5.6 Heritage Trees of the Dublin Municipal Code. The proposed project does not modify these requirements and they would continue to apply on future development of these parcels. As a result there would be no impact.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not 230
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 22
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for cultural resources:
▪ Impact 3.9/A: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources recognized impacts associated with the disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources which would be reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.9/1.0-4.0, which require a program of mechanical or hand subsurface testing for midden deposits, recordation of identified cultural resources on State of California site survey forms, preparing a plan testing of each resource and, if required, having the City retain the services of a qualified archeologist to develop a cultural resource protection program.
▪ Impact 3.9/B: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-Historic Resources identified an impact related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level by requiring a halt to development activities that could impact unidentified cultural resources and completion of follow-on site surveys within Eastern Dublin. 231
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 23
▪ Impact 3.9/C: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources would be mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through
3.9/12.0 that requires in-depth analysis of properties with cultural resources, encouragement of adaptive reuse of historic structures to the extent feasible, review of potential historic resources by an architectural historian and development of a preservation program for historic sites and disruption or destruction of unidentified historic resources.
▪ Impact 3.9/D: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources would be reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 5.0, 6.0, 7.0,
9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Historic resources
The project site is vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources. (b) Archaeological resources
Previous CEQA findings require adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level by requiring a halt to future development activities that could impact unidentified cultural resources and completion of follow-on site surveys. (d) Human remains
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the previous EDSP EIRs as well as state and local regulations regarding potential impacts to human remains.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
232
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 24
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
6. Energy. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation??
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Utilities and service systems impacts and mitigation measures, some of which are related to the demand for energy of additional service systems, were identified and can be found in the utilities and service systems section of this document. Additional impacts and mitigations for energy from the EDSP EIRs include:
▪ Impact 3.4/Q: Demand for Utilities Extensions notes that the build out of the GP/EDSP will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. To supply adequate electrical service to the project, PG&E estimates that a new distribution system will have to be constructed. Extension of utility lines are necessary if the GP/EDSP is approved and built. There is no mitigation to this impact and it remained a significant and unavoidable impact.
▪ Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources noted that the provision of adequate natural gas and electrical service will require the consumption of non-renewable natural resources. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 and 3.4/46.0 would reduce the impact to the extent feasible.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, which includes the project.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. 233
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 25
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consumption of energy
The EDSP EIRs identified that development of the Eastern Dublin area would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the consumption of non-renewable natural resources, including energy consumption. Mitigation measures are identified in the EDSP EIRs that would help mitigate this impact.
Furthermore, since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in 24 Cal Code Regs pt. 6 have been revised and updated and include more stringent requirements to prevent the unnecessary consumption of energy. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with these standards. In addition, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.94 (Green Building) encourages sustainable construction practices in planning, design, energy and water efficiency and conservation, material conservation, resource efficiency and environmental quality.
The proposed project also requires future development projects to incorporate sustainability practices the related to transportation to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency, and waste reduction.
(b) State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency The project does not contain any features that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and is required to comply with state and local energy regulations, as described above.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
234
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 26
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for geology and soils:
235
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 27
▪ Impact 3.6/A: Fault Ground Rupture was found to have insignificant impact since no known active or potentially active faults traverse the EDSP area and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are not located within the EDSP area. ▪ Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts from primary effects of seismic ground shaking that were insufficiently mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0. ▪ Impacts 3.6/C through 3.6/L were identified as potentially significant but mitigatable by Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6/28.0 to a level of insignificance.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measure SM-GEO-1 requires that prior to construction, design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s) depicting the locations and depths of landslide repairs, keyways, and subsurface drains be prepared and submitted to the City for review.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the GP/EDSP, which includes the proposed project.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
As described in the EDSP EIRs, the project site is located in the Coast Range geomorphic province of California. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No faults and/or their traces have been mapped at the site. The EDSP EIRs used applicable building code data which included Peak Ground Accelerations of 0.6g. The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) increased Peak Ground Acceleration, a seismic design parameter used in the previous CEQA analysis, to 0.77g.
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with primary effects of seismic ground shaking (Impact 3.6/B; MM 3.6/1.0); potentially significant but mitigable secondary effects of seismic ground shaking including seismically induced settlement, land sliding, and compaction (Impact 3.5/c; MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0), alterations of site landforms (Impact 3.6/D; MM 3.6/9-10), groundwater (Impacts 3.6/F and 3.6/G; MM
3.6/11-13), expansive soils (Impact 3.6/H; MM 3.6/14-16), natural slope stability (Impact 3.6/I; MM 3.6/17-19), cut-and-fill slope stability (Impact 3.6/J; MM 3.6/20-26), and erosion and sedimentation (Impacts 3.6/K and L; MM 3.6/27-28).
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with primary effects of seismic ground shaking. The project would over excavate potentially liquefiable soils and replace them with engineered fill. 236
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 28
USGS maps show areas of potential seismic induced landsliding and liquefaction within the project area. Implementation of MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.(b) Erosion/topsoil loss
Construction of the project would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. The project would be required to implement Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) erosion control measures as enforced by the City in addition to any mitigation measures included in the EDSP EIRs. The City's requirement to implement site-specific erosion and other controls would reduce erosion impacts from the project site. The project would also implement erosion control measures such as soil covering vegetation and landscaping after completion of construction. (c-d) Soil stability
Previous geotechnical investigations described in the EDSP EIRs did not identify any unstable geologic or soil units or those that would be unstable after the project site is developed.
Previous geotechnical investigations did identify expansive soils within the project site. Per the requirements in the EDSP EIRs, future development projects would require remedial grading, including over-excavation, keyways, subdrains and engineering fill per geotechnical engineer direction.
(e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic Future development would not use a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal systems and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(f) Unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found that no potential of buried prehistoric sites with undisturbed or partially disturbed sources cultural deposits are associated with the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soil beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
237
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 29
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006 and SB 32 in 2016.
Because the EDSP EIRs were previously certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. 238
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 30
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Conclusion
The impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
239
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 31
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The 1993 GP/SPA EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
However, the 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential hazard impacts. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-1 requires project developers to survey for asbestos and lead- based paints (which do not apply as there are no structures on the project site). Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-2 and -3 addresses procedures for the removal of soil/groundwater contamination, if present.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
No development project is proposed, only a change in allowable land uses with the intent of broadening the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators. To the extent there are potentially hazardous materials used in construction or during commercial operations, the impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. (b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment The proposed change in land use would not create a significant hazard to the pubic or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
(c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The proposed land use change would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within on-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school since the expansion of uses would not involve the handling of hazardous materials.
(d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
The project site is vacant and has not been listed as a hazardous materials site in the EDSP EIRs and, therefore, there is no impact.
240
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 32
(e) Proximity to a public or private airport
The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the project area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Livermore Airport and within its Airport Safety Zone, Airport Protection Area, and Airport Influence Area. However, the proposed expansion of uses are allowed per the Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), and would not cause a significant safety hazard. (f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked or otherwise altered.
(h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
As further discussed in the Wildfire section below, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in this environmental analysis, the project would result in less than significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin??
X
241
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 33
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality:
▪ Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers. ▪ Impact 3.5/Q noted that the EDSP would increase demand to serve development at build-out under the then-applicable General Plan and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet annually. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
242
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 34
▪ Impact 3.5/V identified an impact due to flooding as a result of water storage reservoir failure but would be mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0. ▪ Impact 3.5/Y: Potential Flooding was found to be potentially significant but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/48.0. ▪ Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/AA: Non-Point Sources of Pollution was found to be a potentially significant impact but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and
3.5/52.0.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential impacts related to “cumulative stormwater generation/capacity of local channels” and “changes in non-point source water quality regulations.” Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-SD-1 and SM-SD-2 were adopted to reduce these potential supplemental impacts to less than significant. SM-SD-1 required water quality and hydrologic design recommendations requiring implementation of bio- retention/filtration facilities with all subsequent individual development projects in the Fallon Village project area. SM-SD-2 required future individual development projects within the project area to comply with the storm water quality and hydromodification management provisions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program as administered by the City of Dublin.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements Any future development project will be required to be designed to treat all of its storm water runoff for water quality and hydromodification management to meet current Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Provision C.3 requirements as prescribed in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, the project would meet the current RWQCB C.3 requirements, which are more stringent than those considered in the EDSP EIRs.
(b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies Future water sources would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s groundwater recharge program to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. As a result, the project would not result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.
243
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 35
(c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns
Future development would not significantly change drainage patterns and proposed storm drain facilities would be required per City and State regulations to be adequately sized for project runoff. The project would incorporate and comply with the drainage system master planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan with appropriate sizing and construction of downstream facilities such as the G3 Culvert Regional Conveyance facility constructed with the Dublin Ranch project, extended by the Fallon Village project. Future development would also be required to pay fees to the Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District for construction of the downstream regional facilities. Per SM-SD-2, future development would also pay required Zone 7 Special Drainage fees (SDA-7-1) for regional storm drain facilities.
(g) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the project site. There would be no impact with implementation of the project. (h) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plan Future development would be required to incorporate and comply with the drainage system master planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
244
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 36
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impact for land use and planning:
▪ Impact 3.1/A found that there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the EDSP as a result of the loss of agricultural and open space lands. No mitigation measures were identified for those impacts.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact, which includes the project.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will expand the types of office and light industrial uses already allowed in the area. Allowed future uses would be compatible with the existing land uses and would not divide an established community. (b) Conflict with general plan
The project site is located in the EDSP project boundary and would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project includes amendments to the EDSP and the General Plan to ensure consistency between the two documents.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not 245
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 37
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
The City does not have any mineral extraction areas so there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mineral resources.
Conclusion
Because the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impact, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
246
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 38
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for noise:
▪ Impact 3.10/A: Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise identified future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in Eastern Dublin as potentially significant to future residents. This impact would be mitigated to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires acoustic studies for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area. ▪ Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise would be a potentially significant impact to existing residents in the Eastern Dublin area as development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.10/2.0, which requires future development projects to provide noise protection to existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts to existing residents along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable. ▪ Impact 3.10/ C: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise was considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required. ▪ Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the County Jail identified potentially significant noise for future residents within 6,000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic studies for development near Parks RFTA and the County Jail; 247
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 39
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
▪ Impact 3.10/E: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction of the EDSP, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards. ▪ Impact 3.10/F: Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development would result from close proximity of different land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use developments within the Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed-use development to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts described above, which includes the project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with commercial land uses. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan for commercial and industrial uses. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 restricts heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways and truck routes.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with aircraft flyovers and roadway noise. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires written notification to occupants of residential dwellings of the potential for aircraft overflights within the Fallon Village project area. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-NOISE -2 through -4 address measures associated with reducing roadway noise that may affect sensitive noise receptors such as residential, schools, and parks.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards
The EDSP EIRs identified the sources of major noise affecting the EDSP area to be vehicular traffic stemming from Interstate 580, aircraft flyovers from the Livermore Municipal Airport, Parks RFTA, and County Jail. The short-term noise measurement results noted that other than site grading associated with the construction of the development the roadway noise and aircraft flyovers would dominate any noise levels generated by the project. 248
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 40
(b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as well as construction noise as a result of the build out of the EDSP, which includes the project site.
Implementation of mitigation measures within the EDSP EIRs reduces this impact to an insignificant level.
(c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport The project would not result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the project area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Livermore Airport and is located within its Airport Safety Zone, Airport Protection Area, and Airport Influence Area.
However, the proposed expansion of uses are allowed per the Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012). Furthermore, the type of (light) aircraft and frequency of noise would not result in excessive noise level impacts to commercial uses, particularly those that are industrial in nature, nor be different from that previously analyzed.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
249
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 41
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not identify any significant impacts or mitigation measures for population and housing.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Population growth
Future development would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area since development on the project site has long been envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and EDSP. Furthermore, no residential development is allowed on the project site because it is located within the Livermore Airport – Airport Protection Area. (b) Housing and resident displacement
Since the project site is vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced as a result of the project.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
250
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 42
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for public services:
▪ Impacts 3.4/A and 3.4/B are related to the provision of police services. One notes that there would be a demand for increased police services with implementation of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the other identifies an impact related to the hilly topography of the Eastern Dublin area that could present accessibility and crime-prevention issues. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0 through 3.4/ 5.0 would reduce impacts to the Dublin Police Department to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.4/C through 3.4/E are related to the provision of fire services. The build out of the GP/EDSP would increase the demand for fire services and the outlying areas of the GP/EDSP were beyond the fire response area at the time resulting in extended fire response times. The build out of the GP/EDSP would also result in the settlement of population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas. This would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.4/F through 3.4/J are related to schools. The buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities in proportion to the number of residential units constructed, far exceeding the current available capacity of either school district at the time. Overcrowding at existing schools could occur if insufficient new classroom space is provided. Development of Eastern Dublin under existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area's being served by two different school districts. The division of the project site by two different school districts would adversely affect financing of schools in eastern Dublin and complicate provision of education to planning area students. The cost of providing new school facilities proposed in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan could adversely impact local school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing is identified. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 through 3.4/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.4/K through 3.4/N are related to parks and public facilities. Without the addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation 251
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 43
facilities resulting from buildout of the GP/EDSP would create potentially significant impacts. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a financial strain on existing City revenue sources causing a potentially significant impact.
Development of residential and commercial areas in eastern Dublin without adequate provision of trail easements may thwart efforts to develop a regional trail system. Urban development along project stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR covered the proposed detachment of the Fallon Village project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District and annexation into the City of Dublin.
This reorganization was approved by Alameda County Local Formation Agency in 2002.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed the adequacy of park acreage within the Fallon Village project area and found it to be consistent with the number, size and locations of parks within the program level Stage 1 PD and with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
Future development would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of daytime population (i.e., employees) on the project site. Features would be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements which assist in reducing impacts. These features include installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers and installation of new fire hydrants that meet the minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, future development would be required to pay an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This impact fee relates to funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. (b) Police
Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected associated with a future development project. This increase in calls for service would be off-set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from Dublin Police Services. (c) Schools
The project area is within in the boundary of the Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport, where residential is not an allowed use; therefore, there would be no 252
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 44
impacts. In addition, no new impacts to school service are anticipated since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits would provide mitigation of educational impacts of the project pursuant to State law. (d, e) Parks and other public facilities
Future development would be required to comply with all prior mitigation measures and, if applicable, would pay the required Park Fee as part of the Public Facility fees.
Construction associated with future development would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands would be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City and, therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
253
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 45
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for recreation:
▪ Impact 3.4/K indicated that increased demand for parks as a result of buildout of the GP/EDSP would represent a significant impact on the ability of the City to provide park service for future residents. It would also be a potentially significant cumulative impact for the community due to lack of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0- 28 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.4/L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The fiscal strain of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.4/ 29.0-31.0 would require that each new development in Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program was required. These mitigation measures reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.4/ M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space connections.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin was anticipated to have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a regional trail system.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 32.0 would require the establishment of a trail system with connections to planned regional and sub-regional trails, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.4/N notes that urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and potentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system.
Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 33.0-36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new recreation facilities
The City’s park and recreational facilities are composed of neighborhood facilities, community facilities, community parks and community center. The EDSP identified a total of 17 parks on 219 acres which is consistent with the City of Dublin 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan ratio of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Sufficient park land has been constructed and it being planned, and future development associated with the proposed project is limited to commercial uses. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and/or regional parks such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; nor would it require the construction/expansion of a recreational facility elsewhere which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 254
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 46
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for transportation and traffic:
▪ Impacts 3.3/A through 3.3/E identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010 with and without build-out of the GP/EDSP and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario. Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 through 3.3/5.0 reduced these impacts but not sufficiently to avoid significant cumulative impacts.
255
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 47
▪ Impacts 3.3/F through 3.3/N identified impacts to levels of service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections and at I-580 ramps. Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0 through 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/10.0 through 3.3/14.0 were adopted to reduce these impacts.
Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N were unable to be reduced to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.3/O and 3.3/P identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0-15.3 and 3.3/16.0-16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts of Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E, 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N, which apply to the project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR identified a number of additional transportation impacts related to the project area. Supplemental mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant include:
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-1 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the I-580 eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-2 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from three lanes to four lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. The westbound loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-tum lane. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-3 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off- ramp through lane to a shared left tum/through lane. Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right-turn overlap from Pimlico Drive.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-4 requires that future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-5 requires that future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-6 requires that future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include one left-tum lane, three through lanes and two right tum lanes. 256
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 48
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-7 requires future project developers to construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left-tum lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-tum lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-8 requires future project developers to pay studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I- 580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection").
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-9 requires future project developers to be responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-10 requires future project developers to be responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified a number of additional transportation impacts related to the project area. Supplemental mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant include:
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires future project developers to make a project contribution to Dublin/Dougherty intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-3 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off- ramp through lane to a shared left tum/through lane.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-4 requires future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-5 requires future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. 257
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 49
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-6 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include 1 left-tum lane, three through lanes and two right tum lanes. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-7 requires future project developers to construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left-tum lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-tum lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-8 requires future project developers to pay studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I- 580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection").
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-9 requires future project developers to responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-10 requires future project developers to responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation circulations plans/standards As described in Appendix A: Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum (Kimley-Horn, June 22, 2021), a trip generation evaluation was prepared to determine if the change in land uses would potentially result in a transportation impact. Vehicle trips generated under the General Commercial land uses were compared to the uses allowed under the hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation.
According to the City’s General Plan, the General Commercial land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.60, compared to 0.20 to
0.80 for General Commercia/Campus Office. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that the development for the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.28 FAR, and the General Commercial land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.25 FAR.
Consistent with the City’s strategy to broaden the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and 258
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 50
incubators, a General Light Industrial land use category was selected from trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). This was compared to the General Office Building and Shopping Center land use categories, both of which are currently allowed per the City’s General Plan General Commercial land use designation. Due to the lower trip rate for the new allowed uses, any combination of the new allowed uses and previously allowed uses is expected to generate fewer peak hour trips than the previously allowed uses.
Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each allowed land use for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR is shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR.
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR ITE
Land
Use
Code Land Use Size Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
710 General Office Building 798.78 KSF 7,782 927 797 130 919 147 772 820 Shopping Center 798.78 KSF 30,156 751 466 285 3,043 1,461 1,582 The highest trip number is shown in bold and shaded.
As shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR, the higher of the two uses for each period would result in 30,156 daily trips, 927 AM peak hour trips, and 3,043 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for the likely mix of land uses for General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR is shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR. This assumes 50 percent of the building area would be general light industrial, 25 percent would be general office building, and 25 percent would be shopping center.
Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR ITE Land
Use Code Land Use Size Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
110 General Light Industrial 447.32 KSF 2,220 313 275 38 282 37 245 710 General Office Building 223.66 KSF 2,180 259 223 36 257 41 216 820 Shopping Center 223.66 KSF 8,444 210 130 80 852 409 443 Total 12,844 782 628 154 1,391 487 904
259
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 51
As shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR, likely mix of uses would generate 12,844 daily trips, 782 AM peak hour trips, and 1,391 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation Comparison
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation was compared between the higher trips for the potential uses for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR versus the likely mix of uses for the General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR. This comparison is shown in Table 4:
Estimated Trip Generation Comparison.
Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario
Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
General Commercial 30,156 927 3,043 797 285 1,461 1,582 General Commercial/Campus Office 12,844 782 1,391 628 154 487 904 Difference -17,312 -145 -1,652 -169 -131 -974 -678
As shown in Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison, the new General Commercial/Campus Office use would not exceed the existing General Commercial use for the daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour trips and, therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment would not result in any significant transportation impacts and no further environmental review is required. However, it should be noted that future proposed development may need further traffic analysis to determine that there will be no new significant transportation impacts due to the change in traffic levels since the certification of the previous EDSP EIRs.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of SB 743 in 2013. Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using a level of service (LOS) measurement that evaluated traffic delay.
As specified under SB 743, and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.
Because EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether VMT needs to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)). 260
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 52
VMT impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of VMT as a metric for analyzing traffic was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs.
Therefore, the impact of VMT was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs.
Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Future development of the project site would add sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist and would be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access
Future development of the project site would be required to go through Stage 2 Planned Development application, which would ensure that all roadways would be designed consistent with City roadway design standards.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
261
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 53
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to tribal cultural resources as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EIRs were completed. Cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures, some of which could pertain to tribal resources, were identified and can be found in the Cultural Resources section of this document.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources The project site is vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures, as described above in Cultural Resources section. In addition, per Senate Bill 18 the City of Dublin sent letters to eight California Native American Tribes regarding the proposed project. No requests for consultation were received.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based 262
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 54
on this environmental analysis, the project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for utilities and service systems:
▪ Impact 3.5/B identified the lack of a collection system as a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-3.5/5.0, generally preventing development until such facilities are 263
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 55
constructed by developers, were adopted to mitigate this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/C noted potential growth-inducing impacts of pipeline construction. These impacts were mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0, preventing the construction of facilities greater than those required for the GPA/EDSP, to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.5/D, 3.5/E and 3.5/G identified current and future inadequate treatment plant capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity as significant impacts. All were mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0 through 3.5/9.0 and 3.5/11.0 through 3.5/14.
▪ Impacts 3.5/F and 3.5/H relate to the increased energy usage as a result of Impacts
3.5/D, E, and G. Both were mitigated by Mitigation Measures 3.5/10.0, 3.5/15.0 and
3.5/16.0 but remained significant and unavoidable impacts. ▪ Impact 3.5/I noted that a failure of the export disposal system could have a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/L noted that the proposed recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly in order to prevent any potential contamination of or cross- connection with potable water supply systems. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers. ▪ Impact 3.5/Q noted that buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase water demand.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/R noted that there would be a significant impact since the increase in water demands through development of the GP/EDSP will require an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water. Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/S noted that at the time there was no water service in the area, with the exception of a Zone 7 water supply connection to Alameda County for the old Santa Rita Jail. With the development of the GP/EDSP, a water distribution system and storage system would be required. If a water distribution system was not constructed, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 through 3.5/38.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/U accounted for the increased energy requirement as a result of increased water demands requiring a water distribution system. Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0 264
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 56
mitigated this impact but was insufficient to reduce the impact to a less than potentially significant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed supplemental impacts of wastewater collection and disposal capacity as changed conditions since the 2002 Supplemental EIR. There were found to be no supplemental impacts to wastewater collection based on the latest 2005 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) using the latest sewer generation rates and long-term wastewater planning. Wastewater disposal capacity was found to be adequate based on completion of a 2005 Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency export pipeline expansion project and no supplemental impacts were found with regard to wastewater disposal.
The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Impacts 3.3/F and H, which includes the project.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, c) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities DSRSD is the water and sewer provider for the project site. DSRSD has master planned the wastewater collection system, treatment capacity and disposal capacity in accordance with the General Plan and EDSP demand levels as documented in the latest 2017 Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facilities Master Plans.
The project area is included within the build out of the GP/EDSP and the proposed project does not increase the demand for water and sewer; therefore, its demand has already been accounted for. Connection fees are based on these master plans and also account for the proposed level of development on the project site. Previous potential impacts due to growth inducing system expansion no longer apply as the project is located within the DSRSD’s service area and would not require expansion of the system. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have been identified.
(b) Sufficient water supplies
DSRSD has master planned their water supply capacity, water distribution system, reservoirs and pumping in the project area in accordance with the General Plan and EDSP demand levels as documented in the current Urban Water Management Plan (2016). Connection fees are based on these master plans and account for the proposed level of development on the project site. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have been identified. 265
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 57
Per SB 221, future development projects would be required to obtain written verification from DSRSD that sufficient water supply is available. This may include the use of recycled water as a way of water conservation. Previous potential impacts due to growth inducing system expansion no longer apply as the project site is located within DSRSD’s service area. (d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance
Approval of future development projects would incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as a result of statewide regulations mandating increased recycling and organics diversion. In addition, future development projects would be required to comply with the Dublin Municipal Code regarding solid waste which includes DMC Chapter 5.32 - Solid Waste Management; 7.30 - Waste Management Plan; and Chapter 7.98 - Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards.
In addition, future development projects would be required to incorporate transportation sustainability practices to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency, and waste reduction.
The EDSP EIRs found that there would be adequate capacity within the local landfill to accommodate increases in the amount of solid waste.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
266
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 58
Wildfires
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
20. Wildfires. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts of wildfires as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures, some of which related to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified and are discussed in the Public Services section.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Impair emergency response plan
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s Wildfire Management Plan and Chapter 7.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code to ensure that emergency access and response plans are not impaired.
Future development would also be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit application requirements to ensure there is adequate fire protection and emergency response access.
267
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 59
(b) Pollutants or uncontrolled spread
Future development would be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit application requirements which would minimize the risk that any pollutant concentrations or wildfire risk as a result of slope, prevailing winds, or other factors that exacerbate wildfire risks could occur beyond what was analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.
(c) Infrastructure
Future development would be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit application requirements which would ensure that all infrastructure is constructed according to the latest City and State fire code requirements.
(d) Slope instability resulting in post-fire slope instability As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, the project includes an erosion control plan that implements slope erosion control measures during and post-construction and does not change historic drainage patterns outside of the project site. The project would not result in changes to drainage or slopes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from wildfires beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
X
268
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 60
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the Biological Resources section, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in the Cultural Resources section, the project site does not contain any significant cultural resources, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the EDSP EIRs. The 269
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 61
EDSP EIRs considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build-out of the EEDSP.
Implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would allow for a broader variety of land uses, including industrial uses such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators. None of these uses or activities would result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
270
kimley-horn.com 824 Bay Avenue, Suite 10, Capitola, CA 95010 831 316 1430
M E M O R A N D U M
August 26, 2021
TO: Amy E. Million, Principal Planner, City of Dublin
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager, City of Dublin FROM: Bill Wiseman and Ben Huie, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
RE: Trip Generation Evaluation for the Fallon-East GPA/SPA – CEQA Analysis Kimley-Horn is preparing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for a City- initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) for 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property and 1.25 acres on the Alameda property in eastern Dublin, CA. This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts associated with changing the existing General Plan land use designation for the project sites from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office to create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the industrial area.
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the change in land use designation would result in additional vehicles trips generated and, consequently, a potential transportation impact.
Project Description
The proposed GPA and SPA would occur on 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property and 1.25 acres on the Alameda property in Eastern Dublin, CA. Both sites are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs”.
This project tiers off of these previous EDSP EIRs which, at that time, significant impacts related to transportation were based on level of service (LOS) and not vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, this transportation evaluation focuses on vehicle trips generated, and not VMT.
271
Amy Million
City of Dublin
According to the City’s General Plan, the General Commercial land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.60. The General Commercia/Campus Office land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.80. Therefore, the only difference between the two land use designations is the increase in the upper limit of FAR from 0.60 to 0.80. However, for the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that the development for the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.28 FAR, and the General Commercial land use designation would be constructed at a density of
0.25 FAR.
Trip Generation Evaluation
To determine if the change in land uses would potentially result in a transportation impact, the vehicle trips generated under the General Commercial land uses were compared to the uses allowed under the General Commercial/Campus Office land use.
Consistent with the City’s strategy to broaden the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators, a General Light Industrial land use category was selected from trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). This was compared to the General Office Building and Shopping Center land use categories, both of which are currently allowed in the City’s General Plan General Commercial land use designation.
To estimate the land use sizes, it was assumed that the sum of the two parcels (i.e., 73.35 acres) would be developed at a density of 0.25 FAR, resulting in a building area of 798.78 thousand square feet (KSF) for General Commercial or at a density of 0.28 FAR, resulting in a building area of 894.64 KSF for General Commercial/Campus Office.
Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each allowed land use for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR is shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR.
272
Amy Million
City of Dublin
Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR ITE
Land
Use
Code
Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
710 General Office
Building 798.78 KSF 7,782 927 797 130 919 147 772
820 Shopping Center 798.78 KSF 30,156 751 466 285 3,043 1,461 1,582 The highest trip number is shown in bold and shaded.
As shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR, the higher of the two uses for each period would result in 30,156 daily trips, 927 AM peak hour trips, and 3,043 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for the likely mix of land uses for General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR is shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR. This assumes 50 percent of the building area would be general light industrial, 25 percent would be general office building, and 25 percent would be shopping center.
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR ITE Land
Use
Code
Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
110 General Light Industrial 447.32 KSF 2,220 313 275 38 282 37 245 710 General Office Building 223.66 KSF 2,180 259 223 36 257 41 216 820 Shopping Center 223.66 KSF 8,444 210 130 80 852 409 443 Total 12,844 782 628 154 1,391 487 904
As shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at
0.28 FAR, likely mix of uses would generate 12,844 daily trips, 782 AM peak hour trips, and 1,391 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation Comparison
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation was compared between the higher trips for the potential uses for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR versus the likely mix of uses for the General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR. This comparison is shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison.
273
Amy Million
City of Dublin
Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
General Commercial 30,156 927 3,043 797 285 1,461 1,582 General Commercial/Campus Office 12,844 782 1,391 628 154 487 904 Difference -
17,312
-145 -1,652
-
169 -131 -974 -678
As shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison, the new General Commercial/Campus Office use would not exceed the existing General Commercial use for the daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour trips and, therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment would not result in any significant transportation impacts.
Conclusion
The proposed GPA and SPA of parcels from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
274
RESOLUTION NO. 21 – 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL POSTPONE TAKING ACTION ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 72.1 ACRES OF THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND THE 1.25-ACRE ALAMEDA PROPERTY; APN:
985-0027-002-00 AND 985-0027-003-00
(PLPA-2021-00009)
WHEREAS, the City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of establishing an economic development zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as r oad and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework supporting the City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan objectives. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while also supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs;” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162, the City prepared an Addendum for the Project (the “Addendum”) shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City Attachment 3
275
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the property owner, GH PacVest, requested postponement of the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to provide time to incorporate land use changes necessary for a future development on their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, the EDSP EIRs, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the necessity of bringing forth the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment at this time given GH PacVest’s testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council postpone approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property to provide time to incorporate land use changes necessary for a future development on their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Dawn Benson, Catheryn Grier, Janine Thalblum, Renata Tyler, Stephen Wright
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
276
Item 6.1
Fallon East
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment
City Council
February 15, 2022
277
Project Location
278
Background
• City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan
– Establishing an Economic Development Zone to
prioritize commercial and industrial development
east of Fallon Road
• City Council Meetings on Sept 15 & Oct. 20
• Economic and job-rich developments
– Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green
Technology, Automation and Robotics, R&D,
Technology Startups and Incubators
279
Background Cont.
• City Council March 16, 2021 GPA Initiation
• City Council May 18, 2021 Fallon Road
Economic Development Zone
280
Existing v. Proposed Land Use
EXISTING PROPOSED
281
Incorporating Sustainability
1. Complete Streets + more
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections
3. EV charging stations
4. Transportation Demand Management measures
5. Smart technology and electric infrastructure
6. Reuse and recycling
7. LEED (building) and Greenroads (streets)
282
Environmental Review
• Prior CEQA Analysis
– Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993)
– East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002)
– Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)
• Addendum
– Equal or Less Severe Impacts
283
Planning Commission Review
• December 14, 2021
– Vote 5-0
• Recommended postponement of GPA
– Incorporate the request by GH PacVest
284
Recommendation
Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and take the
following action:
Adopt the Resolution Approving an Addendum to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Reports and Approving of a General Plan Amendment to
Change the Land Use Designation from General
Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for
Approximately 73 acres of the GH PacVest and Alameda
Properties
285
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 6.2
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and Master Fee Schedule Amendments (PLPA-2022-00002) Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the Citywide Multi-Family (MF) Objective Design Standards (ODS) and companion amendments to Title 8 (Zoning) of the Dublin Municipal Code.
State law requires local jurisdictions to provide a streamlined ministerial approval process for eligible multi-family residential developments, subject to objective zoning and design review standards. The proposed MF ODS and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would ensure that objective zoning and design review standards are in place. The City Council will also consider adopting amendments to the Master Fee Schedule to establish a fee for Zoning Clearances for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review), and Chapter
8.116 (Zoning Clearance), and adopt the Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Establishing an Application Fee, Based on Time and Materials, for Zoning Clearances for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval Effective Citywide.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The costs associated with preparing the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards include staff and consultant time. The consultant costs are offset by a Senate Bill 2 grant. Additionally, the City Council will consider adopting changes to the Master Fee Schedule pertaining to Zoning Clearance for housing projects eligible for streamlined approval. The new application fee is proposed to be based on time and materials to ensure the City recovers the actual costs associated with processing these applications.
286
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) provides for a streamlined ministerial approval process for multi-family residential developments in cities and counties that have made insufficient progress toward meeting their assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), subject to meeting certain eligibility criteria and objective zoning and design review standards. Eligible developments must include a specified level of affordability, be on an infill site, comply with existing general plan or zoning provisions, and comply with other requirements such as location and demolition restrictions.
The legislation defines “objective standards” as standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion. For example, an objective standard for a building setback would provide a specific measurable distance that is required, whereas a subjective or discretionary guideline might use a term such as a “generous” setback is required.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for annually determining which cities and counties are subject to SB 35 and for publishing Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines. The SB 35 streamlined ministerial process is in effect until January 1, 2026. It is unknown if the State legislature will extend or replace SB 35. In accordance with HCD’s most recent determination (last updated July 8, 2021), Dublin has made insufficient progress toward meeting the City’s lower-income RHNA (very-low- and low-income) and is, therefore, subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability.
Proposed Project
In response to the legislation, Staff prepared Multi-Family Objective Design Standards (MF ODS) with assistance from RRM Design Group (the consultant), and prepared companion amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code. Without the MF ODS, the City would have little control over the design of future eligible housing projects where the developer has requested streamlined approval. The proposed project also includes amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish an application fee, based on time and materials, for a Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval.
To prepare the Citywide MF ODS, Staff and the consultant completed the following steps:
Review Existing Policy Documents: Reviewed the City’s existing policy documents, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Scarlett Court Design Guidelines, SDR Guidelines, Streetscape Master Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.
Driving Tour: Conducted a driving tour of multi-family residential developments in Dublin to identify successful and unsuccessful elements of projects. 287
Other Jurisdiction Analysis: Reviewed example MF ODS for other jurisdictions and identified topics and sample standards to be covered in the City’s MF ODS. Translated Subjective Language to Objective Design Standards: Translated existing subjective design guidelines into objective design standards. The new standards were drafted to reinforce the intent of the existing language. Review of Draft. Draft MF ODS were reviewed by the Building and Safety Division, and the Public Works Department.
Analysis
Citywide Multi-family Objective Design Standards
The purpose of the MF ODS is to ensure that new multi-family development in Dublin provides high quality architecture, appropriately connects to surroundings, includes well designed amenities and open spaces, promotes sustainability, and contributes to walkable and safe environments. The MF ODS are intended to guide property owners, applicants/developers, and design professionals, and provide clear design direction that enhances an area’s unique character and ensures a high-quality living environment that will be desirable and hold its value over time, while encouraging creative design that enriches the community of Dublin.
The MF ODS will be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance and supplement existing development standards described in the DMC and Planned Development zoning districts, as well as in adopted specific plans. If there is any conflict between these standards and those in another adopted document, the more restrictive standard shall apply.
The Citywide MF ODS include four chapters: 1) Introduction; 2) Site Planning; 3) Building Design; and 4) Glossary of Terms. The Site Planning objective design standards cover building placement, vehicular surface parking and access, bicycle parking, pedestrian circulation and access, private outdoor space, and common usable outdoor space. The Building Design objective design standards cover building form and massing, façade articulation, roof forms, building and unit entries, fenestration, parking structures, building materials, colors, and lighting, and ancillary structures, equipment, and utilities.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
In addition to the MF ODS, Staff prepared companion amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) including, Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential Development Regulations), Section 8.104.020 (Exemptions from SDR), Section 8.116.020 (Applications Requiring a Zoning Clearance), Section 8.116.030 (Application), Section 8.116.040 (Approval), and Section 8.116.050 (Expiration of Zoning Clearance). The proposed amendments include the following:
Specify that all new multi-family residential development shall comply with the Citywide MF ODS;
Specify that housing projects eligible for streamlined approval are exempt from an SDR Permit in accordance with State law provided that a Zoning Clearance is approved; Establish a required finding that a proposal for a new multi-family residential development complies with the Citywide MF ODS; alternatively, if the proposal deviates from one or more objective design standards, then the proposal meets the purpose and intent of the 288
applicable standard(s); and
Add housing projects eligible for streamline approval to the Zoning Clearance Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance.
Applicability
The Citywide MF ODS would apply to all new multi-family developments within Dublin. Projects that qualify for the SB 35 streamlined ministerial approval process would be required to comply with all of the ODS. All other projects would be subject to the MF ODS but through the City’s discretionary SDR Permit process could be allowed to deviate from the MF ODS when the purpose and intent of the standard is met through alternate means. Allowing flexibility through a discretionary SDR Permit shall not be construed as applying the lowest common denominator that dilutes the quality and character of a project.
The Zoning Ordinance will continue to regulate development standards (such as building height, setbacks, and lot coverage), while the new objective design standards will regulate design criteria (such as site layout, building orientation, pedestrian connections, and building design) to ensure that new multi-family housing maintains a design quality reflective of the community.
Fee Amendments
The California Constitution authorizes local governments to recover the reasonable costs of providing services. Housing projects eligible for a streamlined approval process would be subject to a Zoning Clearance to review the proposal for consistency with the Citywide MF ODS and all other applicable objective standards within the Zoning Ordinance. The actual cost for Planning Staff to review a “Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval” application would vary significantly depending on the scope of work. Therefore, Staff recommends establishing an application fee based on actual time and materials to recover the City’s full costs.
Staff prepared a draft Ordinance approving the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and approving amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (Attachments 1 and 2). Refer to Attachment 3 for a redlined version of proposed zoning text changes where underlined text is proposed to be added. In addition, a draft Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish an application fee for a Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval is included as Attachment 4.
Consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance The proposed Citywide MF ODS and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable specific plans in that the amendments are necessary to comply with State law and are consistent with applicable land use regulations and development policies. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to ensure consistency with State law and implementation of the MF ODS.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed Citywide 289
Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that they would not have a significant effect on the environment and, thus, are not subject to CEQA review.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
On June 8, 2021, the Planning Commission received a presentation and provided feedback on the City’s MF ODS. On January 25, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 22-01 (Attachment 5), recommending City Council approval of the Citywide MF ODS and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times on February 5, 2022, and February 10, 2022, and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance Approving the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and Related Zoning Ordinance Amendments
2) Exhibit A to Attachment 1 – Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards 3) Redlines of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
4) Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule by Establishing One New Application Fee, Based on Time and Materials, for Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval
5) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-01 (without exhibits) 290
Attachment 1
Ord. No. X-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. X-22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.36
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AND CHAPTER 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE)
EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE
PLPA-2022-00002
WHEREAS, the City occasionally initiates amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify, add, or amend certain provisions to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance remains current with federal and state law, internally consistent, simple to understand and implement, and relevant to changes occurring in the community; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) was part of a legislative package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs; and WHEREAS, SB 35 provides a streamlined ministerial approval process for multi- family residential developments in cities and counties that have made insufficient progress towards meeting their assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation, subject to meeting certain eligibility criteria and objective zoning and design review standards; and WHEREAS, in response, the City of Dublin prepared the proposed Citywide Multi- Family Objective Design Standards, attached as Exhibit A , and companion Zoning Ordinance Amendments to meet the requirements of SB 35; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 25, 2022, during which all interested persons were heard, and adopted Resolution No. 22-01 recommending City Council adoption of the proposed Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Dublin City Council recommending approval of the proposed Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Citywide Multi- Family Objective Design Standards and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments on February 15, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
291
Ord. No. X-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the amendments are necessary to comply with State law and are consistent with applicable land use regulations and development policies. Specifically, General Plan Policy A.3 is to “maintain streamlined procedures for processing new residential development applications.”
Section 2. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The City Council hereby finds the proposed Citywide Multi- Family Objective Design Standards and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and, thus, are not subject to CEQA review.
Section 3. Thirty days following the adoption of the Ordinance, the Dublin Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential Development Regulations) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following subsection:
B. All new multi-family residential development shall comply with the Citywide Multi- Family Objective Design Standards, which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. Copies of the adopted standards are on file with the Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, for use and examination by the public. Said standards are adopted by reference and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and as may be amended from time to time pursuant to Government Code Section 65850 et seq.
Section 8.104.020 (Exemptions from Site Development Review) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following subsection:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. Housing projects that are eligible for a streamlined approval process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, provided the Community Development Director or his/her designee approves a Zoning Clearance in accordance with Chapter 8.116.
Subsection B of Section 8.104.090 (Required Findings) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended as follows:
292
Ord. No. X-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 4 B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. For new multi-family residential development only, the proposal is either consistent with all of the Citywide Multi-family Objective Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section
8.36.020(B); alternatively, if the proposal deviates from one or more objective design standards, then the proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable standard.
Section 8.116.020 (Applications Requiring a Zoning Clearance) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the follow subsection:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. Housing projects that meet all eligibility criteria as set forth in Government Code Section 65913.4.
Section 8.116.030 (Application) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the follow subsection:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. If the Zoning Clearance is for a housing project that is eligible for streamlined approval pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, the Applicant shall submit a “Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval” application form provided by the Community Development Department with information requested on the form.
Section 8.116.040 (Approval) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following subsection:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. Housing projects that are eligible for a streamlined approval process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4 shall be reviewed for consistency with the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards contained in Section 8.36.020(B) and all other applicable objective standards within Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Clearance approval for a housing project eligible for streamlined approval shall be a completed “Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval” application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee.
Section 8.116.050 (Expiration of Zoning Clearance) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to add the following subsection:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a housing project eligible for streamlined approval shall expire in accordance with Government Code Section 65913.4(f).
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its final adoption.
293
Ord. No. X-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 4 of 4 Section 5. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _______ 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
294
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
PUBLIC REVIEW
JANUARY 2022
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
295
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
296
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
PREPARED FOR
City of Dublin
PREPARED BY
RRM Design Group
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Melissa Hernandez - Mayor
Jean Josey - Vice Mayor
Sherry Hu
Shawn Kumagai
Michael McCorriston
PLANNING COMMISSION
Dawn Benson
Catheryn Grier
Renata Tyler
Janine Thalblum
Stephen Wright
Kashef Qaadri - Alternate
CITY STAFF
Jeff Baker - Community Development Director
Kristie Wheeler - Assistant Community Development Director Michael P . Cass – Principal Planner
297
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
298
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Organization and Applicability 1-1
CHAPTER 2 – SITE PLANNING
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2.1 Building Placement 2-1
2.2 Vehicular Surface Parking and Access 2-3
2.3 Bicycle Parking 2-5
2.4 Pedestrian Circulation and Access 2-6
2.5 Private Outdoor Space 2-7
2.6 Common Usable Outdoor Space 2-7
CHAPTER 3 – BUILDING DESIGN
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3.1 Building Form and Massing 3-1
3.2 Façade Articulation 3-3
3.3 Roof Forms 3-4
3.4 Building and Unit Entries 3-5
3.5 Fenestration 3-7
3.6 Parking Structures 3-8
3.7 Building Materials, Colors, and Lighting 3-10
3.8 Ancillary Structures, Equipment, and Utilities 3-11
APPENDIX A
Glossary of T erms A-1
299
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
300
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
301
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
302
1 1-1
INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
CHAPTER 1 -
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the Multi-family Objective Design Standards is to ensure that new multi-family development in Dublin provides high quality architecture, appropriately connects to its surroundings, includes well designed amenities and open spaces, promotes sustainability, and contributes to walkable and safe environments. The Multi-family Objective Design Standards are intended to guide property owners, applicants/developers and design professionals and provide clear design direction that enhances an area’s unique character and ensures a high- quality living environment that will be desirable and hold its value over time, while encouraging creative design that enriches the community of Dublin.
1.2 ORGANIZATION AND
APPLICABILITY
The following Multi-family Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Planning and Building Design. The Site Planning Chapter includes objective standards for site layout and building placement, vehicular access and parking, and outdoor spaces and amenities. The Building Design Chapter includes objective standards for building form and massing, façade articulation, unit entries, fenestration, colors and materials, parking structure design, and accessory structures and utilities.
The Multi-family Objective Design Standards supplement existing development standards described in Title 8 (Zoning) of the Dublin Municipal Code and Planned Development zoning districts, as well as in adopted specific plans, such as the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. If there is any conflict between these standards and those in another adopted document, the more restrictive standard shall apply.
303
1 INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
1-2
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
All new multi-family residential development shall comply with the Multi- Family Objective Design Standards contained herein. T o be eligible for a streamlined approval process, the development must meet the specific eligibility criteria as set forth in Government Code Section 65913.4.
Projects that are eligible for streamlined approval shall be consistent with all Multi-Family Objective Design Standards contained herein. The discretionary Site Development Review (SDR) Permit process described in Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.104 shall be used for all developments that are not eligible for streamlined approval. Applicants requesting any deviation from these Multi-Family Objective Design Standards shall be reviewed under the discretionary SDR Permit process.
Allowing flexibility through a discretionary SDR Permit shall not be construed as allowing dilution of the quality and character of a project.
For a glossary of relevant terms used throughout this document, please refer to Appendix A.
304
CHAPTER 2
SITE PLANNING
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
305
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
306
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
2 2-1
SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
CHAPTER 2 - SITE PLANNING
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Site planning refers to the arrangement of buildings and parking areas, the size and location of pedestrian spaces and parking areas, and how these features relate to one another. T opics in this Chapter include building placement, vehicular surface parking and access, bicycle parking, pedestrian circulation and access, and private and common usable outdoor space.
2.1 BUILDING PLACEMENT
A. Buildings located adjacent to the primary street shall have unit front entries facing the street.
B. For buildings not located along the primary street, unit front entries shall be oriented to face internal common open space areas such as landscaped courtyards, plazas, or paseos.
C. Each dwelling unit fronting a primary or side street shall include at least one street-facing porch, balcony, and/or patio.
2.1.A Buildings located adjacent to the primary street shall have unit front entries facing the street
2.1.B Buildings not located along the primary street shall have unit front entries oriented to face internal common open space areas 307
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
2 SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2-2
D. A minimum five-foot wide landscape buffer shall be located adjacent to all ground level private outdoor spaces to provide additional privacy and security for the residents. The buffer shall be planted with dense evergreen shrubs and vines which grow to or are maintained at a three- foot minimum height. Stoops are permitted to encroach into the five- foot wide landscape buffer.
E. Ground floor units shall be located, oriented, and/or screened to prevent visual intrusion of vehicle lights into habitable ground floor spaces.
F. Projects with six or more dwelling units shall cluster mailboxes in a common centralized location that is internal to the site. Clustered mailboxes shall utilize the same colors and/or materials to the main buildings on the site.
2.1.D A minimum five-foot wide landscape buffer shall be located adjacent to all ground level private outdoor spaces to provide additional privacy and security
308
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
2 2-3
SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Greater than
100 feet
100 feet
or less
Parking B.II:
For projects with less than 100 linear feet of primary street frontage, a maximum of one vehicle access point from the primary street is permitted. For projects with 100 linear feet or more of primary street frontage, a maximum of two vehicle access points from the primary street is permitted.
2.2.B Project entries and pedestrian crossings shall feature enhanced paving
2.2.C Interior lots with a street frontage width less than 100 feet, one access point is permitted. Interior lots with a street fronting width greater than 100 feet may have up to two access points.
2.2 VEHICULAR SURFACE
PARKING AND ACCESS
A. When alley or side street access is available, primary access to parking areas shall be taken from this location, rather than the primary street.
B. Enhanced paving treatment using patterned and/or colored pavers, brick, or decorative colored and scored concrete shall be used as follows:
i. Entry Drives - Minimum 12 feet deep across the width of each entry drive.
ii. Pedestrian Crossings - Minimum one foot wider than connecting walkways across the length of the intersecting primary and side streets.
C. For interior lots with less than 100 linear feet of street frontage, a maximum of one vehicle access point from the street is permitted. For interior lots with 100 linear feet or more of street frontage, a maximum of two vehicle access points from the street is permitted. For corner lots, one vehicular access point is permitted per street frontage, with an overall maximum of two vehicular access points permitted. Vehicle access points shall be located near the property line furthest from the intersection.
D. For developments with controlled entrances, including vehicular access gates to parking areas, access shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the back of sidewalk along Collector, Local Residential, or Private streets, and 40 feet from the back of sidewalk along Arterial roadways to accommodate vehicle(s) entering the site without queuing into the street. 309
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
2 SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2-4
E. Surface parking areas for developments shall be screened from the street.
Screening may be accomplished through building placement, landscape features, and/or low walls. Low walls for screening shall be set back at least three feet from the back of public sidewalks with evergreen shrubs and/or vines provided between the sidewalk and wall.
F. Developments with more than 20 units shall provide at least one ride share pick-up and drop-off and/or delivery location within 100 feet of an entrance to the primary building.
i. Ride share pick-up and drop-off and/or delivery locations shall be clearly visible from the roadway and/or primary driveway entrances and provide a passenger loading space or temporary parking space to avoid passenger loading within vehicular circulation routes. ii. Ride share pick-up and drop-off and/or delivery locations shall provide waiting area with a minimum of one bench and one waste/recycling receptacle. Benches shall be covered or located under trees. The waiting area may be located within a building lobby, clubhouse, or common building if the pick-up location is visible from this location.
2.2.E Surface parking areas for developments shall be screened from the street
310
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
2 2-5
SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2.3.A Short-term bicycle racks shall be located in a visible location within 200 feet of the building entrance
2.3.C Long-term bicycle parking shall be located in a secure area within a parking structure or building, or within a lockable storage enclosure
2.3 BICYCLE PARKING
A. Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of permanent, readily visible bicycle racks. Bicycle racks must allow both wheels to be locked to the rack. Racks shall be located within 200 feet of the primary building entrance. Bicycle racks and associated bicycle maneuvering shall not impede upon the public sidewalk path of travel and shall not be placed within the public right-of-way.
B. At least one long-term bicycle storage space is required for each unit and may be located within a designated space within the unit, within individual lockable containers outside of the unit, or within a secure, long-term bicycle parking area.
C. Secure, long-term bicycle parking areas shall be enclosed and designed within a parking structure or building, or within a lockable storage enclosure.
i. Lockable storage enclosures shall not be visible from the right-of-way. ii. Enclosures must be designed with materials and colors used in the primary building or shall be screened with dense evergreen shrubs and trees.
311
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
2 SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2-6
2.4.A On-site pedestrian circulation and access shall be provided to connect the site
2.4.B Differing/contrasting paving materials shall be used to distinguish primary entries to buildings
2.4 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
A. Paved on-site pedestrian circulation and access shall be provided according to the following standards:
i. Connecting residential units to other areas of the site, such as parking areas, common outdoor areas, waste and recycling enclosures, pet waste stations, and pedestrian amenities.
ii. Connecting public sidewalks to building entries and parking areas. iii. Connecting building entrances to all bus/transit stops directly adjacent to the project.
B. Primary entries to buildings shall provide decorative paving that contrasts in color and texture from the adjacent walkway paving to accentuate the entrances.
C. Pedestrian walkways on private property shall be designed with the following conditions:
i. Constructed of firm and slip-resistant materials such as concrete, stamped concrete, or concrete pavers.
ii. Designed with a minimum width of four feet.
iii. Flanked on both sides of the walkways with landscaping, including a mix of turf or low groundcovers and low shrubs that do not exceed four feet in height.
iv. Evergreen canopy trees spaced to shade at least 50 percent of the overall walkway length at maturity.
v. Pedestrian scale lighting fixtures located at least five feet away from adjacent residential dwellings. Design of pedestrian-scale lighting fixtures shall be consistent with building lighting fixtures. 312
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
CITY OF DUBLIN
2 2-7
SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2.5.A Private outdoor space shall be provided for each unit
2.5.B Private outdoor space shall be provided at a minimum of 60 square feet per unit with a minimum dimension of six feet in any direction
2.5 PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE
A. The equivalent of 10 percent or more of the floor area of each unit shall be provided as private outdoor space. For units on upper floors, this outdoor space may be provided by decks and balconies. This requirement may be satisfied by more than one private outdoor space area.
B. Private outdoor space, including balconies provided to meet private outdoor space requirements shall be provided at a minimum of 60 square feet per unit with a minimum dimension of six feet in any direction.
2.6 COMMON USABLE OUTDOOR SPACE
A. Common usable outdoor space shall be provided at minimum 30 percent of the net site area. For example, a one-acre net site would be required to provide 13,068 square feet of common usable outdoor space in one or multiple locations within a project.
B. A minimum of one pet waste bag and disposal station shall be provided common usable outdoor space where pets congregate with a minimum of one pet waste bag and disposal station per development.
C. Common usable outdoor space shall be arranged to afford visibility by on-site users and passers-by. Barriers shall be designed with transparency to afford opportunities for surveillance through the barrier. 6 feet
Min
6 feet
Min
Private
outdoor
space
(60 square
feet
minimum)
313
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
2 SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2-8
2.6.D.iv Outdoor Amenity Table
Number of Units Required Number of
Amenities
1 to 25 1
26 to 50 2
51 to 75 3
76 to 100 4
101 to 150 5
151 to 200 6
201 to 300 7
301 to 400 8
401 to 500 9
501 to 1000 2 percent of total
1001 and over 20, plus 1 for each 100, or
fraction thereof, over 100
Total Number of Outdoor Amenities D. Outdoor Amenity Requirements. i. Outdoor amenities shall be provided as a component of required Common Usable Outdoor Space.
ii. Each common usable outdoor space shall be designed with a minimum of 500 square feet of dedicated and improved open space, with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
iii. Each common usable outdoor amenity space shall include a minimum of one secure in-place waste/recycling receptacle and one covered seating area, unless otherwise specified in this section. iv. The number of amenities within common usable outdoor space shall be based on the number of units within the multi-family project as shown in the Outdoor Amenity Table. Where more than one amenity is required, a combination of the outdoor amenities identified in subsection v. shall be provided.
v. Amenity requirements shall be satisfied with one or more of the following:
a. Children’s play area, with at least four pieces of play equipment, designed for children of all abilities and ages five years and younger. b. A landscaped and improved gathering space,
1. Space shall contain the following:
a. At least four picnic tables or equivalent lounging furniture. b. A minimum of five shade trees.
c. At least two barbecue fixtures and/or two fire pits, d. Minimum two secure in-place waste/recycling receptacles, e. Shade coverage for a minimum of 25% of the gathering space area (shade sail, umbrella, trellis, gazebo, or additional evergreen shade trees beyond the minimum requirement),
2. Gathering areas may be provided either at ground level, or on roof decks/ terraces but shall not be located on
roofs directly adjacent to single-family zoning districts. 2.6.D.v Example of outdoor lounging furniture 314
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
2 2-9
SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2.6.D.v.b Gathering areas shall consist of at least four picnic tables, or equivalent lounging furniture, with at least 25% of the area covered
3. Barbecue fixtures and/or fire pits shall be located at least 20 feet away from adjacent existing and proposed residential units. c An illuminated, regulation size tennis or multipurpose court and incorporating shielded cut-off light fixtures. d. A dedicated and improved illuminated space containing at least one regulation size Bocce, Petanque, or other similar type court.
The space shall contain a minimum of three benches or equivalent lounging furniture (at least one covered by an overhead shade canopy or evergreen tree), at least two secure in-place waste/ recycling receptacles, and a minimum of three shade trees. e. An enclosed, off-leash dog run/relief/wash area including signage and pet waste bag and disposal stations adjacent to all entrances/exits. i. The dog area shall contain at least one three-dimensional dog- oriented improvement (e.g. rock, jumps, fire hydrant).
ii. One potable water connection with dog bowl refilling and dog wash capabilities.
iii. A minimum of three benches or equivalent lounging furniture (at least one covered by an overhead shade canopy or evergreen tree), at least two secure in-place waste/recycling receptacles, and a minimum of three shade trees.
f. Enclosed pool area with a minimum of an 800-square-foot swimming pool with at least one changing area and/or restroom.
The pool area shall include at least three lounge chairs, two side tables, and one outdoor umbrella. Pool area shall include perimeter landscaping consisting of evergreen species and at least three shade trees that do not drop leaves, nuts, or fruits.
2.6.D.v.f &g Amenity areas could include a swimming pool and/or spas 315
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
2 SITE PLANNING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
2-10
g. Enclosed spa area with a minimum of two spas, one
changing area or restroom, and a landscaped area
containing evergreen species and a minimum of two
shade trees, at least two chairs, and one side table.
h. Minimum ¼ mile paved and accessible walking path/trail that is at least five-feet wide, with at least one pedestrian scale light and bench or equivalent lounging furniture provided for every 250 feet of path/trail. Seating areas along the path/trail shall be located adjacent to or in close proximity to the trail, and shall be covered or located under evergreen canopy trees. i. Community garden with at least one potting station containing a minimum two-foot by four-foot table, one compost bin, one shed sized to accommodate gardening tools and designed to match the primary building colors, materials, and architectural style. The community garden shall have at least one potable water connection and have irrigation provided to all garden beds. j. Other outdoor amenities mutually agreed upon
between the developer and the City of Dublin.
2.6.D.v.h Paved and accessible walking path/trail shall be at least five-feet wide with pedestrian scale lighting and seating areas
2.6.D.v.i Community garden shall include at least one potting station, compost bin, and tool shed
316
CHAPTER 3
BUILDING DESIGN
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
317
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
318
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3-1PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 3-1
CHAPTER 3 - BUILDING DESIGN
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Building forms, façades, and detailing influence cohesiveness, comfort, and aesthetic pride. T opics in this Chapter include building massing and form, façade articulation, roof forms, building and unit entries, fenestration, parking structure design, building materials and lighting, and accessory structures and utilities.
3.1 BUILDING FORM AND MASSING
Building massing and design delineate individual units or clusters of units, articulation, distinction, and identity through varied heights, setbacks, projections, and recesses. Materials and colors emphasize changes in building elements and massing.
A. Building façades visible from the primary or side street shall not extend more than 40 feet in length without a five-foot variation in depth in the wall plane. Building entrances, front porches, upper-story setbacks, and projections such as stoops, bays, overhangs, and trellises count towards this requirement.
B. Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate a defined base, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap.
Buildings less than two stories shall include a defined base and top. 40 feet
Max40 feet
Max40 feet
Max
40 feet
Max
40 feet
Max
3.1.A Building façades visible from a primary or side street shall not extend more than 40 feet without a five-foot variation in depth in the wall plane
3.1 Building design shall include
varied heights, setbacks, and
wall plane variation
Building design lacking materials
and colors is not permitted
319
BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
3 3-2
C. A building located adjacent to a primary street frontage shall recess portions of any wall plane above two stories. A minimum of 20 percent of the upper floor facades (measured by the length of first floor wall plane adjacent to the primary street) shall be recessed. The average stepback shall be 10 feet minimum for the upper floors as measured from the first-floor building wall plane. (See Figure 3.1.C) D. If the elevation facing a primary street is longer than 50 feet, no more than 50 percent of a building façade shall be on a single plane. An average of a five-foot offset, with a minimum of one foot offset, is required for the remaining 50 percent of the building façade.
E. Elevations not facing a primary street shall have no more than 75 percent of a building façade on a single plane. An average of a five-foot offset, with a minimum of one foot offset, is required for the remaining 25 percent of the building façade.
3.1.D Building elevations longer than 50 feet along a primary street shall have no more than 50 percent of a building façade on a single plane
3.1.C Upper floor areas stepped back from the primary street 320
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3-3
3.2 FAÇADE ARTICULATION
A. Buildings shall be designed with the same suite of building details, articulation, and materials on all sides.
B. Walls that are publicly visible from a primary or side street shall not run in a continuous horizontal plane for more than 40 feet without incorporating articulation features such as glazing, overhangs, cornices, canopies, columns, pilasters, trellises, arches, or clearly defined projecting or recessed architectural element(s).
C. Building elements that do not provide authentic structural support but are provided to add aesthetic appeal, such as pilasters, columns, and unsupported trellises shall be designed to appear functional. i. Cantilevered balconies are only allowed on buildings with contemporary architectural styles.
ii. All other architectural styles shall incorporate a column, post, corbel, brace, or decorative support cable to ensure the building element appears structurally supported and not tacked on or unsupported.
D. Garage doors shall be recessed into the garage wall, with a minimum of four inches, provided between the face of the garage door and the adjacent primary wall plane, to accentuate shadow patterns and relief.
E. Where a balcony or ground floor patio is located adjacent to a window of an adjoining dwelling unit, the balcony railings or patio wall and/or fencing shall be constructed with limited openings and utilize materials which provide a minimum of 85 percent screening of balcony or ground floor patio areas (measured from the finished floor of private outdoor spaces to top of the railing, fencing, and/or wall).
3.2.D Garage doors shall be recessed into the wall plane
3.2.B Building walls that are visible from a primary or side street shall not run in a continuous horizontal plane for more than 40 feet without incorporating articulation techniques
321
BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
3 3-4
3.3 ROOF FORMS
A. Roof lines shall not extend more than 40 feet in length without a change in form or ridgeline as described below:
i. Vary roof forms, such as hip, gable, shed, flat, and mansard. ii. Incorporate architectural elements, such as parapets, varying cornices, and reveals.
iii. Vary roof height at least two feet from adjacent roofs, as measured from the highest point of the roof lines.
B. Parapets shall be provided around the perimeter of a flat roof and shall be high enough to screen all rooftop mechanical equipment from being visible from a public area or along the public right-of-way. Parapets shall be at least six inches above the tallest rooftop equipment.
C. Interior side of parapet wall shall not be visible from the public right-of- way.
D. Parapet shall be capped with precast treatments, continuous banding, or projecting cornices, dentils, or similar edge treatment consistent with the identified traditional or universally recognized architectural style.
3.3.A Roof lines shall be vertically articulated with a change in form or ridgeline height
3.3.D Parapets shall be articulated to feature stylistic architectural details 322
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3-5
3.4 BUILDING AND UNIT ENTRIES
A. Individual building and/or unit entry design shall incorporate architectural treatments (e.g., feature window details, tower, decorative veneer or siding, porch/stoop), projecting elements above the entrance, and/or changes in roof line or wall planes.
B. Primary entrances located on the ground floor shall include one or more of the following:
i. Stoop:
a. Serving a maximum of two units.
b. Stair width shall be a minimum four feet in width.
Lowest riser shall be set back to ensure railings
do not encroach in the public right-of-way.
c. Entry landing shall be a minimum five feet in depth. d. Either projected or recessed weather protection
with a minimum depth of 36 inches.
ii. Front Porch:
a. Minimum dimension of four feet of depth.
b. Either projected or recessed weather protection
with a minimum depth of 36 inches.
c. Maximum porch floor height from the
sidewalk grade shall be five feet.
3.4.B.i Stoop Entry
3.4.B.ii Front Porch Entry
323
BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
3 3-6
iii. T errace:
a. May serve as entry to multiple units.
b. Maximum terrace floor height from the sidewalk
or walkway grade shall be five feet.
c. Maximum wall/fence/hedge height surrounding
terrace shall be 42 inches above terrace floor.
d. Lowest riser shall be set back to ensure railings
do not encroach in the public right-of-way.
iv. Frontage Court:
a. May serve as entry to multiple units.
b. Minimum width along primary frontage shall be 25 feet. c. Maximum width along primary frontage shall be 50 percent of the façade length or 80 feet, whichever is less.
d. Minimum depth of 15 feet and maximum
depth of 50 feet shall be maintained.
3.4.B.iii Terrace Entry
3.4.B.iv Frontage Court Entry
324
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3-7
3.5 FENESTRATION
A. Functional and decorative shutters shall maintain the same dimensions as the associated glazing. Functional and decorative shutters shall be half the width of the associated window glazing (for paired shutters), or matching width for a single shutter.
B. Window materials, color, and style shall be consistent on all elevations.
C. Window trim, sills, and shutters shall be differentiated with accent materials or colors that vary from the adjacent building wall surfaces.
D. One of the following window treatments shall be provided on all elevations:
i. Windows shall be recessed at least two inches from
surrounding exterior wall to the window glass surface.
ii. Built-up sills and trim, at a minimum ½ inch thick, shall be used to create surface relief and texture.
3.5.B Window materials, colors, and style shall be consistent on all elevations and match the architectural style of the building
3.5.A Shutters shall reflect the same dimensions as the associated glazing 325
BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
3 3-8
3.6 PARKING STRUCTURES
A. Parking structure walls visible from the street shall not extend more than 40 feet in length without a three-foot variation in depth in the wall plane.
B. Exterior parking structure wall surfaces shall mimic the primary building(s) on the site in regards to materials, colors, and design elements such as fenestration, railings, and building opening sizes and shapes and also utilize one or more of the following articulation methods:
i. Applied materials such as brick, stone, and/or siding which extend at least six inches from the face of the structure to the face of the applied materials.
1. Painted, smooth concrete, or stucco walls shall
not be included as articulated materials.
ii. Decorative architectural features such as cut metal screens, awnings, trellises, louvers, and/or decorative security grills.
iii. Parking structures two-stories or less shall apply such articulation to a minimum of 25 percent of the total wall area.
iv. Parking structures three stories and more shall apply such articulation to a minimum of 35 percent of the total wall area.
C. Parking structures facing primary streets shall provide a minimum of a five-foot planting area between the parking structure wall and public street.
D. Vertical planting shall be located to provide screening to wall surfaces located between openings, entrances, and architectural accent features.
Planting shall be evergreen screening vegetation that will grow to a minimum of 75 percent of the height of the parking structure, with container size selected to achieve this height of at least 50 percent within at least two (2) years from time of installation.
3.6.B.ii. Parking structure walls shall feature decorative architectural elements such as screens, awnings, trellises, louvers, and/or grills to enhance wall articulation and provide screening
3.6.D Vertical planting shall be provided to quickly screen non-descript exterior parking structure walls.
326
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3-9
E. For semi-subterranean parking structures facing a primary street, the parking structure walls shall be limited to four feet in height above the average grade along the primary street, and articulated materials requirements per sections A, B, and C shall be incorporated.
F. Parking structures located directly adjacent to a public right-of-way shall provide at least one centrally located exterior pedestrian gathering space such as a plaza or courtyard between the parking structure and the primary roadway. Pedestrian gathering space shall include at least two benches facing the street (covered or shaded by trees), one waste receptacle, and at least four short-term bike racks.
G. Parking structures facing Arterial roadways shall provide commercial mixed-uses and/or habitable uses along 75 percent of the street frontage, where permitted by zoning. Non-parking structure space shall be a minimum depth of 30 feet.
H. Stormwater source controls shall be integrated into parking garages.
Projects shall plumb interior parking garage floor drains to a stormwater treatment measure or the sanitary sewer, with approval from Dublin San Ramon Services District. Open levels of parking garages shall be directed to a stormwater treatment measure and sized in accordance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.
I. Projects shall incorporate green stormwater infrastructure, sized in accordance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, as part of landscape and drainage plans.
3.6.G Parking structures facing Arterial roadways shall provide commercial mixed-uses and/or habitable uses along the street frontage
3.6.F. Parking structures located directly adjacent to a public right-of-way shall provide at least one centrally located pedestrian gathering space 327
BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
3 3-10
3.7 BUILDING MATERIALS, COLORS, AND
LIGHTING
A. Building materials shall wrap building corners and changes shall occur at inside corners of intersecting walls or at architecture features that break up the wall plane, such as columns.
B. Guardrail and railing design, color, finish, and materials shall be consistent with the primary structure.
C. Use of accent materials such as glass, tile, brick, stone, concrete, or plaster shall be incorporated to highlight building features.
D. Bright/vibrant color schemes shall be limited to trim and accent elements.
Bright/vibrant colors are not permitted as a primary wall surface.
E. All building-mounted and site light fixtures shall be fully shielded and utilize cohesive colors and finishes which reflect the primary building’s architectural style.
Materials changes shall not be located at the outside corners or within the wall plane
3.7.D Limit bright and vibrant colors to trim and accent materials
3.7.A Material changes shall occur at inside corners of walls or at architecture features that break up the wall plane 328
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
3 BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
3-11
3.8.C Equipment/utility elements shall be concealed or screened from public view
Exposed equipment/utility elements are not permitted
3.8 ANCILLARY STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT,
AND UTILITIES
A. A minimum of 200 square feet of accessory storage space shall be provided for each unit within the development. The storage shall be located within 500 feet of the dwelling unit or within the project’s parking garage.
B. Accessory storage space may be located within a private garage or carport, or private outdoor space (e.g. patio, or balcony) assigned to the unit, and shall not be located within the habitable area. If accessory storage is provided on a patio or balcony, the amount of storage space shall be in addition to the private open space requirement and shall be designed with materials used within the primary building.
C. In ground and wall mounted utility elements such as wires, conduits, junction boxes, transformers, ballasts, backflow devices, irrigation controllers, switch and panel boxes, and utilities such as gas and electrical meters shall be concealed from public view by evergreen landscaping and/ or architectural features, such as a wall or trellis.
D. Equipment and utility wall and fencing screening shall incorporate the materials and colors of the primary building design. Landscape screening shall be selected and planted to completely conceal utility elements.
E. Detached garages or carports and other accessory buildings/ structures shall be designed using roof forms, materials, colors, and details used on the primary structure. Prefabricated metal carports and accessory structures are not permitted.
i. If carports are utilized, they shall incorporate decorative support posts that are at least six inches wide.
329
BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
3 3-12
F. Refuse areas shall be located within a building, incorporated into the building design, or located within a detached enclosure designed and placed as follows:
i. T o the rear or sides of the buildings, and not visible from the street or public right-of-way.
ii. Incorporate the materials and colors of the primary building design. iii. Be screened with a minimum three-foot-wide planting area containing fast growing evergreen vegetation.
G. All flashing, sheet metal vents, exhaust fans/ventilators, and pipe stacks shall be painted to match the adjacent roof or wall material and/or color.
All wall mounted utilities shall be located at interior corners of building walls or behind building elements that conceal the utilities from public view.
H. Scuppers, downspouts, and drains shall be internalized or located at the inside edges of building walls, porches, or columns. External scuppers, downspouts, and drains are not permitted on prominent or highly visible portions of a wall surface. If they are provided, they shall be painted and/ or constructed of decorative materials that match other building accents.
3.8.G Surface ventilation features shall match the adjacent roof or wall material and/or color
3.8.H Downspouts shall not be prominently located and shall be placed at the inside edges of the building walls and designed to match the other building accents
330
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
331
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
332
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A-1
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY
OF TERMS
The following Glossary of T erms provides definitions of terms and phrases used in the Objective Design Standards. For other definitions, please refer to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) of the Dublin Municipal Code.
Brackets. A projection from a vertical surface providing structural or visual support under cornices, balconies, windows, or any other overhanging member.
Carport. A structure, or portion of a structure, accessible to vehicles, with a solid weatherproof roof that is permanently open on at least two sides, used as parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles.
Common Usable Outdoor Space. Exterior space area that is readily accessible for use by the residents and users within the development.
Designed and reserved for outdoor living and social gathering, active and passive recreation, and pedestrian access and amenities.
Contemporary Architectural Style. A building designed utilizing modern and post-modern character and materials, such as minimal and non-traditional adornments, simple geometric massing, and flat roofs.
Controlled Entrances. Vehicular access to a residential development or property that is obstructed by a gate which residents or visitors can open from their car or home.
Cornice. The uppermost division of an entablature; a projecting shelf along the top of a wall supported by a series of brackets; the exterior trim at the meeting of a roof and wall, consisting of soffit, fascia, and crown molding.
Façade. The exterior face or elevation of the building, extending from grade to the eaves or the top of the parapet wall and the entire width of the building elevation.
Fenestration. The arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows, doors, and other exterior openings in a building.
Frontage Court. An open courtyard area in front of a building’s entrance(s).
Gable Roof. A roof having a gable at one or both ends; a roof sloping downward in two opposite directions from a central ridge, so as to form a gable at each end.
Hipped Roof. A roof which slopes upward from all four sides of a building, requiring a hip rafter at each corner.
Juliet Balcony. An ornamental railing applied at a full-length window, projecting slightly beyond the plane of the window, threshold or sill, having the appearance of a balcony.
333
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY
A
A-2
Publicly Visible. Capable of being seen by a person of average height and visual acuity while walking or driving on a street.
Shutter. Hinged panels, sometimes louvered, fixed on the outside a window that can be closed for security or privacy or to keep out light.
Side Street. A minor or subsidiary street that may intersects with or adjoin a Primary Street.
Traditional or Universally Recognized Architectural Style. There is no predominate residential architectural style in Dublin. Traditional or universally recognized residential architectural styles include, but are not limited to Contemporary, Craftsman, European Cottage, Mediterranean, Monterey, Spanish Eclectic, and T uscan. Refer to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan for additional information on details and styles.
Lounging Furniture. A cohesive set of outdoor furnishings to comfortably accommodate at least four people, such as exterior couches and/or chairs.
Luminaire. A complete lighting system, including a lamp or lamps and a fixture.
Mansard Roof. A roof with a steep lower slope and a flatter upper slope on all sides, either of convex or concave shape.
Net Site Area. T otal area within the property lines of a project that is available for development, excluding all non-buildable areas such as the public right-of-way, creek setbacks, and easements which may be included within the parcel.
Parapet. A low protective wall or railing along the edge of a roof, balcony, or similar structure; in an exterior wall, the part entirely above the roof.
Pilaster. A partial pier or column, often with a base, shaft, and capital that is embedded in a flat wall and projects slightly; may be constructed as a projection of the wall itself.
Primary Street. A public or private street that provides access to the major entry of a project or structure.
Private Outdoor Space. Consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas located immediately adjacent to a residence and only available for use by the individuals residing in the residence.
334
PUBLIC REVIEW
CITY OF DUBLIN
This project was funded by a HCD SB 2 Planning Grant
335
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
336
Attachment 3
SECTION 8.36.020
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
B. All new multi-family residential development shall comply with the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards, which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. Copies of the adopted standards are on file with the Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, for use and examination by the public. Said standards are adopted by reference and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and as may be amended from time to time pursuant to Government Code Section 65850 et seq.
SECTION 8.104.020
EXEMPTIONS FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The permit requirements of this Chapter do not apply to the following:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. Housing projects that are eligible for a streamlined approval process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, provided the Community Development Director or his/her designee approves a Zoning Clearance in accordance with Chapter
8.116.
SECTION 8.104.090
REQUIRED FINDINGS
All of the following findings shall be made in order to approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial evidence in the public record:
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. For new multi-family residential development only, the proposal is either consistent with all of the Citywide Multi-family Objective Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 8.36.020(B); alternatively, if the proposal deviates from one or more objective design standards, then the proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable standard.
SECTION 8.116.020
APPLICATIONS REQUIRING A ZONING CLEARANCE
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. Housing projects that meet all eligibility criteria as set forth in Government Code Section 65913.4. 337
SECTION 8.116.030
APPLICATION
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. If the Zoning Clearance is for a housing project that is eligible for streamlined approval pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, the Applicant shall submit a “Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval” application form provided by the Community Development Department with information requested on the form.
SECTION 8.116.040
APPROVAL
The Director shall decide zoning clearance applications as follows:
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. Housing projects that are eligible for a streamlined approval process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4 shall be reviewed for consistency with the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards contained in Section 8.36.020(B) and all other applicable objective standards within Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Clearance approval for a housing project eligible for streamlined approval shall be a completed “Zoning Clearance for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval” application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee.
SECTION 8.116.050
EXPIRATION OF ZONING CLEARANCE
J. Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a housing project eligible for streamlined approval shall expire in accordance with Government Code Section 65913.4(f).
338
Attachment 4
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING AN APPLICATION FEE,
BASED ON TIME AND MATERIALS, FOR ZONING CLEARANCES FOR HOUSING
PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR STREAMLINED APPROVAL
EFFECTIVE CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, the California Constitution authorizes local governments to recover the reasonable costs of providing services; and
WHEREAS, the City processes various permits, applications, and licenses; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 80-21, adopting an annual update to the Master Fee Schedule for services provided to the City, effective July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) was part of a legislative package of bills aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs; and WHEREAS, SB 35 provides a streamlined ministerial approval process for multi-family residential developments in cities and counties that have made insufficient progress towards meeting their assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation, subject to meeting certain eligibility criteria and objective zoning and design review standards; and WHEREAS, in response, the City of Dublin prepared the proposed Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and companion Zoning Ordinance Amendments to meet the requirements of SB 35; and
WHEREAS, Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval are exempt from a Site Development Review Permit in accordance with State law provided that a Zoning Clearance is approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), revising fees is not a project and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts amendments to the Master Fee Schedule by adding the following:
Section 6.1: Planning Division
# Item / Service Description / Unit Fee
575 Zoning Clearance – Housing Projects
Eligible for Streamlined Approval
Per application T&M
339
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
340
Reso. No. 22-01, Item 6.1, Adopted 01/25/22 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 22-01
A RE
SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RE
COMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF: 1) THE CITYWIDE MULTI-FAMILY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS; AND 2) AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW), AND CHAPTER 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2022-00002
W
HEREAS, the City occasionally initiates amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify, add, or amend certain provisions to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance remains current with federal and state law, internally consistent, simple to understand and implement, and relevant to changes occurring in the community; and
W
HEREAS, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) was part of a legislative package of bills aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs; and W
HEREAS, SB 35 which provides a streamlined ministerial approval process for multi - family residential developments in cities and counties that have made insufficient progress towards meeting their assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation, subject to meeting certain eligibility criteria and objective zoning and design review standards; and W
HEREAS, in response, the City of Dublin prepared Citywide Multi-F amily Objective Design Standards and companion Zoning Ordinance Amendments to meet the requirements of SB 35; and
W
HEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHER
EAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds the proposed Citywide Multi -Family Objective Design Standards and companion Zoning Ordinance Amendments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the y will not have a significant effect on the environment and, thus, are not subject to CEQA review; and
W
HEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 25, 2022, during which all interested persons were heard.
NO
W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance, approving the Citywide Multi -family Objective Design Standards and approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
Attachment 5
341
Reso. No. 22-01, Item 6.1, Adopted 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January , 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Benson, Grier, Thalblum, Tyler, Wright
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
342
Citywide Multi-Family Objective
Design Standards, Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, and Master Fee
Schedule Amendments
City Council
February 15, 2022
Item 6.2
343
Background
• Senate Bill (SB) 35 provides a streamlined
ministerial approval process for eligible multi-
family residential developments
• In effect until January 1, 2026
344
Background
• SB 35 eligible projects must:
– Include specified level of affordability
– Be located on infill site
– Comply with existing residential and mixed-use general plan or zoning provisions
– Comply with objective design review standards
– Comply with other requirements such as locational and demolition restrictions
• HCD annually determines which jurisdictions are
subject to SB 35
345
Senate Bill 35 in Dublin
• As of July 2021, HCD determined the City has
made insufficient progress toward meeting our
lower-income RHNA (very-low and low-income)
• City is subject to streamlined ministerial approval
process for proposed developments with at least
50% affordability
• To date, no applicants have requested SB 35
streamlined ministerial approval process in Dublin
346
Applicability
• Applies to all new multi-family developments
within City
• Projects requesting SB 35 streamlined
ministerial review would be required comply
with all objective design standards
• Other multi-family projects would be subject
to objective design standards, but could deviate
through discretionary SDR Permit process
347
Citywide Multi-Family
Objective Design Standards
Jami Williams, RRM Design Group
348
Project Description
• In response to SB 35, the City identified need to adopt clear and objective standards related to architectural
review of multi-family residential developments
• This involves replacing existing subjective guidelines with objective standards
• All cities must now review eligible projects against
adopted objective standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a city official
349
Objective standards:
Involve no personal judgment by a public
official or decision maker and provide
quantifiable and concise direction for
when and how to apply requirements.
Subjective standards:
Lack specificity and may allow arbitrary
interpretation causing incompatible
design and undesired outcomes.
Subjective vs. Objective Standards
350
Existing vs. New Standards
• Zoning Ordinance regulates development
standards, such as:
– Building height
– Setbacks
– Density/intensity
• Objective standards will not replace existing
development standards
• Objective standards will provide additional
design direction and clarity
351
Process to Prepare Objective Design Standards
• Review existing policy
documents
• Driving tour
• Analyze other jurisdictions
• Translated subjective language
to objective design standards
• Review of draft
352
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Site Planning Objective
Standards
3. Building Design
Objective Standards
4. Glossary of Terms
353
Site Planning Objective Standards
• Site Planning objective design
standards cover:
– Building placement
– Vehicular surface parking and
access
– Bicycle parking
– Pedestrian circulation and access
– Private outdoor space
– Common usable outdoor space
354
Example Site Planning Objective Standards
• A minimum five-foot wide
landscape buffer shall be
located adjacent to all ground
level private outdoor spaces to
provide additional privacy and
security for the residents. The
buffer shall be planted with
dense evergreen shrubs and
vines which grow to or are
maintained at a three-foot
minimum height. Stoops are
permitted to encroach into the
five-foot wide landscape buffer.
(2.1.D)
355
Example Site Planning Objective Standards
• The equivalent of 10
percent or more of the
floor area of each unit shall
be provided as private
outdoor space. For units on
upper floors, this outdoor
space may be provided by
decks and balconies. This
requirement may be
satisfied by more than one
private outdoor space area.
(2.5.A)
356
Building Design Objective Standards
• Building Design objective design standards
cover:
– Building form and massing
– Façade articulation
– Roof forms
– Building and unit entries
– Fenestration
– Parking structures
– Building materials, colors, and lighting
– Accessory structures, equipment, and utilities
357
Example Building Design Objective Standards
• Building walls that are visible from a primary or side street shall not run in a continuous horizontal plane for more than 40 feet without incorporating articulation
techniques. (3.2.B)
358
Example Building Design Objective Standards
• Parking structure walls
shall feature decorative
architectural elements
such as screens, awnings,
trellises, louvers, and/or
grills to enhance wall
articulation and provide
screening. (3.6.B.ii)
359
Proposed Edits to Draft Standards
• A minimum of one pet waste bag and disposal station shall be provided per common usable outdoor space where pets
congregate. with a minimum of one pet waste bag and disposal station per development. (2.6.B)
• Common usable outdoor space shall be arranged to afford maximize visibility by project residents. on-site users and passers- by. Barriers shall be designed with transparency to afford opportunities for surveillance through the barrier. (2.6.C) • A minimum of 200 square cubic feet of accessory storage space shall be provided for each unit within the development. The storage shall be located within 500 feet of the dwelling unit or within the project’s parking garage. (3.8.A)
360
Zoning Ordinance
Amendments
361
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
• Proposed amendments to Dublin Municipal Code:
– Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential
Development Regulations)
– Section 8.104.020 (Exemptions from SDR)
– Section 8.116.020 (Applications Requiring a Zoning
Clearance)
– Section 8.116.030 (Application)
– Section 8.116.040 (Approval)
– Section 8.116.050 (Expiration of Zoning Clearance)
362
Amendments Summary
• Proposed amendments would:
– Specify new multi-family residential developments
shall comply with objective design standards
– Specify housing projects eligible for streamlined
approval are exempt from SDR Permit, provided
Zoning Clearance is approved
– Establish required finding for multi-family residential developments to comply with objective design
standards
363
Planning Commission Review
• On January 25, 2022, the Planning Commission
considered the proposed Citywide Multi-Family
Objective Design Standards and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments and recommended
approval to the City Council
364
Master Fee Schedule
Amendments
365
Master Fee Schedule Amendments
• City can recover reasonable costs of providing
services
• Housing projects eligible for streamlined approval
process would be subject to Zoning Clearance
• Application costs vary depending on project scope
• Recommend establishing an application fee based on
actual time and materials to recover the City’s full
costs
366
Recommendation
• Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance
approving:
– Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards
with edits to Standards 2.6.B, 2.6.C, and 3.8.A; and
– Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code
• Adopt the Resolution amending the Master Fee
Schedule by establishing an application fee for
Zoning Clearances for Housing Projects Eligible
for Streamlined Approval
367
368
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL