Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, December 19, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you.

Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and our network firms have complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.

Significant Risks Identified
We have identified the following significant risks:
x Risk of Management Override of Internal Controls – A risk of management override of internal controls exists at any entity where management can change or decide not to perform that entity’s internal controls.
x Revenue Recognition Risk – Errors in revenue recognition can affect bond covenant ratios and the net position of the City.

Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in Note 1 to the financial statements.

There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant accounting policies or their application during the year ended June 30, 2023. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.

Significant Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments.

The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting th e financial statements are investment valuations, capital asset depreciation and useful life, and pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) plan assumptions.
445
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 3 ends

Management’s estimate of investment valuations, capital assets depreciation and useful life, and pension and OPEB plan assumptions are based on hi storical useful lives of such assets, actuarial assumptions, and the City’s investment custodians, respectively. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate of investment valuations, capital assets depreciation and useful life, and pension and OPEB plan assumptions and determined that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole and in relation to the applicable opinion units.

Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve si gnificant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the City’s financial statements relate to:
x Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
x Cash and Investments
x Long-term Debt
x Capital Assets
x Employee Retirement Plans
x Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Plan
x Commitments and Contingencies
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealin g with management relating to the performance of the audit.

Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards also require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of manage ment. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. Uncorrected missta tements or matters underlying those uncorrected misstatements could potentially cause future-period fi nancial statements to be materially misstated, even though the uncorrected misstatements are immate rial to the financial statements currently under audit.

In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures.

The following material misstatements that we identi fied as a result of our audit procedures were brought to the attention of, and corrected by, management:
446
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 4 ends

x To correct deferred inflow of resources related to leases as of June 30, 2023.

Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City’s financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.

Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representation s from management, which are included in the attached letter dated December 12, 2023.

Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.

Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting prin ciples and auditing standards, significant events or transactions that occurred during the year, oper ating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City’s auditors.

Single Audit Compliance
In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, we examined, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement applicable to each of its major federal programs for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the City’s compliance with those requirements. While our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion, it do es not provide a legal determination on the City’s compliance with those requirements.

Required Supplementary Information
We applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the informatio n and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. 447
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 5 ends

Supplementary Information
We were engaged to report on the combining and in dividual nonmajor fund statements and budgetary comparison schedules for the major capital project funds and nonmajor governmental funds (supplementary information) which accompany the fi nancial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certai n inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the Unit ed States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the inform ation is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.

Other Information Included in Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibili ty as auditors for the introductory and statistical sections, whether financial or nonfinancial, includ ed in the City’s annual comprehensive financial report, does not extend beyond the information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such othe r information. However, in accordance with such standards, we have read the information and considered whether such information, or the manner of its presentation, was materially inconsistent with its presentation in the financial statements.

Our responsibility also includes communicating to yo u any information which we believe is a material misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention th at caused us to believe th at such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially incons istent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements.

This report is intended solely fo r the information and use of the City Council, and management of the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
448
Measure B Funds
Dublin, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Attachment 4
449
450
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report .............................................................................................................................. 1 Financial Statements:

Budgets and Budgetary Accounting ............................................................................................ ..................... 12 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

Measure B – ACTC Streets and Roads Special Revenue Fund .................................................................. 13 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

Measure B – ACTC Bikes and Pedestrians Special Revenue Fund ........................................................... 14 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ....................................................................................................................... 15 Report on Compliance and on Internal Control
over Compliance for Measure B ....................................................................................................................... 17 451
452
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the Measur e B Funds (Measure B Funds) of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements pr esent fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Measure B Funds of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordan ce with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing st andards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the Un ited States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the Measure B Funds of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements The City’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally ac cepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure B Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. 453
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may in volve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggr egate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence rega rding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
x Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Measure B Funds’ internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. x Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
x Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure B Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit.

Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opin ions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Measure B Funds’ financial statements. The budgetary comparison information is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements.

The budgetary comparison information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and ot her records used to prepare the financial statements.

Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, in cluding comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other record s used to prepare the financial statements or to the 2 454
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 3 ends

financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, budgetary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards , we have also issued our report dated December 12, 2023 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of la ws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
3 455
4 456
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission- Measure B Funds Balance Sheet
June 30, 2023

ACTC ACTC
Streets and Bikes and
Roads Pedestrians Total
ASSETS:

Cash and investments 98,984$ 68,179 $ 167,163 $ Total assets 98,984$ 68,179 $ 167,163 $ FUND BALANCES:

Restricted 98,984 $ 68,179 $ 167,163 $ Total fund balances 98,984$ 68,179 $ 167,163 $ See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
5 457
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission- Measure B Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the year ended June 30, 2023

ACTC ACTC
Streets and Bikes and
Roads Pedestrians Total
REVENUES:

Interest income 10,265 $ 3,961 $ 14,226 $ Other revenue - 1,384 1,384
Total revenues 10,265 5,345 15,610 EXPENDITURES:

Streets and roads 827,482 277,206 1,104,688 Total expenditures 827,482 277,206 1,104,688

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES (817,217) (271,861) (1,089,078) FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 916,201 340,040 1,256,241 End of
year 98,984$ 68,179 $ 167,163 $ See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
6 458
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
All transactions of the Alameda County Transpor tation Commission – Measure B Funds (Measure B Funds) of the City of Dublin, California (City), are included as a separate special revenue fund in the basic financial statements of the City. Measure B Funds are used to account for the City’s share of revenues earned and expenditures incurred under the City’s local streets and roads, and bike and pedestrian programs. The accompanying financial statements are for Measure B Funds only and are not intended to fairly present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Revenues are generally recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the related liabilities are incurred.

The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. All governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus, wherein only current assets and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheet. Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets.

C. Fund Accounting
The operations of the Measure B Funds are accounted for in separate special revenue funds. The funds are separate accounting entities with a set of self-balancing accounts which comprise their assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenses.

D. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

2. MEASURE B FUNDS
Under Measure B, approved by the voters of Alameda County in 1986 (ACTA Old Measure B) and in 2000, (ACTC Measure B), the City receives a portion of the proc eeds of an additional one-half cent sales tax to be used for transportation-related expenditures. This measure was adopted with the intention that the funds generated by the additional sales tax will not fund expe nditures previously paid for by property taxes but, rather, would be used for additional projects and programs.

Major projects funded by Measure B were as follows:

Streets and Roads Program – To improve, repair, and overlay city streets.

Bike and Pedestrian Program – To provide sidewalk and American Disability Act (ADA) improvements and to implement the bikeway network.
7 459
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Measure B funds are pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum interest income.

The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Cash an d cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as Cash and Investments.

Measure B Funds had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and Investments $ 167,163
A. Investments
Under the provisions of the City’s investment polic y, and in accordance with California Government Code, the following investments are authorized:
8 460
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
A. Investments, Continued
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, investments were stated at fair value using the aggregate method in all funds and component units. The City’s investments are carrie d at fair market value as required by generally accepted accounting principles. The City accounts for all changes in fair value that occurred during the year and are reflected in the fund balance for th e fiscal year. These investment value changes are unrealized since the City’s policy is to generally hold and buy investments until maturity dates.

B. Risk Disclosures
Interest Rate Risk – Interest rate risk is the fluctuation in fair value of investments due to changes in interest rates. The City’s exposure to losses caused by risi ng interest rates is minimized by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investment not to exceed five years.

Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk of loss of value of a security or investment due to downgrade of its rating due to a change in the ability of the issuer to fulfill its debt obligation. With the exception of U.S.

Treasury securities and authorized pools, no more than 50% of the City’s total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution to reduce the City’s exposure to credit risks.

Custodial Credit Risk – The custodial credit risk for an investment is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. None of the City’s investments were subject to custodial credit risk.

The City’s investments with LAIF at June 30, 2023 include a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. These investments include the following:

Structured Notes – are debt securities (other than asset-back ed securities) whose cash flow characteristics (coupon rate, redemption amount, or stated maturity) depend upon one or more indices and/or have embedded forwards or options.

Asset-Backed Securities – the bulk of which are mortgage-backed securities, entitle their purchasers to receive a share of the cash flows from a pool of assets such as principal and interest repayments from a pool of mortgages (such as Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) or credit card receivables.

As of June 30, 2023, the City invested in LAIF, which had invested 2.78% of the pool investment funds in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities as comp ared to 1.88% in the previous year. The LAIF fair value factor of .984828 was used to calculate the fair value of the investments in LAIF. 9 461
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

4. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. These programs are subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenditures whic h may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 10 462

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
11 463
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure B Funds Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the basic financial statements:
x Prior to June 30 the City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them.
x The public is given an opportunity to comment on the budget at a noticed City Council meeting. Prior to July 1, the budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. x During the fiscal year, the City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between line items, provided that the transfer is within the same fund, regardless of the specific department activity. This include the authority to transfer from the General Fund budgeted contingency amounts that are approved by the City Council during the budget adoption. The City Manager is authorized to increase revenue and expenditure budget for various departmental functions, when the net budget impact is zero.
x The City Manager is authorized to increase the a ppropriations for the following fiscal year in an amount not to exceed the amount of funds encumbered or designated by the City Manager as needed for expenses that did not occur prior to the year-end, but are expected to be expended in the next year consistent with the original purpose.
x Formal budgetary integration is employed as a ma nagement control device during the year for the general fund, special revenue funds and capital projects funds. x Budgets for the general, special revenue and capital projects funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. 12 464
City of Dublin
Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure B - ACTC Streets and Roads
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Interest income - $ - $ 10,265$ 10,265 $ Total revenues - - 10,265 10,265
EXPENDITURES:

Streets and roads 300,000 955,705 827,482 128,223 Total expenditures 300,000 955,705 827,482 128,223
Net change in fund balance (300,000)$ (955,705) $ (817,217) 138,488 $ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 916,201
End of year 98,984$
Budgeted Amounts
For the year ended June 30, 2023
13 465
City of Dublin
Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure B - ACTC Bikes and Pedestrians
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Interest income - $ - $ 3,961$ 3,961 $ Other revenue - - 1,384 1,384
Total revenues - - 5,345 5,345
EXPENDITURES:

Streets and roads - 345,406 277,206 68,200 Total expenditures - 345,406 277,206 68,200
Net change in fund balance -$ (345,406)$ (271,861) 73,545 $ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 340,040
End of year 68,179$
Budgeted Amounts
For the year ended June 30, 2023
14 466

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing st andards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Measure B Funds (Measure B Funds) of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 12, 2023.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limi ted purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficien c i e s i n i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l t h a t m i g h t b e m a t e r i a l weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these lim itations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
467
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Measure B Funds’ financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statement. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
16 468

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR MEASURE B
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on Compliance for Measure B
Opinion on Compliance for Measure B
We have audited City of Dublin’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure B 2000 Funds (Measure B Funds) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure B Funds for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Measure B
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance w i t h a u d i t i n g s t a n d a r d s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d i n t h e United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financia l audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States ( Government Auditing Standards ); and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the City’s Measure B Funds.

Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Measure B Funds compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s Measure B Funds.
469
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the Measure B Fund’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards , and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referr ed to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the a ggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about th e Measure B Fund’s compliance with the requirements of the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the Measure B Fund s’ compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
x Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section ab ove and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined below. However, material weaknesses or significant de ficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.
18 470
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 3 ends

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of de ficiencies in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission that is less severe than a material weakne ss in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the agreement between the City and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
19 471
Measure BB Funds
Dublin, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Attachment 5
472
473
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report ............................................................................................................................. 1 Financial Statements:

Budgets and Budgetary Accounting ............................................................................................. ..................... 12 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

Measure BB – ACTC Streets and Roads Special Revenue Fund ................................................................. 13 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

Measure BB – ACTC Bikes and Pedestrians Special Revenue Fund .......................................................... 14 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ....................................................................................................................... 15 Report on Compliance and on Internal Control
over Compliance for Measure BB .................................................................................................................... 17 474
This page intentionally left blank.
475
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements pr esent fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Measure BB Funds of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordan ce with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing st andards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the Un ited States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the Measure BB Funds of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise subs tantial doubt about the Measure BB Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. 476
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence rega rding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
x Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Measure BB Funds’ internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. x Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
x Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure BB Fund s’ ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opin ions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Measure BB Funds’ financial statements. The budgetary comparison information is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements.

Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, in cluding comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other record s used to prepare the financial statements or to the 2 477
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 3 ends

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 12, 2023 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, cont racts, and grant agreements and other matters. The p u r p o s e o f t h a t r e p o r t i s s o l e l y t o d e s c r i b e t h e s cope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness o f i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l o v e r f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t i n g o r o n c o m p l i a n c e . T h a t r e p o r t i s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f a n a u d i t performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
3 478
This page intentionally left blank.
4 479
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Balance Sheet
June 30, 2023

ACTC ACTC
Streets and Bikes and
Roads Pedestrians Total
ASSETS:

Cash and investments 1,110,336 $ 573,651 $ 1,683,987 $ Direct local distribution program receivables 258,641 89,158 347,799 Total assets 1,368,977$ 662,809 $ 2,031,786 $ FUND BALANCES:

Restricted 1,368,977 $ 662,809 $ 2,031,786 $ Total fund balances 1,368,977$ 662,809 $ 2,031,786 $ See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
5 480
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission - Measure BB Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances

ACTC ACTC
Streets and Bikes and
Roads Pedestrians Total
REVENUES:

Measure BB revenue 1,458,611 $ 502,810 $ 1,961,421 $ Use of money and property 19,983 10,029 30,012 Total revenues 1,478,594 512,839 1,991,433 EXPENDITURES:

Bikes and pedestrians - 9,341 9,341 Streets and roads 857,954 246,465 1,104,419 Total expenditures 857,954 255,806 1,113,760 EXPENDITURES 620,640 257,033 877,673 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 748,337 405,776 1,154,113 End of year 1,368,977 $ 662,809 $ 2,031,786 $ For the year ended June 30, 2023

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
6 481
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
All transactions of the Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) of the City of Dublin, California (City), are included as a separate special revenue fund in the basic financial statements of the City. Measure BB Funds ar e used to account for the City’s share of revenues earned and expenditures incurred under the City’s paratransit, local streets and roads, and bike and pedestrian programs. The accompanying financial statements are for Measure BB Funds only and are not intended to fairly present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Revenues are generally recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the related liabilities are incurred.

C. Fund Accounting
The operations of the Measure BB Funds are accounted for in separate special revenue funds. The funds are separate accounting entities with a set of self-balancing accounts which comprise their assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenses.

2. MEASURE BB FUNDS
Under Measure BB, approved by the vo ters of Alameda County in 2014, the City receives a portion of the proceeds of an additional one-half cent sale s tax t o be use d for t ransp ortation-related expenditures. This measure was adopted with the intention that the funds generated by the additional sales tax will not fund expenditures previously paid for by property taxes but, rather, would be used for additional projects and programs.

Major projects funded by Measure BB were as follows:

Streets and Roads Program – To improve, repair, and overlay city streets.

Bike and Pedestrian Program – To provide sidewalk and American Disability Act (ADA) improvements and to implement the bikeway network.
7 482
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Measure BB funds are pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum interest income.

Measure BB Funds had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and Investments $1,683,987
A. Investments
The City's Investment Policy and the California Government Code allow the City to invest in the following, provided the credit ratings of the issuers are acceptable to the City; and approved percentages and maturities are not exceeded. The table below also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code, or the City's Investment Policy where the City's Investment Policy is more restrictive. 8 483
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

The City’s investments with LAIF at June 30, 2023 include a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. These investments include the following:

As of June 30, 2023, the City had invested in LAIF, which had invested 2.78% of the pool investment funds in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities as compared to 1.88% in the previous year. The LAIF fair value factor of .984828 was used to calculate the fair value of the investments in LAIF. 9 484
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

4. DIRECT LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FROGRAM RECEIVABLES
The receivables represent the Measure BB sales tax reve nues for the fiscal year received from the Alameda County Transportation Commission after June 30, 2023.

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. These programs are subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenditures whic h may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 10 485

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
11 486
City of Dublin
Alameda County Transportation Commission – Measure BB Funds Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the basic financial statements:
x Prior to June 30 the City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them.
x The public is given an opportunity to comment on the budget at a noticed City Council meeting. Prior to July 1, the budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. x During the fiscal year, the City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between line items, provided that the transfer is within the same fund, regardless of the specific department activity. This include the authority to transfer from the General Fund budgeted contingency amounts that are approved by the City Council during the budget adoption. The City Manager is authorized to increase revenue and expenditure budget for various departmental functions, when the net budget impact is zero.
x The City Manager is authorized to increase the a ppropriations for the following fiscal year in an amount not to exceed the amount of funds encumbered or designated by the City Manager as needed for expenses that did not occur prior to the year-end, but are expected to be expended in the next year consistent with the original purpose.
x Formal budgetary integration is employed as a ma nagement control device during the year for the general fund, special revenue funds and capital projects funds. x Budgets for the general, special revenue and capital projects funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. 12 487
City of Dublin
Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure BB - ACTC Streets and Roads
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amount s (Negative)
REVENUES:

Measure BB revenue 1,138,000$ 1,138,000 $ 1,458,611 $ 320,611 $ Use of money and property 4,000 4,000 19,983 15,983
Total revenues 1,142,000 1,142,000 1,478,594 336,594
EXPENDITURES:

Streets and roads 980,000 1,425,980 857,954 568,026
Total expenditures 980,000 1,425,980 857,954 568,026
Net change in fund balance 162,000$ (283,980) $ 620,640 904,620 $ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 748,337
End of year 1,368,977$
Budgeted Amounts
For the year ended June 30, 2023
13 488
City of Dublin
Supplementary Information, Continued
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure BB - ACTC Bikes and Pedestrians
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amount s (Negative)
REVENUES:

Measure BB revenue 376,000$ 376,000 $ 502,810 $ 126,810 $ Use of money and property 1,000 1,000 10,029 9,029
Total revenues 377,000 377,000 512,839 135,839
EXPENDITURES:

Bikes and pedestrians 19,080 19,080 9,341 9,739
Streets and roads 169,148 474,734 246,465 228,269
Total expenditures 188,228 493,814 255,806 238,008
Net change in fund balance 188,772$ (116,814) $ 257,033 373,847 $ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 405,776
End of year 662,809$
Budgeted Amounts
For the year ended June 30, 2023
14 489

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing st andards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 12, 2023.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting in relation to Measure BB Fu nds (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limi ted purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given thes e limitations, during our audit we di d not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
490
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Measure BB Funds’ financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integr al part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
16 491

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR MEASURE BB
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on Compliance for Measure BB
Opinion on Compliance for Measure BB
We have audited City of Dublin’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure BB Funds (Measure BB Funds) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure BB Funds for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Measure BB
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance w i t h a u d i t i n g s t a n d a r d s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d i n t h e United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financia l audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States ( Government Auditing Standards ); and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s Measure BB Funds.
492
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the Measure BB Fund’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards , and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referr ed to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the a ggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the Measure BB Fund’s compliance with the requirements of the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the Measure BB Funds’ compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
x Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Other Matters
Under Measure BB, approved by the voters of Alameda County in 2014, the City has received a total of 12 months of revenue from July 2022 through June 2023. The Local Street and Roads program has received $1,458,611 and the Bike and Pedestrian program has received $502,810. 18 493
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 3 ends

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
19 494
Measure F Alameda
County Vehicle
Registration Fee Fund
Dublin, California
Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor’s Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Attachment 6
495
496
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report ............................................................................................................................. 1 Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................... .......................................... 5 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balance .............................. ................................................................................................... 6 Notes to Financial Statements ............................................................................................... .............................. 7 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ..................................................................................................................... 11 Report on Compliance and Internal Control
over Compliance for Measure F ....................................................................................................................... 13 497
This page intentionally left blank.
498
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the Meas ure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (VRF Fund) of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the VRF Fund of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing st andards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the VRF Fund of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements The City’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control re levant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substant ial doubt about the VRF Fund’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the fina ncial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. 499
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. x Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the VRF Fund’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. x Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
x Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the VR F Fund’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

Page 3 ends

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 12, 2023 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
3 501
This page intentionally left blank.
4 502
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2023
ASSETS:

Cash and investments 232,069 $
Direct local distribution program receivables 62,045
Total assets 294,114$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE:

Liabilities:

Other accrued liabilities 4,903 $
Total liabilities 4,903
Fund Balance:

Restricted 289,211
Total fund balance 289,211
Total liabilities and fund balance 294,114$
See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
5 503
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance REVENUES:

Measure F revenues 337,637 $
Use of money and property 5,558
Total revenues 343,195
EXPENDITURES:

Contractual services 200,000
Streets and roads 96,418
Total expenditures 296,418
EXPENDITURES 46,777
FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 242,434
End of year 289,211$
For the year ended June 30, 2023

REVENUES OVER
See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
6 504
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
All transactions of the Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fees are reported in a special revenue fund (VRF Fund) of the City of Dublin, Calif ornia (City). The special revenue fund is included as part of the State Construction and Maintenance Fund in the basic financial statements of the City.

The Fund is used to account for the City’s revenues earned and expenditures incurred under the City’s various street maintenance and construction projects. The accompanying financial statements are for the VRF Fund only and are not intended to fairly present the financial position of the City.

B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Revenues are generally recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the related liabilities are incurred.

Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets.

C. Fund Accounting
The operations of the VRF Fund are accounted for as part of the State Construction and Maintenance Fund. Funds are separate accounting entities with a set of self-balancing accounts which comprise their assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures.

E. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments
The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as Cash and Investments.
7 505
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued E. Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments, Continued
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 40, Deposit and Investment Disclosures (Amendment of GASB No. 3), certain disclosure requirements for Deposits and Investment Risks were made in the following areas:
Interest Rate Risk
Credit Risk
Overall
Custodial Credit Risk
Concentrations of Credit Risk
In addition, other disclosures are specified includin g use of certain methods to present deposits and investments, highly sensitive investments, credit quality at year-end and other disclosures.

In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, highly liquid market investments with maturities of one year or less at time of purchase are stated at amortized cost.

The City participates in an investment pool manage d by the State of California titled Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) which has invested a port ion of the pooled funds in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. LAIF’s investments are subject to credit risk with the full faith and credit of the State of California collateralizing these investments. In addition, these Structured Notes and Asset- Backed Securities are subject to market risk as to change in interest rates.

F. Revenues and Receivables
During the course of normal operations, the fund carries various receivable balances for intergovernmental revenue and interest. Revenues are recorded when received in cash, except revenues subject to accrual (generally 60 days after year-end ) are recognized when due. The primary revenue sources, which have been treated as susceptibl e to accrual by the fund, are Measure F vehicle registration fees.

2. MEASURE F ALAMEDA COUNTY VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES
The Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Program was approved by the voters in November 2010, with 63 percent of the vote. The fee will generate about $11 million per year by a $10 per year vehicle registration fee. The co llection of the $10 per year vehicle re gistration fee started in the first week of May 2011.

The goal of the VRF program is to sustain the County’s transportation network and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle related pollution. The program includes four categories of projects:
x Local Road Improvement and Repair Program (60 percent) x Transit for Congestion Relief (25 percent)
x Local Transportation Technology (10 percent)
x Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program (5 percent) 8 506
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The VRF Fund’s cash and investments are pooled with the City’s cash and investments in order to generate optimum interest income.

The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from date of acquisition. Ca sh and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as Cash and Investments.

VRF Fund had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2023:

Cash and Investments $ 232,069
A. Investments
The City's Investment Policy and the California Government Code allow the City to invest in the following, provided the credit ratings of the issuers are acceptable to the City; and approved percentages and maturities are not exceeded. The tabl e below also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code, or the City's Investment Policy where the City's Investment Policy is more restrictive.

In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, investments were stated at fair value using the aggregate method in all funds and component units. The City’s investments are carried at fair market value as required by generally accepted accounting pr inciples. The City accounts for all changes in fair value that occurred during the year and are reflec ted in the fund balance for the fiscal year. These investment value changes are unrealized since the Ci ty’s policy is to hold and buy investments until maturity dates.
9 507
City of Dublin
Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2023

3. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
B. Risk Disclosures
Interest Rate Risk – Interest rate risk is the fluctuation in fa ir value of investment due to changes in interest rates. The City’s exposure to losses caused by rising interest rates is minimized by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investment not to exceed five years.

C. Local Agency Investment Fund
The City is a voluntary participant in the Local Agen cy Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The City’s investments with LAIF at June 30, 2023, include a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. These investments include the following:

4. DIRECT LOCAL DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM RECEIVABLES
The receivables represent the Measure F VRF revenues for the fiscal year received from the Alameda County Transportation Commission after June 30, 2023.

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The City participates in several grant programs. Thes e programs are subject to any further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenditures which may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 10 508

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing st andards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (VRF Fund) of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 12, 2023.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limi ted purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficien c i e s i n i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l t h a t m i g h t b e m a t e r i a l weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these lim itations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
509
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the VRF Fund’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compli ance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinio n on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integr al part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
12 510

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER COMPLIANCE FOR MEASURE F
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on Compliance for Measure F
Opinion on Compliance for Measure F
We have audited City of Dublin’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission that could have a direct and material effect on its Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (VRF Fund) for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its VRF Fund for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Measure F
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance w i t h a u d i t i n g s t a n d a r d s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d i n t h e United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financia l audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States ( Government Auditing Standards ); and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for ou r opinion on compliance for the City’s VRF Fund. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the VRF Fund’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s VRF Fund.
511
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the VRF Fund’s compliance based on our audit. Reas onable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards , and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than fo r that resulting from erro r, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepre sentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referr ed to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the a ggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the VRF Fund’s compliance with the requirements of the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the VRF Fund’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. x Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the agreement between the City and Alameda County Transportation Commission, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section ab ove and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined below. However, material weaknesses or significant de ficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.
14 512
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 3 ends

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
15 513
Dublin, California
Single Audit Report
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Attachment 7
514
515
City of Dublin
Single Audit Report
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ........................................................... 1 Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and Report on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with the Uniform Guidance and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ...................................................................................... 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ..................................................................................................... 7 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ............................................................................... 8 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ....................................................................................................... 9 516
This page intentionally left blank
517

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United St ates, the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Dublin, California (City), as of and for the year ended Ju ne 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated December 12, 2023.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that th ere is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in inter nal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consid er to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
518
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 2 ends

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinio n on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
2 519

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND REPORT ON INTERNAL

CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE

AND ON THE SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
Opinion on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Dublin (City)’s comp liance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement t h a t c o u l d h a v e a d i r e c t a n d m a t e r i a l e f f e c t o n e a c h o f t h e City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material re spects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program for the year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance w i t h a u d i t i n g s t a n d a r d s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d i n t h e United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financia l audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States ( Government Auditing Standards ); and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Au dit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Our responsibilities under those standards and the Uniform Guidance are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of cont racts or grant agreements applicable to each of the City’s major federal programs.
520
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 4 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards , and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of intern al control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered ma terial, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influenc e the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about City’s compliance with the requirements of each major federal program.

I n p e r f o r m i n g a n a u d i t i n accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards , and the Uniform Guidance, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regard ing the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
x Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any si gnificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Gi ven these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined below. However, material we aknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified. 4 521
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California

Page 5 ends

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over c o m p l i a n c e d o e s n o t a l l o w m a n a g e m e n t o r e m p l o y e e s , i n t h e n o r m a l c o u r s e o f p e r f o r m i n g t h e i r assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compli ance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the re sults of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated December 12, 2023, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively compri se the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presen ted for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prep are the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in th e United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fa irly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
5 522
This page intentionally left blank
6 523
City of Dublin
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Assistance Agency or
Federal Grantor/Pass-Through Listing Pass-Through Federal Grantor Program Title Number Number Expenditures
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

Passed through Alameda County Housing and Community Development:

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 B23-UC-06-0001 307,566$ Total U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 307,566 U.S. Department of the Treasury:

Direct Programs:

Coronavirus Relief Fund - COVID-19 21.019 777
American Rescue Plan Act - CSLFRF - COVID-19 21.027 1,444,951 Total U.S. Department of the Treasury 1,445,728
U.S. Department of Transportation:

Passed through Alameda County Transportation Commission SAFETEA-LU 20.UNK Not available 661,000$
Total U.S. Department of Transportation 661,000
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Direct Program:

Congressional Directives 93.493 389,480
Total U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 389,480 Total Federal Expenditures 2,803,774$
See Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 7 524
City of Dublin
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards For the year ended June 30, 2023
A. Reporting Entity
The financial reporting entity consists of (a) the pr imary government, City of Dublin, California (City), (b) organizations for which the primary government is financially accountable, and (c) other organizations for which the primary government is not accountable, but for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government are such that exclusion would cause the reporting entity's financial statements to be misleading or incomplete.

B. Basis of Accounting
Funds received under the various grant programs have been recorded within the general, special revenue, and capital projects funds of the City. The City utilizes the modified accrual basis of accounting for the general, special revenue, and capita l projects funds. Expenditures of federal awards reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Schedule) are recognized when incurred.

C. Relationship of Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards to Financial Statements The accompanying Schedule presents the activity of all federal financial assistance programs of the City.

Federal financial assistance received directly from federal agencies as well as federal financial assistance passed through the State of California is included in the Schedule.

The Schedule was prepared only from the accounts of various grant programs and, therefore, does not present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

D. Pass-Through Entities’ Identifying Number
When federal awards were received from a pass-through entity, the Schedule shows, if available, the identifying number assigned by the pass-through en tity. When no identifying number is shown, the City determined that no identifying number is a ssigned for the program or the City was unable to obtain an identifying number from the pass-through entity.

E. Indirect Costs
The City did not elect to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate. 8 525
City of Dublin
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Section I – Summary of Auditor’s Results
Financial Statements
Types of auditors’ report issued on whether financial statements audited were prepared in accordance with GAAP: Unmodified Internal control over financial reporting:
x Material weakness(es) identified? No
x Significant deficiency(ies) identified? None noted Any noncompliance material to the financial statements noted No Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:
x Material weakness(es) identified? No
x Significant deficiency(ies) identified? None noted Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for major programs Unmodified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with section 200.516(a) No
Identification of major programs:

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B program $750,000 Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee under
s e c t i o n 2 0 0 . 5 2 0 ? N o
9 526
City of Dublin
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the year ended June 30, 2023
Section II – Current Year Findings
A. Financial Statement Audit
No current year financial statement audit findings.

B. Federal Award Program Audit
No current year federal award program audit findings.

Section II – Prior Year Findings
A. Financial Statement Audit
No prior year financial statement audit findings.

B. Federal Award Program Audit
No prior year federal award program audit findings.
10 527
Dublin, California
Independent Accountants’ Report on
Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024
Attachment 8
528
529
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule of the City of Dublin (City) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. The City’s management is responsible for the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule.

The City has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose of the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution.

Additionally, the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agreed-upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution) has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes. This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this re port and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for de termining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes.

The procedures performed and our findings are described below:

1. We obtained the completed worksheets used by the City to calculate its appropriations limit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, and determined that the limit and annual calculation factors were adopted by resolution of City Coun cil. We also determined that the population and inflation options were selected by a recorded vote of City Council.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule, we added the prior year’s limit to the total adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to the current year’s limit.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

3. We agreed the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to corresponding information in worksheets used by the City.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

4. We agreed the prior year appropriations limi t presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City Council during the prior year.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 530
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Dublin
Dublin, California
We were engaged by the City to perform this ag reed-upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accompanying Appropriation Limit Schedule. Accordingly, we do no t express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed-upon procedures engagement.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these sp ecified parties. However, this report is a matter of public record, and its distribution is not limited.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 12, 2023
2 531
City of Dublin
Appropriations Limit Schedule
Amount Source
A. Appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2023 450,080,278$ Prior year resolution B. Calculation Factors:

1. Population increase % 0.9962 State Department of Finance

2. Inflation increase % 1.0444 Count y of Alameda

3. Total adjustment factor % 1.0404 B1*B2
C. Annual Adjustment Increase 18,183,243 [(B3-1)A)]
D. Other Adjustments - N/A
E. Total Adjustments 18,183,243 (C+D)
F. Appropriations limit for the year ending June 30, 2024 468,263,521$ (A+E) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024
3 532
City of Dublin
Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024

1. PURPOSE OF LIMITED PROCEDURES REVIEW
Under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (the Gann Spending Limitation Initiative), California governmental agencies are restricted as to the amount of annual appropriations from proceeds of taxes.

Effective for years beginning on or after July 1, 1990, under Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB, the annual calculation of the appropriations limit is subject to a limited procedures review in connection with the annual audit.

2. METHOD OF CALCULATION
Under Section 10.5 of Article XIIIB, for fiscal years be ginning on or after July 1990, the appropriations limit is required to be calculated based on the limit for the fiscal year 1986-1987, adjusted for the inflation and population factors discussed in Notes 3 and 4 below.

3. INFLATION FACTORS
A California governmental agency may adjust its appropriations limit by either the annual percentage change in the 4th quarter per capita personal income (which percentage is supplied by the State Department of Finance), or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the change of local nonresidential construction. The factor adopte d by the City of Dublin for the fiscal year 2023-2024 represents the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the change of local nonresidential construction.

4. POPULATION FACTORS
A California governmental agency may adjust its appropriations limit by either the annual percentage change of the jurisdiction’s own population, or the annual percentage change in population in the County where the jurisdiction is located. The factor adopted by the City of Dublin for fiscal year 2023-2024 represents the annual percentage change in population for the City.

5. OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
A California government agency may be required to adjust its appropriations limit when certain events occur, such as the transfer of responsibility for muni cipal services, to, or from, another government agency or private entity. There were no adjustments made for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. 4 533

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 5.13
DATE: December 19, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Grant Program Application Authorization
Prepared by: Michelle Sung, Environmental Technician
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider authorizing the submittal of grant program applications to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for all programs for which the City of Dublin is eligible.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Individual Applications for CalRecycle Grant Programs.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers various funding and grant programs to assist public agencies with efforts to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state, preserve landfill capacity, and protect public health, safety, and the environment. CalRecycle grant application procedures require governing bodies to declare, by resolution, certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants.

Approval of the attached Resolution will facilitate Dublin’s administration of CalRecycle grant programs by authorizing the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, or their designees, to apply for any such grant programs for which the City is eligible. The Resolution would also allow authorized Staff to execute all documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the grant program. The Resolution would be effective for five years from the date 534

Page 2 of 2 ends

of adoption, which is the maximum effective duration allowed by CalRecycle.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Individual Applications for CalRecycle Grant Programs 535
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS FOR CALRECYCLE

GRANT PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs in furtherance of the State of California’s efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin authorizes the submittal of applications to CalRecycle for all grants for which the City of Dublin is eligible.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, or their designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Dublin all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these authorizations are effective for five years from the date of adoption of this Resolution.
{Signatures on the Following Page}
536
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
537

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 4 ends

Agenda Item 6.1
DATE: December 19, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Vacation of Right-of-Way on Croak Road and Approving a Quitclaim Deed Prepared by: Kan Xu, Principal Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving the vacation of public street right-of-way on Croak Road between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway for the Francis Ranch development (formerly East Ranch) and approving a Quitclaim Deed to facilitate the transfer of excess property.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Vacating Right-of-Way on Croak Road and Approving a Quitclaim Deed.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund. All costs associated with processing the vacation are borne by the developer.

DESCRIPTION:

The 165.5-acre Francis Ranch development, formerly East Ranch, is located on undeveloped parcels within the Fallon Village area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The site is located north of Interstate 580, east of Fallon Road and the Jordan Ranch development, south of the Positano development, and adjacent to the City’s eastern boundary. The property is owned by Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC, which is a land bank entity. Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC (Owner), is working with TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC, to develop the project.

TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC (Developer) received various planning approvals to develop the Project into six neighborhoods that include the construction of 459 conventional single-family homes, 14 zero-lot-line single-family homes, and 100 townhomes. As a part of the project, the Developer will realign, widen, and improve Croak Road to its ultimate right-of-way width as required by the Project conditions of approval on the vesting tentative map and in compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
538

Page 2 of 4 ends

The City acquired fee title to Croak Road from the County of Alameda with the incorporation of the City in 1982. Croak Road is currently a low-volume, two-lane rural road between the two parcels that make up the development and is used as ingress and egress by adjacent property owners and as an emergency vehicle access for both the Positano and Jordan Ranch neighborhoods. The Owner has requested that the City vacate the existing Croak Road right-of-way within the project boundary between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway to facilitate development. If Croak Road is vacated, the Owner will merge the vacated right-of-way with the existing project parcels and dedicate a new Croak Road right-of-way to the City. The merger of parcels and the dedication of the new right-of-way will occur with approval and recordation of the final map for the Francis Ranch subdivision, Tract 8563. The new Croak Road will have a similar alignment, provide one vehicle lane and one bike lane in each direction, and will include a Class I trail. The new road will be a residential collector street providing access to all neighborhoods within the development and connecting to Central Parkway, Fallon Road, and eventually the future Dublin Boulevard extension.

The process for vacating public right-of-way is set forth in the California Streets and Highways Code Section 8310 et. seq. These statutes provide that the City Council must initiate vacation proceedings, a notice of a public hearing on the matter must then be posted along the portion of the street to be vacated, and the notice of a public hearing must be published for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8322 and 8323).

Before the public hearing, the Planning Commission must approve a report to the City Council indicating whether it believes that the vacation is consistent with the General Plan unless exempt by Government Code Section 65402. Finally, the City Council must conduct a public hearing, hear evidence regarding the proposal, and then adopt a Resolution of Vacation. In conjunction with the resolution, the Streets and Highways Code also requires that the City Council find that the proposed portion of right-of-way to be vacated is unnecessary for present or prospective public use and is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility.

At its August 15, 2023 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 82-23 initiating the vacation process by declaring its intent to vacate the portion of public street right-of-way on Croak Road between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway and setting a public hearing (Attachment 4).

Approval of the proposed Resolution would declare that the portion of public street right-of-way on Croak Road between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway is unnecessary for present or prospective use, that it is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility, and that the City vacates that portion of Croak Road. If the City Council adopts the Resolution, the vacation will become effective when the Resolution is recorded with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office.

General Plan Consistency
The Streets and Highways Code requires that, if the proposed vacation of a street or public service easement is within an area for which a general plan is adopted, the City Council should consider the General Plan prior to vacating the easement. The Planning Commission is also required to consider the proposal and report to the City Council as to its conformity with the General Plan. 539

Page 3 of 4 ends

However, many relinquishments and acquisitions of real property, such as the vacation of this subject right-of-way, are of such minor nature that Planning Commission review and their report to the City Council as to their General Plan consistency serves no purpose. Government Code Section 65402 permits the City Council to exempt, by resolution or ordinance, the following kinds of proposed dispositions and acquisitions of real property from the requirement that the Planning Commission report to the City Council as to their General Plan consistency, provided they are of a minor nature:

1. The disposition of the remainder of a large parcel which was acquired and used in part for street purposes.

2. Acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening.

3. Street alignment projects.

On July 19, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 125-16 Exempting Certain Minor Dispositions and Acquisitions of Real Property or Interests in Real Property from Required Report to the City Council by the Planning Commission as to their General Plan Consistency (Attachment 5). The proposed vacation of this subject right-of-way is minor in nature and for a street alignment purpose, and therefore this action is exempt from the requirement that the Planning Commission report to the City Council as to the General Plan conformity.

Disposition of Excess Property
Streets and Highways Code Section 8355(a) allows the City to quitclaim the subject right-of-way in conjunction with its vacation. Approval of the proposed Quitclaim Deed (Attachment 3) quitclaims the former public right-of-way (or disclaims all interest in and conveys that interest), to the Developer. In exchange for the subject right-of-way, the Owner will dedicate new Croak Road right-of-way to the City. Staff has determined that no compensation is required for this quitclaim because the area of new right-of-way dedicated to the City exceeds that of the area quitclaimed to the Owner.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E), the property qualifies as “exempt surplus land” and would not be subject to the Surplus Land Act because it is a former right-of-way and is being conveyed to an owner of an adjacent property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This vacation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

In compliance with state law, a notice of this hearing was published in the East Bay Times and was 540

Page 4 of 4 ends

posted in three public places and in the area proposed to be vacated. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Vacating Right-of-Way on Croak Road and Approving a Quitclaim Deed 2) Exhibits A and B to the Resolution – Legal Description and Plat Map 3) Exhibit C to the Resolution – Quitclaim Deed
4) Resolution No. 82-23 of Intent to Vacate Right-of-Way on Croak Road and Setting a Public Hearing
5) Resolution No. 125-16 Exempting Certain Minor Dispositions and Acquisitions of Real Property or Interests in Real Property from Required Report to the City Council by the Planning Commission as to their General Plan Consistency 541
Attachment I
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 12/19/2023 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ON CROAK ROAD AND APPROVING A QUITCLAIM DEED WHEREAS, TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC received various planning approvals to develop the Francis Ranch (formerly East Ranch) project site and the project tentative map and conditions of approval require Croak Road to be realigned, widened, and improved to its ultimate right-of- way width; and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC is the land bank entity and current owner of the Francis Ranch property and is working with TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC to subdivide and develop Francis Ranch; and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC requests the City of Dublin vacate existing Croak Road right-of-way between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway, as described in the legal description and depicted on the plat map, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B , to facilitate development of the site; and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC will dedicate new Croak Road right-of-way as a part of the Francis Ranch development; and
WHEREAS, Section 8320, et. seq., of the California Streets and Highways Code provides for the general vacation of street right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 82-23 initiating the vacation process by declaring its intent to vacate the portion of Croak Road right-of-way between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway and setting a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Section 8324 of the California Streets and Highways Code authorizes the City Council to vacate street right-of-way if the right-of-way is unnecessary for present or prospective public use and is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility; and WHEREAS, the California Streets and Highways Code requires consideration of a general plan, including by the Planning Commission, if a proposed vacation is within a general plan area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 125-16 exempting certain minor dispositions and acquisitions of real property or interests in real property from required report to the City Council by the Planning Commission as to their General Plan consistency, including dispositions for street alignment projects; and
WHEREAS, the subject right-of-way vacation is minor in nature and for a street alignment purpose and therefore exempt from the requirement that the Planning Commission report to the City Council as to the General Plan conformity; and
542
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 12/19/2023 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, Section 8355(a) of the California Streets and Highways Code authorizes the City Council to sell or exchange City property previously subject to a street, highway, or public service easement, and is no longer needed by the public, in the manner, and upon the terms and conditions, approved by City Council; and
WHEREAS, a Quitclaim Deed has been prepared which quitclaims the former public right- of-way on Croak Road to Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E) the property qualifies as “exempt surplus land” because it is a former right-of-way and is being conveyed to an owner of an adjacent property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds that:

1. The portion of Croak Road right-of-way between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway, located within the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California, is unnecessary for present or prospective public use and is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility because the Francis Ranch project will dedicate a wider Croak Road right-of-way.

2. All public utility agencies and companies providing service in the project area have been notified about the proposed vacation and have not objected to the proposed vacation.

3. The vacation of the right-of-way is in conformance with the City’s General Plan pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code.

4. The proposed vacation of the right-of-way is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title14 California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings made and the above provisions of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council hereby order the vacation of the portion of Croak Road right-of-way between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway, as shown on Exhibits A and B.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Alameda.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Quitclaim Deed, as shown on Exhibit C, is hereby approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to take any and all further actions to effectuate the vacation and quitclaim of the right-of-way, including the execution of said Quitclaim Deed.
543
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 12/19/2023 Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
544
EXHIBIT "A"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

CROAK ROAD ABANDONMENT
19343.00T
10/10/2023
Page lof2

REAL PROPERTY TN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEING THE ENTIRETY OF CROAK ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 2612, OF DEEDS AT PAGE 352, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS OF ARROYO CAP IV-3, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2023111606, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS.

SEE PLAT, "EXHIBIT B", TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.

APN: 905-0002-001-0 I AND 905-0002-002

END OF DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY:

IAN BR CE CDONALD
LICENSE LAND SURVEYOR NO. 8817

ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA
IIACKAY 8c &DRIPS
CML ENGINEERING•LAND PLANNING•LAND SURVE'l1NG 5142 Franl<lin Drive Suite B, Pleasanton, CA. 94588-3355 (925) 225-0690
P:\ 19343-T\SR V\Mapping\Desc\Croak Road Abandonment.doc Attachment 2
545
546

Attachment 3

Mail Tax Statements To: SAME AS ABOVE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

First American Title Company

MAIL TAX STATEMENT
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL DOCUMENT TO:

ARROYO CAP IV-3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company

Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use Only

QUITCLAIM DEED

A.P.N.: 905-0002-001-01 and
905-0002-002
File No.: 0192-598563MAP (BS)

The Undersigned Grantor(s) Declare(s):

CITY TRANSFER TAX $
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $0.00 Consideration is less than $100.00 SURVEY MONUMENT FEE $

[

] computed on the consideration or full value of property conveyed, OR [

] computed on the consideration or full value less value of liens and/or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, [

] unincorporated area; [ X ] City of Dublin, and

SURVEY MONUMENT FEE $
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The City of Dublin, a municipal corporation, as successor to the County of Alameda, a political subdivision of the State of California
hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim to ARROYO CAP IV-3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
the following described property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California:

Legal Description and Plat Map are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B".

This Quitclaim Deed is being recorded to relinquish all right, title and interest in and to a portion of Croak Road as conveyed to the County of Alameda in the Grant Deed recorded in Book 2612, Of Deeds at Page 352, Alameda County Records, as described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto.

547

Page 2 of 2 ends

A.P.N.: 905-0002-001-01 and
905-0002-002

Dated: ______________________, 2023

The City of Dublin, a municipal
corporation, as successor to the
County of Alameda, a political
subdivision of the State of California

By: ________________________________

Name: _____________________________

Title: ______________________________
File No.: 0192-598563MAP (BS)

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF )SS

COUNTY OF )

On before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared

who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowl edged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. This area for official notarial seal.

Notary Signature

548
549
550
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FACBEBB-61A8-4E1B-9825-BD20EFEB0F7A RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

OF INTENT TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON CROAK ROAD AND SETTING A PUBLIC

HEARING
WHEREAS, TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC received various planning approvals to develop the Francis Ranch (formerly East Ranch) project site and the project tentative map and conditions of approval require Croak Road to be realigned, widened, and improved to its ultimate right-of way width; and
WHEREAS, City of Dublin acquired fee title to Croak Road from the County of Alameda as a result of the incorporation of the City in 1982; and
WHEREAS, Croak Road bisects the Francis Ranch development and is used as ingress and egress by adjacent property owners and as emergency vehicle access for the Positano and Jordan Ranch developments; and
WHEREAS, TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC requests the City of Dublin to vacate existing Croak Road right-of-way between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway to facilitate development of the site; and
WHEREAS, TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC will dedicate new Croak Road right-of-way as a part of the Francis Ranch development; and
WHEREAS, the new Croak Road will maintain a similar street alignment, provide access to all neighborhoods within the Francis Ranch development, and connect to Central Parkway, Fallon Road, and eventually to the future Dublin Boulevard extension.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts this Resolution under the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code Section 8310 et. seq. and Section 8320 in particular, and that it is the intention of the City Council to vacate the portion of Croak Road right-of-way between South Terracina Drive and Central Parkway.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin will conduct a public hearing on the proposed vacation of Croak Road right-of-way on September 5, 2023, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in the City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, California 94568. At the public hearing, any objections to the proposed vacation of Croak Road right-of-way shall be presented.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that notice, in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Sections 8322 and 8323, shall be posted along the portion of the street to be vacated and published for at least two successive weeks in a newspaper published in Alameda County preceding the date of the public hearing.

Reso. No. 82-23, Item 4.6, Adopted 08/15/2023 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 4
551
Reso. No. 82-23, Item 4.6, Adopted 08/15/2023 Page2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Hu, Josey, McCorriston, Qaadri and Mayor Hernandez NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FACBEBB- 61A8- 4E1B- 9825- BD20EFEB0F7A 552
Exhibit A
Portion of Croak Road to be Vacated
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FACBEBB- 61A8- 4E1B- 9825- BD20EFEB0F7A 553
RESOLUTION NO. 125 - 16

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *********

EXEMPTING CERTAIN MINOR DISPOSITIONS AND ACQUISITIONS

OF REAL PROPERTY OR INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY FROM REQUIRED REPORT TO

THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

AS TO THEIR GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, as required by law, the Planning Commission generally reports to the City Council as to the General Plan consistency of proposed City dispositions and acquisitions of real property or interests in real property to which the General Plan applies; and WHEREAS, many dispositions and acquisitions of real property or interests therein are of such a minor nature that Planning Commission review and report to the City Council as to their General Plan consistency serves no purpose; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65402 permits the City Council to exempt certain kinds of proposed dispositions and acquisitions of real property or interests therein from the requirement of Planning Commission report to the City Council as to their General Plan consistency.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that, provided they are of a minor nature, the following kinds of dispositions and acquisitions of real property or interests therein shall be exempt from the requirement that the Planning Commission report to the City Council as to their consistency with the General Plan:

A) The disposition of the remainder of a larger parcel which was acquired and used in part for street purposes
B) Acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening C) Street alignment projects
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 2016, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Wehrenberg, and Mayor Haubert NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Reso No. 125-16, Adopted 7-19-16, Item 4.5
Mayor

Page 1 of 1 ends

Attachment 5
554
Vacation of Right-of-Way on
Croak Road and Approving a
Quitclaim Deed
December 19, 2023
555
Background
• TH East Ranch Dublin, LLC (Trumark)
received various entitlements to develop the
Francis Ranch project (formerly East Ranch).
• Arroyo Cap IV-3, LLC, the land bank entity is
the property owner.
• Project requires Croak Road be widened and
improved to its ultimate right-of-way.
556
Right-of-Way Vacation
• General Vacation procedure defined in
California Streets and Highways Code (Cal.

SHC) Section 8310, et. seq.
• On August 15, 2023, City Council initiated the
vacation process by declaring intent to vacate
right-of-way.
557
Right-of-Way Vacation
• Cal. SHC Section 8324 authorizes the CC to
vacate street right-of-way if the right-of-way is
unnecessary for present or prospective public
use and is not useful as a non-motorized
transportation facility.
558
Right-of-Way Vacation
• Cal. SHC requires consideration of the
General Plan by the Planning Commission.
• Resolution 125-16 exempts certain minor
dispositions and acquisitions of real property
or interests in real property from required
report to CC from PC as to general plan
consistency.
559
Right-of-Way Vacation
• Vacation of Croak Road and disposition of real
property is for street alignment purposes and
thus exempt from report to CC from PC.
• Real property considered “exempt surplus
land”.
560
Right-of-Way Vacation
561
Right-of-Way Vacation
562

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item 6.2
DATE: December 19, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision Implementation General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider amendments to the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to further implement the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision approved by the City Council in 2019. The amendments consist of adding Research and Development as a new land use, increasing the residential allocation by 465 units, decreasing the non-residential allocation by 300,000 square feet, increasing the building height and floor area ratio in “The Core” area of the Retail District, and changing setbacks. No specific development is proposed at this time. An Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that concludes that all potential environmental effects were adequately addressed in the original EIR.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to Further Implement the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Costs associated with the proposed amendments were included in the Community Development Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. These costs include the hiring of a consultant to prepare the Addendum to the EIR and local transportation analysis for the proposed project at an estimated cost of $50,125, in addition to staff time associated with the development of the proposed amendments.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), adopted in 2011, is “to create 563

Page 2 of 6 ends

a vibrant, dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents.” On November 5, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 115-19 approving the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision. The Preferred Vision builds upon the DDSP’s vision and incorporates a new and extensive street grid network, including a main street experience, a new town square, and a mixture of supportive land uses such as retail, office, hotel, and residential. In 2020, the City Council approved amendments to the DDSP focused on the initial implementation of the Preferred Vision.

Upon adoption of the Preferred Vision, it was understood that amendments to the DDSP would be necessary and that those amendments would happen gradually over time along with the other efforts needed to implement the Preferred Vision. The DDSP was amended in 2019 and 2020 as part of this effort.

In February 2022, the City Council received a presentation on the Downtown as part of its Strategic Planning Workshop. The presentation included steps towards seeing the Preferred Vision come to fruition. It focused on the coordination efforts with the property owner of the Dublin Place shopping center and the property owner’s needs in order to make the development project for the Preferred Vision a reality. Among other things, the presentation described the need to: (a) increase the floor area ratio (FAR) and building height to match the Transit Oriented District; (b) increase the residential allocation to address the property owner’s development plan for 1,500 units and the 416 units the Housing Element would add; and (c) create development standards that better support the three key elements of the Preferred Vision. Those development standards include eight floors, 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story, and 90 feet maximum building height in the Retail District.

The changes to the development standards and the increase to density were also contemplated in the Preferred Vision. The Preferred Vision anticipated between approximately 1,100 and 1,700 units for the Dublin Place shopping center. This aligns with the development project shown in the American Realty Advisors (ARA) and Hines Master Plan, which is seeking just under 1,500 units.

On October 17, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the DDSP (Attachment 4 includes a complete background and description). At the meeting, the City Council discussed the details of the proposed amendments and the future development project for the Dublin Place shopping center. The discussion focused on the increase in density and building height, building area for manufacturing uses, the design of the Town Square, location and siting context of the downtown area, building setbacks, and future discretion of the City Council. At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Council continued the public hearing to a date uncertain.

On November 6, 2023, the City Council held a public study session and received a presentation from Staff as well as the City’s consultant Urban Field Studio, the property owner (City’s Public- Private Partner) ARA, ARA’s Development Manager Hines, and ARA’s Master Planning Architect Gensler on the proposed implementation of the Preferred Vision. 564

Page 3 of 6 ends

Response to Comments
In response to City Council comments from both the October 17, 2023 City Council meeting and the November 6, 2023 study session, minor modifications to the DDSP Amendments have been included for consideration.

Clarification to Building Area (DDSP p. 43)
The footnote on Table 3-1 regarding manufacturing uses has been amended to clarify that they are limited to 10% of the building floor area.

Building Height (DDSP p. 57)
The first phase of the Preferred Vision is focused on The Core area of the Retail District. Therefore, as stated in the October 17, 2023 Staff Report, Staff intended the proposed increase in building height and FAR to apply only to The Core area. The draft amendments related to building height, attached to the October 17, 2023 Staff Report, were more broadly applicable to the Retail District.

To be consistent with the Staff Report and the first phase of the Preferred Vision, the proposed amendment has been modified to limit the increase in building height to The Core area only. As a result, the existing height limits for the Retail District, outside The Core, remain unchanged at six floors and 75 feet building height maximum not including the parapet.

As shown in the conceptual images provided by ARA and Gensler on November 6, 2023, one of the configurations being considered are single story commercial buildings on the east side of the Town Square creating a vibrant space between the Town Square and the life sciences buildings.

The DDSP currently does not allow buildings under 40 feet in height. The purpose of this requirement was to preserve the intended mass and scale of the area around the Town Square and within The Core area. As demonstrated by the November 6, 2023 presentation, the City can accomplish its goals for creating a vibrant downtown and also address the City Council’s desire to have the development around the Town Square step back. The DDSP Amendment has been modified to allow an exception to the 40 feet minimum through the Site Development Review Permit (SDR) process.

City Council Discretion for Future Projects
Projects that are consistent with the DDSP require an SDR from the Planning Commission. Unless the decision by the Planning Commission is appealed or referred to the City Council, the City Council is not the reviewing authority for SDRs. The City Council provided direction to have SDRs for projects within The Core be reviewed by the City Council. Including City Council as the decision-making authority for SDRs for projects which are subject to review by the Planning Commission in The Core is consistent with the City’s procedural process which already allows referrals of SDRs to the City Council.

Setbacks
As mentioned above, City Council expressed interest in ensuring that the buildings around the Town Square step back to improve the experience in the park. The DDSP has an existing policy that encourages stepping back of the upper floors of buildings (DDSP p.57). In addition, if the DDSP Amendments are adopted as presented, the City Council would have discretion to allow an exception to the minimum and maximum building height limits providing a greater variety to 565

Page 4 of 6 ends

massing and scale within The Core area. No further amendment to the DDSP is proposed.

Modified Amendments
Staff believes that the proposed modifications that have been made to the DDSP Amendments that were presented to the Planning Commission on September 12, 2023, and to the City Council on October 17, 2023, are not substantial and, therefore, are not required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Collectively, the proposed changes allow for a reduced development potential through limiting the increase in building height for the Retail District to The Core area only and allow for an exception to the minimum building height. Clarifying that building area refers to floor area is consistent with the City’s longstanding interpretation of the DDSP and Zoning Ordinance.

The draft Resolution approving the proposed amendments to the General Plan and DDSP is included as Attachment 1. The proposed amendments to the DDSP are provided in a redline format in Attachment 2 where underlined text is proposed to be added and text with a strikethrough is proposed to be deleted.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In 2010, an EIR was prepared to address potential environmental impacts of the DDSP. The DDSP EIR (SCH# 2010022005) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was certified by the City Council on February 1, 2011.

The DDSP was adopted by the Dublin City Council in February 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the downtown area that would be more conducive to a walkable, mixed-use, and vibrant community. The boundaries of the DDSP encompassed boundaries of five other specific plans that were dissolved when the DDSP was adopted. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village Parkway Districts), with separate development standards for each.

Subsequent to adoption, the DDSP has been amended five times, including the 2020 DDSP Amendments focused on the initial implementation of the Preferred Vision approved by City Council on November 5, 2019, which included three primary components: 1) Siting of a Town Square; 2) New Street Grid Network; and 3) Downtown Character.

The proposed amendments further implement the Preferred Vision by increasing the residential development potential by 465 units and decreasing the non-residential square footage by 300,000 square feet, increasing the building height and FAR in “The Core” area of the Retail District, and amending the design standards and allowable uses.

The project was examined to determine if any of the standards contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of supplemental environmental review would be met.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following:
566

Page 5 of 6 ends

a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts than what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums. The project is consistent with the land uses for the project area analyzed in the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums, and the project would not increase the overall development potential allowed in the DDSP. The project does not constitute a substantial change to the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums analyses, 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 circumstances or conditions involving new or more severe significant impact than was analyzed in the DDSP EIR or subsequent Addendums. The project will not increase the overall development potential as previously analyzed in the EIR and subsequent Addendums because the increase in residential units would be offset by the decrease in commercial development.
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? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All future development projects would be required to comply with the design standards of the DDSP and applicable regulatory requirements. No new or different mitigation measures are required for the project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the DDSP area.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared?
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.

Therefore, no further environmental review or documentation is required. No subsequent Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums.

The Initial Study and CEQA Addendum are included as Attachment 3. 567

Page 6 of 6 ends

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 1: Downtown Dublin and Economic Development.

Objective A: Continue support of the Downtown Preferred Vision and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan including improving visual and environmental quality and evaluating specific business uses.

Objective B: Pursue mixed-use projects to create economic vitality. Implement the City's adopted Preferred Vision for Downtown Dublin.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A notice of this hearing was also mailed to all property owners and tenants in the DDSP area, those within 300 feet of the DDSP boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interested in being notified of meetings.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution amending the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to Further Implement the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision
2) DDSP Amendments - Redlined Pages
3) CEQA Addendum
4) City Council October 17, 2023 Agenda Item without Attachments 568
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2023 Page 1 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. xx - 23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO

FURTHER IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN PREFERRED VISION
PLPA-2023-00001
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-11 approving the DDSP and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (DDSP) (EIR) (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP EIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284-acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non-residential uses; and WHEREAS, subsequent to adoption, the DDSP has been amended five times, including the 2020 DDSP Amendments focused on the initial implementation of the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision approved by City Council on November 5, 2019, which included three primary components: 1) Siting of a Town Square; 2) New Street Grid Network; and 3) Downtown Character; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the General Plan and DDSP further implement the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision by increasing the residential development potential by 465 units and decreasing the non-residential square footage by 300,000 square feet, increasing the building height and floor area ratio (FAR) in “The Core” area of the Retail District, and amending the design standards and allowable uses, hereafter referred to as the “2023 DDSP Amendment” or the “Project;” and
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 under Section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) require that when an EIR or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant 569

Page 2 of 9 ends

environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adoption measures or alternative; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Project was examined to determine if any of the standards contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of supplemental environmental review would be met. The analysis, as further detailed in the Staff Report, dated December 19, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference, concluded that none of the standards contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of supplemental environmental review are met; the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums; no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met and no further environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on September 12, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-07 recommending that the City Council approve the 2023 DDSP Amendment, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2023 DDSP Amendment on October 17, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and continued to the proposed project to a undetermined date; and 570

Page 3 of 9 ends

WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated December 19, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2023 DDSP Amendment for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the 2023 DDSP Amendment on December 19, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above- referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Council finds that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest and will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan as amended will remain internally consistent.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following amendments to the General Plan:

Page 1 ends

the Downtown Dublin-Retail District land use classification to a maximum of 2.5 and for the Downtown Dublin-Transit Oriented District land use classification to a maximum FAR of 2.5 to be consistent with Table 2.1 as follows:

B. DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Downtown Dublin – Village Parkway District (Maximum FAR: .35; employee density: 200- 450 square feet per employee)
This designation allows a range of residential, commercial, and mixed uses consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.

Downtown Dublin – Retail District (Maximum FAR: 2.0 - 2.5; employee density: 200-450 square feet per employee)
This designation allows a range of residential, commercial, and mixed uses consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.

Maximum FAR is 2.5 in “The Core.” In “The Core,” the FAR may be spread through all developable parcels (this does not include the Town Square). Outside “The Core,” the maximum FAR is 2.0.
571

Page 4 of 9 ends

Downtown Dublin – Transit-Oriented District (Maximum FAR: 2.5; employee density: 200- 450 square feet per employee)
This designation allows a range of residential, commercial, and mixed uses consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.

Table 2.1 shall be revised as follows: (Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is shown here. All other sections and footnotes of Table 2.1 remain the same):

Table 2.1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area Downtown
Dublin
Specific Plan
Area
Acres Dwelling
Units/acre
Dwelling
Units
Persons/Dwelling
Unit Population
Downtown
Dublin 230.2 6.1-25.1+ 3.3815 2.7 6,750
Downtown
Dublin
Specific Plan
Area
Acres
Maximum
Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Maximum
Potential
Square Feet4
Square
Feet/employee Jobs
Village
Parkway
District

32.9 .35 .50 200-450 1,115-2,508
Retail District 113.1 2.0-2.56 9.94,5 200-450 6,139-13,814 Transit-
Oriented
District

84.2 2.5 9.24 200-450 8,492-19,108
Total: 230.2 19.6 15,746-35,430

ACRES DWELLING

UNITS POPULATION SQUARE FEET
(MILLIONS) JOBS
GRAND
TOTAL 2,494.48 6,770-14,333 20,242-42,854 14.16-16.59 28,952-63,175 6 Maximum FAR is 2.5 in “The Core.” In “The Core,” the FAR may be spread through all developable parcels (this does not include the Town Square). Outside “The Core,” the maximum FAR is 2.0.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan:

Page 43 ends

an allowed use in the Retail District and Transit-Oriented District and Prohibited in the Village Parkway Districts as follows:

Table 3-1: Land Uses
BUILDING USES 1 RETAIL

DISTRICT

TRANSIT-

ORIENTED

DISTRICT

VILLAGE

PARKWAY

DISTRICT
Research and Development Allowed7 Allowed7 Prohibited
7 Manufacturing uses are limited to less than 10% of the building floor area. A CUP is required for manufacturing uses greater than 10% up to a maximum of 20% of the building floor area. 572

Page 5 of 9 ends

Page 45 ends

as follows:

3.4.16 Research and Development
Any establishment which primary use is for research and development purposes including, but not limited to, science and engineering laboratories (research, development, and testing), quality assurance work (dimensional analysis), and software development and engineering. Limited manufacturing uses are allowed as part of the primary use. Such uses may not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, and may not include outdoor storage and operations.

Page 47 ends

Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District

DISTRICT BASE
FAR

MAXIMUM
FAR
Retail 0.35 2.0
The Core 0.50 2.5
Transit-
Oriented 0.50 2.5
Village
Parkway 0.35 0.35

Page 47 ends

This Specific Plan allows for future construction of approximately 2.2 million square feet of non- residential development and 3,381 residential dwelling units (416 of these units are exempt from the Community Benefit Program as further described in Section 6.4 Development Pool and Community Benefit Program).

Page 48 ends

Table 3-4: Net New Development

DISTRICT
NON-

RESIDENTIAL
(SF)

RESIDENTIAL
(DU)

MINIMUM

RESIDENTIAL

DENSITY
Retail
1,866,810
(+150 hotel rooms)
3,381
22 units/net acre
Transit-
Oriented 30 units/net acres
Village
Parkway 20,730 No minimum
Total
1,962,540
(includes 150 hotel
rooms)
Notes. Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet constructed 573

Page 6 of 9 ends

Page 53 ends

Boulevard and San Ramon Road shall be amended to read as follows:

LOT SIZE AND BUILDING PLACEMENT
4 Street Setback
from Dublin
Boulevard and
San Ramon
Road
10 ft. min at ground level.

The street setback may be improved as an extension of the public sidewalk if accessible to the public through an established easement.

Along Dublin Boulevard, upper floors above 20 ft. may reduce setback to 5 ft.

Page 57 ends

Residential Units, and 3 Building Height shall be amended to read as follows:

BUILDING DESIGN
1 Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)

0.35 base outside “The Core” and 0.50 in “The Core.”

2.0 max. outside “The Core” and 2.5 max. in “The Core.” In The Core, the FAR may be spread through all developable parcels (this does not include the Town Square) (required participation in the development density pool, an agreement with the City, and provision of a community benefit in compliance with the Community Benefit Program).1 574

Page 7 of 9 ends

2 Residential
Units
Not permitted west of San Ramon Road.

Allowed at a minimum density of 22 units per net acre.

Permitted within a mixed-use development if designed based on the following standards:
 The development includes ground floor retail or office space that equals an FAR of 0.3 min.
 Retail or office space is built along at least 80% of the property’s total street frontage and set back no more than 10 ft. from the building setback requirement.
 Common open space for the residential units is provided at a rate of 15% of the site’s total area.
 The above standards may be modified through an SDR as part of a mixed-use development in the “The Core” area.

Projects that include residential development within 1,000 ft. of either Interstate 580 or 680 (or less per Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s current guidelines) shall incorporate the following standards to minimize potentially adverse air quality affects:
 Configure the proposed buildings so that the bulk of the building is located farther from the highway.
 Place heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system intakes as far away from highway as feasible.
 Include high efficiency filters in the HVAC system (rated with a minimum efficiency rating value [MERV] of at least 13). This would also include a commitment to regular maintenance and replacement of filters as needed.
 Provide positive pressure with the HVAC system in all occupied spaces to prevent the incursion of outside air that bypasses the HVAC filters.
 To reduce the amount of outside unfiltered air indoors, do not place operable windows in close proximity to the highway. In addition, signs should be posted to keep exterior doors closed when not in use.
3 Building Height
Outside “The Core:” 6 floors and 75 ft. max. (tower elements, architectural and articulated design features, solar panels, and small- scale wind turbines may extend 10 ft. max. beyond this height) Inside “The Core:” 8 floors and no more than 75 ft. to the finished floor of the highest story. Maximum building height is 90 ft. (tower elements, architectural and articulated design features, solar panels, and small- scale wind turbines may extend 10 ft. max. beyond this height).

Minimum building height is 40 ft., except for structures within the Town Square. The maximum and minimum heights may be modified through an SDR.
575

Page 8 of 9 ends

Page 58 ends

and 6 Storefront Awnings shall be amended to read as follows:

PROJECTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS INTO SETBACKS
2 Stoops
Permitted for residential use only.
5 ft. min usable walkway must be maintained on private streets and 10 ft. on public streets.
3 Bay Windows
2 ft. max into all setbacks.
4 ft. max along Dublin Boulevard.
12 ft. min. vertical clearance required over sidewalks, walkways, and private outdoor spaces.
6 Storefront
Awnings
6 ft. max into all setbacks.
8 ft. max along Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive. 8 ft. min vertical clearance required over sidewalks, walkways, and private outdoor spaces.

Page 86 ends

 At least 20% of the façade’s surface area should consist of windows (including glass on doors). Windows shall be provided on all floors of the building. Exceptions to window area may be approved for parking structures. See Section 4.4.14 for design guidelines for Parking Structures.

Page 103 ends

consistent with graphic on page 104 as follows:
 The length of parking spaces may be reduced by up to 2.5 feet if the vehicle will overhang a landscape planter which has been designed to accommodate the vehicle overhang plus additional space for planting. The planter shall be protected by a curb or wheel stop and should include low lying plants where the vehicle will overhang the planter.
576

Page 9 of 9 ends

Page 121 ends

Table 6-1: Development Pool

DISTRICT
NON-

RESIDENTIAL
SQUARE

FOOTAGE

NUMBER OF

RESIDENTIAL

DWELLINGS
Retail 1,020,220
(+150 hotel
rooms) 2,965
Transit-
Oriented
Village
Parkway 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
577
L A N D U S E AN D D E V E L O P M E N T PLA N | 3 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN 43

3.4 Land Use Designations
Within each of the Specific Plan districts, there are a variety of land uses that may be permitted. Table 3-1: Land Uses, identifies the uses that are allowed, prohibited, and permitted with a use permit within each of the districts. Descriptions of each land use are described below, and the Community Development Director can allow similar uses. In addition, the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision sites a Town Square within the Retail District.

Table 3-1: Land Uses
B UIL D IN G US E S 1 R E T A IL

D IS T R IC T

T R A N S IT-

O R IE N T E D

D IS T RICT

V IL L A G E

P A R KW A Y

D IS T R ICT
Regional Retail Allowed Prohibited 2 Prohibited
Community Retail Allowed Allowed Allowed
Outdoor Dining Allowed 3 Allowed 3 Allowed 3
Dining and/or Entertainment Allowed Allowed Allowed
Office Allowed Allowed Allowed
Lodging Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Live-Work 5 Allowed 6 Allowed CUP/PC 4
Multi-Family Residential 5 Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed
Mixed-Use Non-Residential Allowed Allowed Allowed
Mixed-Use Residential 5 Allowed 6 Allowed Allowed
Indoor Recreation ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA ZC or MUP/ZA Auto Service/Sales CUP/ZA CUP/PC CUP/ZA
Drive-Through and Drive-In Businesses CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC Civic, Cultural, and Institutional CUP/PC CUP/PC CUP/PC Town Square Allowed Prohibited Prohibited
Research and Development Allowed7 Allowed7 Prohibited
Temporary Uses TUP TUP TUP
Notes 1 Additional and similar uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director. 2 Prohibited unless adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
3 Assuming accessibility (ADA) standards can be met.
4 May be permitted with a CUP/PC in a mixed-use development. 5 Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of I-580 or I-680. 6 Allowed throughout the Retail District except on those properties west of San Ramon Road 67 Manufacturing uses are limited to less than ten percent of the building floor area. A CUP is required for manufacturing uses greater than 10% up to maximum of 20% of the building floor area.

CUP – Conditional Use Permit PC – Planning Commission
TUP – Temporary Use Permit ZA – Zoning Administrator
ZC – Zoning Clearance MUP – Minor Use Permit
Attachment 2
578
L A N D U S E AN D D E V E L O P M E N T PLA N | 3 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN 45

3.4.13 Civic, Cultural, and Institutional
Any establishment that is open to the general public or a group of members that involves gathering for religious, social, cultural, or educational purposes. Such uses include museums, churches, gathering halls, community centers, post office, and public parking.

3.4.14 Temporary Uses
Any non-permanent use as defined by Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit), in the Zoning Ordinance.

3.4.15 Town Square
A one-acre park and plaza that serves as Downtown Dublin’s central public gathering place.

Limited manufacturing uses are allowed as part of the primary use. Such uses may not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, and may not include outdoor storage and operations.

3.5 Future Development Assumptions
Development activities under this Specific Plan are anticipated to occur over the next 15 to 20 years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land uses will include new development and that many of the existing structures will remain essentially the same in their size and configuration but perhaps remodeled.

A brief assessment of development conditions since 2000 is described below, followed by a summary of future market demand. Based on this information, future development assumptions for each district are identified, which will be used as the basis for infrastructure improvements and potential environmental impacts as described in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Past Development Activities
Downtown Dublin is largely built-out and there are very few vacant parcels on which new development could occur. Future development will therefore occur as properties are modified, in some cases at a higher density. Due to existing FAR and parking requirements, limited net new additional density opportunities exist, particularly in the Village Parkway District.

Based on City estimates and as described in the Downtown Dublin Opportunities, Issues & Strategies Report (RBF Consulting, 2009), approximately 258,734 square feet of non-residential development has occurred since adoption of the West Dublin BART, Downtown Core, and Village Parkway Specific Plans in December 2000. With the exception of a senior residential development (Wicklow Square) and senior center (15,300 square feet), all of this development (243,434 square feet) has been commercial retail development. There has been no hotel, office or residential development constructed in the Downtown December 2000 through 2009, despite the fact that the three above mentioned specific plans collectively allowed for nearly 3.2 million square feet of retail/office/commercial space, 150 hotel rooms, and 740 residential dwelling units.

Large format retail has also been changing and now competes directly with online shopping. A more diverse and mixed development pattern is more likely to replace large format retail in due time.

Proposed New Development
Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the Specific Plan Area. The most significant development is the construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The station is being constructed within the median of Interstate 580 with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the freeway. By the year 2013, the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day.

Within the City of Dublin, a 713-space parking garage has been constructed at the southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART project, a 150-room hotel, 7,500 square feet of retail space have been planned for (Stage I Development Plan), and 309 residential units (Essex) have been entitled west of Golden Gate Drive. 579
L A N D U S E AN D D E V E L O P M E N T PLA N | 3 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN 47
Development Plan
This Specific Plan provides a development plan for the next 15 to 20 years.

Each Specific Plan district identifies a broad range of land uses that can be developed, either outright or through a Conditional Use Permit. These land uses, which include regional retail, community retail, office, residential, mixed use and public uses, are described in detail in Section

3.4: Land Use Designations. This approach will allow greater flexibility in the ultimate development pattern, while still maintaining a common vision for function and urban character within Downtown Dublin.

For each district, this Specific Plan identifies a specific set of development standards that will apply to all new buildings and significantly remodeled buildings. These standards include lot size and building placement, access, parking, building density or floor area ratio (FAR), and building height and setbacks.

The actual density of development allowed on a particular parcel will be regulated by the FAR. This Specific Plan identifies both a base FAR that is allowed outright and a maximum FAR that can be constructed based on the use and district. If a property owner would like to develop a project beyond the base FAR, they may obtain additional square footage up to the maximum FAR by drawing on the Development Pool that has been established for specific uses in each district. The density Development Pool applies to both residential and non-residential development. As shown below in Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District, the maximum FAR would be greater than the base FAR for the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts, but would remain the same in the Village Parkway District.

Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District

D IS T R IC T B A S E FA R M A X IM UM
FA R
Retail 0.35 2.0
The Core 0.50 2.5
Transit-Oriented 0.50 2.5
Village Parkway 0.35 0.35

Downtown Dublin is largely built out, which means that new development projects will primarily replace (or expand upon) existing developments and land uses. Based on discussions with stakeholders, the general public, and City staff, as well as an assessment of underutilized parcels, a conservative estimate was made that 50% of the parcels within Downtown Dublin could be privately developed with new development projects over the next 15+ years.

This Specific Plan allows for a future construction of approximately 2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,916 3,381 residential dwelling units (416 of these units are exempt from the Community Benefit Program as further described in Section 6.4 Development Pool and Community Benefit Program).

Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit (and an average of 500 square feet per hotel room), this represents 5.83 million square feet under this Specific Plan.

A breakdown of development potential (including base and maximum FAR) by district is shown in Table 3-4: Net New Development. 580

3 | L A N D U S E A N D D E VE L O P M E N T P L AN 48 CITY OF DUBLIN
Table 3-4: Net New Development

D IS T R IC T N O N- R ES ID E N T IA L
( S F)

R E S ID E N T IA L
( D U)

M IN IM UM

R E S ID ENT IA L

DE N S IT Y
Retail
2,166,8101,866,810
(+150 hotel rooms)
2,916 3,381
22 units/net acre
Transit-
Oriented
30 units/net acres
Village
Parkway 20,730 No minimum
Total
2,262,5401,962,540
(includes 150
hotel rooms)

Notes: Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet constructed.

Includes 416 units which are exempt from the Devel opment Pool, as further discussed in Section 6.4: Development Pool and Community Benefit Program.

While this represents the theoretical buildout of net new development in Downtown Dublin, the ultimate amount of future development will likely be less due to non-tangibles such as market demand, ownership patterns, tenant lease terms, other available vacant land (e.g. East Dublin), etc.

Additionally, Downtown Dublin is largely developed, resulting in significant physical limitations such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation.

When a project applicant proposes to develop using a portion of the density development pool allocation, they will be required to enter into an agreement with the City and provide a community benefit in accordance with the Community Benefit Program. The life of the agreement will be limited to a specific time period so that if a project is not constructed, the square footage can be returned to the density development pool and available for use by another development project in the same District. See Section 6.4 for further discussion on the density development pool and Community Benefit Program.

581

4 | D E V E L O PM E N T S T A N D A R D S A N D D E S IG N G U I D E LI N E S 52 CITY OF DUBLIN
Dublin Boulevard or San Ramon Road
Other Streets
Buildable Area Required Setbacks
2 1
4 5
6 Residential Property Non-Residential Property
7 7
7 Non-Residential Property
1 2
1 2
4 Property Line

L O T S IZE A N D B UIL D IN G PL A CE M E N T
1 Lot Width1 50 ft min
2 Lot Depth1 80 ft min
3 Lot Size1 10,000 sf min
4 Street Setback from
Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road
10 ft min at ground level
The street setback may be improved as an extension of
the public sidewalk if accessible to the public through an established easement. Along Dublin Boulevard, upper
floors above 20 ft may reduce setback to 5 ft.
5 Street Setback from
Other Streets
5 ft min
The street setback may be improved as an extension of
the public sidewalk if accessible to the public through an established easement
6 Internal Setback from
Property Lines shared
with Residential Uses
15 ft min

7 Internal Setback from
Property Lines shared
with Non-Residential
Uses
Per Building Code
8 Freeway/Drainage
Channel Setback
10 ft min from property lines adjacent to freeway or
drainage channel
9 Required Frontage
Buildout2 Not required
Notes 1 These standards only apply to new land subdivisions and do not apply to condominium subdivisions
2 If residential units are provided, see buildout requirements in the Building Design table, below

Figure 4-3: Examples of Lot Size and Building Placements in the Retail District
582
DE VE L O P M E N T S T AN DA R D S A N D D E S IGN G U I D E L I N E S | 4 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN 57

B UIL D IN G D E S IG N
1 Floor Area Rat io (FAR)

0.35 base outside “The Core” and 0.50 in “The Core”

2.0 max outside “The Core” and 2.5 max. in “The Core.” In The Core, the FAR may be spread through all developable parcels (this does not include the Town Square) (required participation in the development density pool, an
agreement with the City, and provision of a community
benefit in compliance with the Community Benefit
Program)1
2 Residential Units
Not permitted west of San Ramon Road.

Allowed at a minimum density of 22 units per net acre.

Permitted within a mixed-use development if designed
based on the following standards:
◼ The development includes ground floor retail or
office space that equals an FAR of 0.3 min
◼ Retail or office space is built along at least 80% of the property’s total street frontage and set back no
more than 10 ft from the building setback
requirement
◼ Common open space for the residential units are
provided at a rate of 15% of the site ’s total area
◼ The above standards may be modified through an
SDR as part of a mixed-use development in The Core
area.

Projects that include residential development within 1,000 ft. of either Interstate 580 or 680 (or less per Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s current guidelines) shall incorporate the following standards to minimize
potentially adverse air quality affects:
◼ Configure the proposed buildings so that the bulk of
the building is located farther from the highway.
◼ Place heating ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) system intakes as far away from highway as
feasible.
◼ Include high efficiency filters in the HVAC system
(rated with a minimum efficiency rating value
[MERV] of at least 13). This would also include a
commitment to regular maintenance and
replacement of filters as needed.
◼ Provide positive pressure with the HVAC system in
all occupied spaces to prevent the incursion of
outside air that bypasses the HVAC filters.
◼ To reduce the amount of outside unfiltered air
indoors, do not place operable windows in close
proximity to the highway. In addition, signs should
be posted to keep exterior doors closed when not in
use.
3 Building Height
Outside “The Core”: 6 floors and 75 ft max (tower
elements, architectural and articulated design features, solar panels, and small-scale wind turbines may extend 10 ft max beyond this height)
Inside “The Core”: 8 floors and no more than 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story. Maximum building height is 90 feet (tower elements, architectural an d
articulated design features, solar panels, and small-scale wind turbines may extend 10 ft max beyond this height).

Minimum building height in “The Core” is 40 feet, except for structures within the Town Square. The maximum and
minimum heights may be modified through an SDR.
4 Building Stepbacks Encouraged on upper floors, but not required 5 Allowed Frontages2
At least one of the following frontages (based on the
ground floor use) shall be provided on all facades that front a street:
◼ Anchor Storefronts
◼ Storefronts
◼ Office/Lodging Fronts
◼ Auto Service Fronts
◼ Public Fronts

6. Ground Floor
Commercial in “The
Core”
Minimum height of ground floor to second floor is 18 feet Provide a minimum of 50 feet of depth; 60 feet is preferable Space structural columns 30 feet apart
Notes 1 Refer to Section 3.5: Future Development Assumptions 2 For frontage standards/guidelines, see Section 4.4:

Design Standards and Guidelines
3 4
4 583
4 | D E V E L O PM E N T S T A N D A R D S A N D D E S IG N G U I D E LI N E S 58 CITY OF DUBLIN

P R O JEC T ION S A N D E NC R O AC H M E N TS IN TO SE T B AC K S 1 Balconies
4 ft max into all setbacks
12 ft min vertical clearance required over sidewalks,
walkways, and private outdoor spaces
2 Stoops
Permitted for residential use only
5 ft min usable walkway must be maintained on private
streets and 10 ft min on public streets
3 Bay Windows
2 ft max into all setbacks
4 ft max along Dublin Boulevard
12 ft min vertical clearance required over sidewalks,
walkways, and private outdoor spaces
4 Window Shades
(Vertical / Horizontal)
5 ft max into all setbacks
8 ft min vertical clearance required over sidewalks,
walkways, and private outdoor spaces
5 Trellises
5 ft max into all setbacks
8 ft min vertical clearance required over sidewalks,
walkways, and private outdoor spaces
6 Storefront Awnings
6 ft max into all setbacks
8 ft max along Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive
8 ft min vertical clearance required over sidewalks,
walkways, and private outdoor spaces
7 Roofs 5 ft max into all setbacks
8 Projecting Signs
4 ft max into all setbacks
8 ft min vertical clearance required over sidewalks,
walkways, and private outdoor spaces
9 Building Lighting
3 ft max into all setbacks
If extending more than 6 in from the facade, 8 ft min
vertical clearance required over sidewalks, walkways, and private outdoor spaces
= Property Line
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 NOTE: Buildings shown built to setback line
584
D E V E L OP M E N T S T A N D A R D S A N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S | 4 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN 87
Office/Lodging Fronts
The following guidelines apply to facades that are designed with office/lodging fronts:
◼ At least 20% of the facade’s surface area should consist of windows (including glass on doors). Windows shall be provided on all floors of the building. Exceptions to window area may be approved for parking structures. See Section 4.4.14 for design guidelines for Parking Structures.
◼ Both common entrances (to lobbies or interior courtyards) and private entrances (to individual business suites on the ground floor) may be provided.
◼ Primary building entrances should be highlighted and serve as the prominent building feature with elements such as (but not limited to) recessed or protruding entries, tower elements, different materials/colors, decorative or display windows, shade structures or galleries, and special paving and landscaping.
◼ Awnings, marquees, window shades and trellises, and second floor balconies are encouraged to provide shade.
◼ Porte-cocheres (covered driveways providing temporary guest registration parking and valet services) may be provided on lodging fronts.
◼ Fences, walls, and hedges that are located along this frontage should not exceed a height of 40 inches.
◼ Raised planters are allowed between the sidewalk and the building. If a planter is raised, it should be elevated a maximum of 40 inches above the elevation of the adjacent sidewalk. Planters that are designed to retain and filter stormwater runoff from the roof are encouraged.

Examples of Office/Lodging Fronts
585
4 | D E V E L O P ME N T S T A N D A R D S A N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S 104 CITY OF DUBLIN

4.4.14 Parking Areas
Surface Parking Lots
◼ Where feasible, views of surface parking areas from sidewalks should be minimized and parking should be located internally and to the rear of buildings that front a street. Landscaped buffers along the perimeter of surface parking areas should include a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers designed to soften views of parked vehicles from pedestrians walking along the sidewalk, walkway, or private outdoor space. These landscaped buffers may include fences, walls, or hedges.
◼ Surface parking areas should include measures to reduce impervious surfaces, including, but not limited to:
 Vegetated swales/planters;
 Green gutters and flow-through planters;
 Landscaped medians/planters; and
 Pervious/porous paving (for parking stalls, walkways, and driveways).
◼ Where feasible and appropriate, walkways that connect surface parking areas to building entrances, sidewalks, private outdoor spaces, and additional parking areas should be provided. ◼ The length of parking spaces may be reduced by up to 2 2.5 feet if the vehicle will overhang a landscape planter which has been designed to accommodate the vehicle overhang plus additional space for planting. The planter shall be protected by a curb or wheel stop and should include low lying plants where the vehicle will overhang the planter.
◼ Where feasible, consider innovative measures to manage stormwater with “leftover” space in front of angled parking stalls. ◼ Parking spaces with decorative and permeable pavers are strongly encouraged.
◼ Evergreen trees are encouraged within parking lots.
◼ Where on-site circulation can be designed to permit it, shared access to multiple parcels and businesses is strongly encouraged, ◼ A direct and clearly visible pedestrian connection shall be provided through the surface parking lot that connects to the primary building entrance and sidewalk.
◼ Landscaping and landscape buffers along sidewalks should be attractive and should encourage and provide interest to pedestrians. Features such as benches may be incorporated into these areas.
◼ Parking lots along sidewalks shall include perimeter shrubs with a minimum height of 3 feet to screen parked vehicles.
586

6 | I M P L E M E N T A T I O N A N D A D M I N I S TR A T I O N 122 CITY OF DUBLIN
Table 6-1: Development Pool

D IS T R ICT N O N- R ES ID E N T IA L

S Q UARE FO O T A G E

N UM B E R O F

R E S ID E N T IA L

D W E L L IN GS
Retail 1,3201,020,220
(+150 hotel rooms)
2,500 2,965 Transit-Oriented
Village Parkway 0

The above Development Pool for the Transit-Oriented District includes the AMB project (150,000 square feet of office and 308 residential dwellings), the Essex project (309 residential dwellings) and the BART hotel (150 hotel rooms and 7,500 square feet of commercial). In the event that these projects are constructed, the corresponding development potential will be removed from the Development Pool. As these projects were approved prior to the adoption of this Specific Plan, the developers are not required to enter into the Community Benefit Program. If these projects are not constructed, the associated development potential will be made available to developers in the Transit-Oriented District. If only a portion of one of these projects is constructed, the remaining development potential will be returned to the Development Pool for the Transit-Oriented District.

For all three districts, the density obtained from the Development Pool will be available to the property owner for the period of time specified in a binding agreement between the City and the developer. At the expiration of that period, the density will be returned to the Development Pool if the project has not been constructed.

The City will manage the Development Pool and maintain an inventory of all projects that are developed above the base FAR to ensure that development does not exceed the density cap in each district.

Community Benefit Program
A Community Benefit Program will be established to ensure that developers provide a benefit to the Specific Plan Area in exchange for receiving a higher density on their property.

A developer who is taking part in the Community Benefit Program will be required to enter into a binding agreement with the City that specifies the community benefit that will be provided in exchange for use of density from the pool. The City will negotiate the terms of the Agreement including the period during which the density will be available to the developer and community benefits that will be provided by the developer.

A developer may be required to provide one or a combination of benefits in relation to the density they are obtaining from the Pool. Improvements or fees which are required by the Municipal Code are not considered to be a community benefit and are regardless of the project status. Examples of appropriate community benefits that might be provided by the developer include the following.
◼ Public Plaza or gathering space;
◼ Public Parks or Outdoor Play Areas;
◼ Measures aimed at reducing Greenhouses Gases and
Transportation trips including charging stations for electric vehicles, preferred parking for carpool vehicles, site specific transportation demand management programs, etc.;
◼ Sponsorship of a downtown special event (event to be approved by the City);
◼ Public Safety enhancements including substation, vehicles, defibrillators, fire extinguishers, etc.;
◼ Enhanced streetscape improvements (e.g. sidewalks, landscaping, fountains, etc.);
◼ Pedestrian connections to other sites or facilities (e.g. easement dedications and pathway improvements). Note: This does not include pedestrian connections within the project site, which are required by good site planning principles;
◼ Transit improvements (e.g., enhance or construct bus shelters); ◼ Payment into a Downtown Fund for future public improvements; and
587
2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum
August 7, 2023
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2023-00001
Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision, November 2019
Attachment 3
588
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 1

8/15/23
2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum
August 7, 2023
Project Description
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) was adopted by the Dublin City Council in February of 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the downtown area that would be more conducive to a more walkable, mixed development, and vibrant community. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit-Oriented, and Village Parkway Districts ), with separate development standards for each. The DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2010022005) was certified by the Dublin City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011.

The proposed project (the project) will complete an amendment to the DDSP (2023 DDSP Amendment) which would:
▪ Add Research and Development as a n ew land use allowed in Retail District and Transit - Oriented District. Uses may include, but are not limited to, science and engineering laboratories (research, development, and testing), quality assurance work (dimensional analysis), and software development and engineering. Manufacturing uses are limited to less than ten percent of the building area. Such uses may not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, and may not include outdoor storage and operations. ▪ Increase the floor area ratio (FA R) from 2.0 to 2.5 for the defined “The Core” area located within the Retail District.
▪ Decrease the non-residential net new development and allowable allocation (Development Pool) by 300,000 square feet; Net New Development from 2,166,810 to 1,866,810 and the Development Pool from 1,320,220 to 1,020,220 square feet. ▪ Increase the residential allowable allocation (Development Pool) by 465 units; from 2,500 to 2,965 units.
▪ Increase the building height in the defined area of “The Core” area of the Retail Distri ct from six to eight floors and no more than 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story. This change would be consistent with the Transit-Oriented District standards. ▪ Incorporate minor revisions to the development standards and design guidelines (e.g., street setbacks, stoops, storefront awnings, etc.) in the Retail District.

The project would increase the number of residential units and correspondingly decrease the amount of non-residential development in the plan area, thereby maintaining the sam e maximum level of development intensity (gross square footage) as analyzed in the DDSP EIR. 589
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 2

8/15/23
Prior CEQA Analysis
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
The DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2010022005) was certified by the Dublin City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011 (City Council Resolution Nos 08-11 and 09-11). The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of potential development associated with the DDSP in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Subsequent Amendments
Subsequent to adoption, the DDSP has been amended five times, the latest occurring in November 2022. Two of these amendments included reappropriating the amount of residential and non-residential development in the Retail and Transit -Oriented Districts.

All amendments were reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Dublin City Council. A CEQA Analysis with a supporting Initial Study was prepared as part of each of these amendments and adopted by the Dublin City Council.

Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
The City of Dublin (City) has determined that an Addendum to the DDSP EIR is the appropriate CEQA review for the project. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the project. The City prepared an Initial Study dated August 7, 2023, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required per the following:

No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has 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 DDSP EIR. The project is similar to land uses for the project area analyzed in the DDSP EIR and there is no net change in overall development intensity, as amended. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does not constitute a substantial change to the DDSP EIR 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?
590
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 3

8/15/23
There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the DDSP EIR, as amended.

The project will not change the net development intensity in the project area, as previously analyzed. 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 decl ined 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 prior CEQA documents.

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 CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the DDSP area. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared?
No subsequent Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the DDSP EIR, as documented in the attached Initial Study.

Conclusion
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed 2023 Amendments to the DDSP as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes do 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 DDSP EIR adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the 2023 DDSP Amendment.

There are no project changes, new information or changed circumstances that would result in a new or substantial increase in severity of a sign ificant impact from those identified in the DDSP EIR because the proposed 2023 DDSP Amendment would not exceed the maximum allowable land development limits as defined in the DDSP EIR (as amended) . No standards for requiring supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met .

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.
591
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 4

8/15/23
The Initial Study, the DDSP and EIR, and the previous amendments are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.

592

2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study
August 7, 2023
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2023-00001

Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision, November 2019
593
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page i

8/15/23
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Project Background 3
Prior CEQA Analysis 3
Project Description 4
Environmental Checklist 7
Determination 9
Environmental Analysis 10

List of Tables
Table 1: Change in Project Traffic Trips 38

List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location 2
Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts 3
Figure 3: Downtown Preferred Vision Town Square, Street Grid, and The Core 5

594
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 1

8/15/23
2023 DDSP Amendment

Introduction
Project Title
2023 DDSP Amendment
(PLPA-2023-00001)
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
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Dublin and is approximately 284 acres in size . The project area is g enerally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those roadways, most notably portions of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway , which are located within the Specific Plan area. See Figure 1: Project Location.
595
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 2

8/15/23
Figure 1: Project Location

Project Applicant / Sponsor
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designation
▪ Downtown Dublin – Village Parkway District
▪ Downtown Dublin – Transit-Oriented District
▪ Downtown Dublin – Retail District
Zoning
▪ DDZD – Downtown Dublin Zoning District

596
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 3

8/15/23
Project Background
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) was adopted by the Dublin City Council in February of 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the downtown area that would be more conducive to a more walkable, mixed -use, and vibrant community. The boundaries of the DDSP encompassed boundaries of five other specific plans that were dissolved when the DDSP was adopted. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit -Oriented, and Village Parkway Districts), with separate development standards for each. See Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts.

Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts

Prior CEQA Analysis
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
The DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2010022005 ) was certified by the Dublin City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011 (City Council Resolution Nos 08-11 and 09-11). The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of potential development associated with the DDSP in accordance with the Calif ornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 597
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 4

8/15/23
Subsequent Amendments
Subsequent to adoption, the DDSP has been amended five times, the latest occurring in November 2022. Two of these amendments included reappropriating the amount of residential and non-residential development in the Retail and Transit -Oriented Districts.

Project Description
The proposed project (the project) is to complete an amendment to the DDSP (2023 DDSP Amendment) which would:
▪ Add Research and Development as a new land use allowed in Retail District and Transit - Oriented District. Uses may include, but are not limited to, science and engineering laboratories (research, development, and testing), quality assurance work (dimensional analysis), and software development and engineering. Manufacturing uses are limited to less than ten percent of the building area. Such uses may not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, and may not include outdoor storage and operations. ▪ Increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 2.0 to 2.5 for the defined “The Core” area located within the Retail District (see Figure 3: Downtown Preferred Vision Town Square, Street Grid, and The Core).
▪ Decrease the non-residential net new development and allowable allocation (Development Pool) by 300,000 square feet; Net New Development from 2,166,810 to 1,866,810 and the Development Pool from 1,320,220 to 1,020,220 square feet. ▪ Increase the residential allowable allocation (Development Pool) by 465 units; from 2,500 to 2,965 units.
▪ Increase the building height in the defined area of “The Core” area of the Retail District from six to eight floors and no more than 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story. This change would be consistent with the Transit-Oriented District standards. ▪ Incorporate minor revisions to the development standards and design guidelines (e.g., street setbacks, stoops, storefront awnings, etc.) in the Retail District .

The project would increase the number of residential units and correspondingly decrease the amount of non-residential development in the plan area, thereby maintaining the same maximum level of development intensity as analyzed in the DDSP EIR.

598
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 5

8/15/23
Figure 3: Downtown Preferred Vision Town Square , Street Grid , and The Core

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
599
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 6

8/15/23
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings
of Significance

Instructions

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached). A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may 600
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 7

8/15/23
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Imp act" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration : Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.

5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a. Earlier analysis used . Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) .

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting information sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
o The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
o The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally a ffiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 601
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 8

8/15/23
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process . (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

602
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 9

8/15/23
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.

CITY OF DUBLIN

_____________________ August 7, 2023
Amy Million, Principal Planner Date

603
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 10

8/15/23
Environmental Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the 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 for analysis. As such, the checkboxes in the column labeled “Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the DDSP EIR” in the tables below indicates that no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. There are no project changes, new information or changed circumstances that would result in a new or substantial increase in severity of a significant impact from those identified in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) EIR because the proposed 2023 DDSP Amendment would not exceed the maximum allowable land development limits as defined in the DDSP EIR (as amended) . No standards for requiring supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met.

Aesthetics

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect o n a scenic vista? ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point) . If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality
☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☒
604
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 11

8/15/23
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic v istas, views
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(b) Scenic resources
Located in an urban setting, the project area is fully developed and there are no natural or built features that are considered scenic resources.

Portions of the project area are visible from Interstate -680 (an officially designated State Scenic Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate -580 (a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon Road (a locally designated scenic route).

As described in the DDSP EIR, all proposed projects visible from Interstate-680 and Interstate- 580 would be subject to design review per polices of the General Plan . Furthermore, specific projects would be required to comply with the development standards and be consistent with the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP, as amended. (c) Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality The project area is located in an urban built -out area and is adjacent to two major interstate freeways.

The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts to the existing visual character wou ld be less than significant. The project would increase the building height in the defined area of “The Core” area of the Retail District from six to eight floors and no more than 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story. This change would be consistent with the Transit-Oriented District standards.

All new development projects would be required to comply with the FAR, as amended. Future projects would also be required to comply with other existing development standards and be consistent with the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP.

These DDSP changes to the development standards and design guidelines (as amended) would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
The project area is located within an urban area that produces considerable light and glare .

Newly proposed development projects would be required to comply with the DDSP which includes a number of specific design guidelines that address light and gl are.

The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts from light and glare would be less than significant. The project would continue to require that all new development projects comply with the DDSP design guidelines regarding light and glare.
605
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 12

8/15/23
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR 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 .

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSPEIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

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 impac ts 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?
☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☒
c) 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 ?
☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ☒
606
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 13

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSPEIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-e) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning
The project area is located in an urbanized setting where there are no agricultural or forestry resources. As described in the DDSP EIR, agricultural and forestry resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant” and, therefore, there would be no impact on agricultural and forest resources and no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Air Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the
Severity of
an Impact
Identified
in the

DDSPEIR
Equal
or Less
Severe
Impact
than
Identifi
ed in
the
DDSP
EIR
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ?
☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☒ 607
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 14

8/15/23
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans
As described in the DDSP EIR, short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would be anticipated with future development projects; however, all development within the project area would be required to comply with the Bay Area Ai r Quality Management District (BAAQMD) control measures identified in the DDSP EIR.

Additionally, the DDSP EIR concluded that the DDSP is consistent with population growth assumptions in the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan, and it is anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled due to the DDSP guiding principles to create a walkable, transit -oriented, and mixed- use community. The project does not increase the overall net development intensity in the DDSP, as amended. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan.
(b) Project emissions
Because all future development projects would be required to comply with the design standards in the DDSP and applicable air quality regulations as identified in the DDSP EIR, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the air quality plan, violate air quality standards, nor result in cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. (c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations and create odors As described in the DDSP EIR, because all future development projects that generate toxic air contaminants are required to comply with BAAQMD rules, regulations, and permitting requirements, and all projects are required to comply with the California Air Re sources Board’s rules and regulations and implement any applicable toxics control measures, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations and create odors.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there will be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
(d) Odors
As described in the DDSP EIR, odors anticipated within the project area would result from construction activities and business operations (e.g., odors from restaurants or waste receptacles). Construction odors would be temporary and are not generally considered offensive. Future uses would be required to comply with City regulations as defined in the Dublin Municipal Code (Chapter 8.24: Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64: Home Occupations Regulations, and Chapter 8.20: Residential Zoning Districts) which minim ize operational odors. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. 608
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 15

8/15/23
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the informatio n in the DDSP EIR 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 .

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with air quality resources beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met .

Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Biological Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSPEIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fis h and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☒
d) Interfere substantially w ith the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
☒
609
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 16

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSPEIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
corridors, or impede the use of nati ve wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☒
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?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-f)
The project area is located in an urbanized setting, is primarily development and has been disturbed through prior development. As described in the DDSP EIR, biological resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” Therefore, there will be no impact on biological resources.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSPEIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☒ 610
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 17

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSPEIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-c)
The project area is located in an urban setting and most of the area has been disturbed through prior development. As described in the DDSP EIR, cultural resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” Therefore, there would be no impact on cultural resources.

While the likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low, Chapter 8.48 Archaeological Resources Regulations of the City of Dublin Municipal Code outlines a process to protect archaeological resources and prehistoric or historic artifacts that are discovered during any construction or excavation, which will be adhered to.

Additionally, all development projects constructed subsequent to certification of the 2023 DDSP Amendment are required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health a nd Safety Code in the event of the discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during future development activities. Section 7050.5 requires that there is no further excavation or disturbance of the area, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 -hours of identification.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project will not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there will be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010. 611
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 18

8/15/23

Energy

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

13. 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?
☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☒
(a-b) Wasteful consumption of energy resources and c onflict with local plan for renewable energy
At the time the DDSP EIR was prepared, the Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) did not include energy. Therefore, the DDSP EIR did no t specifically analyze impacts to energy.

Because the DDSP EIR has been certified, the determination of whether energy 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). Energy 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 DDSP EIR was certified as complete. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(3).) Energy impacts were not analyzed in the DDSP EIR; however, this impact is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The issue of energy was widely known prior to the certification of the DDSP EIR, particularly in context to the environmental effects associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

Under CEQA standards, energy 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.

Additionally, as described in the DDSP EIR, development under the DDSP includes mixed-use, commercial, and transit -oriented development. The DDSP EIR concluded that construction fuel consumption associated with the DDSP would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or 612
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 19

8/15/23
unnecessary than other similar development projects. Additionally, the public transit services and proximity to the West Dublin / Pleasanton BART station would help ensure that implementation of the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy.

Newly proposed development projects in the DDSP would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards. In addition, Chapter 7.94, Green Building, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code encourages sustainable construction in the following categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, materials conservation and resource efficiency and environmental quality. The type of development would not change as a result of this project and, therefore, impacts on energy consumption would remain less than significant.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant imp acts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy resources beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Geology and Soils

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS . Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
☒
613
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 20

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substant ial evidence of a
known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground f ailure, including
liquefaction? ☒
iv) Landslides? ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☒ 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?
☒
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substanti al direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☒
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal system s where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, i-iii) Seismic hazards
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are three faults within six miles of the project area and future development projects may be subject to liquefaction. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 requires project applicants to consult with a registered geotechnical engineer t o complete a site-specific geotechnical investigation prior to development of individual projects. The project will comply with Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1 in all respects, including reviewing ground shaking and liquefaction effects. Recommendations made by the geotechnical engineer will be incorporated into the project plans. Future development project will also be required to comply with the latest version of the California Building Code which includes design standards to protect 614
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 21

8/15/23
structures from seismic haza rds. Therefore, these impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.
(a, iv) Landslides
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is relatively flat, lacks steep slopes, and is not within a seismic hazard zone where landslides may occur dur ing a strong earthquake and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(b) Erosion/topsoil loss
As described in the DDSP EIR, future development could result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b require compliance with the City’s Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process, and the City’s Building Code requirements. Compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b during construction would continue to mitigate impacts to soil loss and erosion to less than significant levels.
(c-d) Soil stability
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area does not exhibit characteristics of expansive soils; however, site-specific soil evaluations and adherence to City and State building codes is required as part of any proposed development.
(e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area does not exhibit characteristics of expansive soils and wastewater sewers will be available to all new development projects. Therefore, there will be no impact.
(f) Paleontological/unique geological resources
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located in an urban setting a nd has been disturbed through prior development. There are no identified cultural resources within the project area and, therefore, there will be no impact to paleontological or unique geologic resources.

While the likelihood of finding unrecorded and unidentified artifacts is extremely low, regulatory requirements identified within the DDSP EIR with respect to the discovery of potential cultural resources during construction will continue to apply.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that will require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project will not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soils impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. 615
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 22

8/15/23
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the discovery of potential cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☒
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As described in the DDSP EIR, California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases, emitting over 400 million tons of CO 2 a year and that it is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the project would include emissions from area sources and mobile sources associated with new projects. Cumulative GHG emissions could occur as a result of future development under the DDSP. This development was previously considered, and the project will not result in a substantial change than what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR.

Additionally, future projects within the project area and the rest of the City would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure their compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond to determine if any i mpacts would occur beyond those already identified in DDSP EIR. Furthermore, the DDSP includes several measures that would help to reduce GHG emissions.

The project is consistent with the overall goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities 616
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 23

8/15/23
Strategy in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure , as well the GHG reduction planning efforts and housing performance targets outlined in Plan Bay Area 2040.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified GHG impacts, nor result in new significant impacts .

With adherence to required applicable regulatory requirements and plans, there would be no new or substantially more severe signifi cant impacts to cumulative GHG emissions beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond, 2020

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☒
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?
☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?
☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
☒
617
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 24

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in t he project area?
☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☒
g) Expose people or structures , either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects could involve the transport, use, disposal, and release of hazardous materials during construction and may result in the demolition and removal of structures which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paints. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a, 3.5-1b, and 3.4-1 within the DDSP EIR will continue to apply, requiring compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP is designed to reduce the risk of spills or leaks from reaching the environment. The SWPPP would also include a Spill Response Plan to address minor spills of hazardous materials. Compliance with SWPPP requirements would ensure that potential significant hazards associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during and after construction would be less than significant.

Additionally, prior to demolition of structures constructed prior to 1980 (when asbestos and lead based paints were commonly used), a qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the buildings to determine the presence of asbestos and/or lead based paints. If found, subsequent permits and approvals would be required along with the appropriate disposal of the contaminated materials . Any hazardous materials stored and used at in the project area as part of a development project would be required to be managed in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations that would reduce risks associated with leakage, explosions, fires, or the escape of harmful gases. 618
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 25

8/15/23
With incorporation of these mitigation measures and adherence to all regulations, impacts would remain less than significant.
(c) Emit hazardous materials withi n one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school As described in the DDSP EIR, Nielsen Elementary School (7500 Amarillo Drive, Dublin) is located within a quarter mile of the project area and new businesses that are located near residential areas or sc hools may expose these sensitive uses to a greater risk of exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, or emissions. However, all new projects would be required to comply with regulations established by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. Compliance with these regulations will ensure that potential impacts to sensitive uses will not result in a substantially more severe significant impact beyond was previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR. (d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant Government Code Section 65962.5, however, there are three Cleanup Program Sites within the project area that are currently (2023) being monitored by the RWQ CB. Two of these sites are on Dublin Boulevard (Shamrock Ford and Aster Apartments), and one site is on San Ramon Road (Crow Canyon Cleaners). Mitigation Measure 3.4 -2 within the DDSP EIR would continue to apply to new projects and will require the prepara tion of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and subsequent testing. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. (e) Proximity to a public airport
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is not located within an airport land use plan o r within the vicinity of a private airstrip and , therefore, there would be no impact. (f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The City uses the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was developed in com pliance with State requirements and also meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as its local hazard mitigation plan. The Tri -Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a uniform hazard mitigation strategy for the Tri -Valley area, addressing a range of hazards including, but not limited to, earthquakes, floods and wildland fire. The City also has an adopted Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to assess hazards and mitigate risks prio r to a disaster event.

Finally, as described in the DDSP EIR, future development would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(g) Expose p eople or structures to wildland fires
A wildland fire is a fire occurring in a suburban or rural area which contains uncultivated land, timber, range, brush, or grasslands. Wildland fires are primarily a concern in areas where there is a mix of developed and undeveloped lands. As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is 619
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 26

8/15/23
located in an urbanized area and the project site is not identified as an area of moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity for the Local Responsibility Area. It is identified as an area of moderate fire hazard severity for the State Responsibility Area, as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Further, future development will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, California Fire Code, and the City’s Wildfire Management Plan.

The project is not subject to potential wildfire hazards and, therefore, there would be no impact.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hazards and hazardous materials impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012.

RWQCB Geotracker (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/), accessed July 10, 2023.

Hydrology and Water Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY . Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards o r waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
☒
620
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 27

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin ?
☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces , in a manner which would :

(i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off- site; ☒
(ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
☒
(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; or
☒
(iv). Impede or redirect flood flows? ☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater quality
As described in the DDSP EIR, new project construction would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b, which require compliance with RWQCB water quality and waste discharge requirements and preparation of a SWPPP. Compliance with these mitigation measures will ensure that potential water quality impacts associated with project construction are reduced to a less -than-significant level. 621
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 28

8/15/23
(b-c) Substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies ; Alter existing drainage pattern s re: erosion/siltation, re: flooding, or degrade water quality As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is largely developed and served by existing stormwater facilities that have been designed to accommodate future anticipated development. Per RWQC B requirements, new projects will include design features to increase percolation (thereby decreasing stormwater flows, impact to drainage systems, and groundwater degradation). Therefore, the project will not substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies.

The project will not alter existing drainage patterns because the project site is already developed and consists of impervious surface areas in the form of buildings and surface parking lots. Current regulations are now more stringent and would result in greater on-site retention than currently exists and thereby improving groundwater supplies. (d) Flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche and is not within a designated dam failure inundation area . Therefore, there would be no impact. (e) Water Quality
As described in the DDSP EIR, the water source for new projects in the DDSP area would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District and no local groundwater supplies. As a result, the project would not conflict with a water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR 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.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality resources beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

622
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 29

8/15/23
Land Use and Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING . Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a me ans of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel fr om one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

As described in the DDSP EIR, the DDSP would help ensure greater land use compatibility and would not physically divide a community. The project would maintain the land use compatibility principals of the DDSP and, therefore, there would be no impact. (b) Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation
The 2023 DDSP Amendment would re-allocate the maximum allowed development densities for residential and non-residential uses in the plan area, allow Research and Development as a permitted use in the “Core” portion of the Retail District, and include other various refinements to the DDSP development standards and design guidelines. These changes, as amended, would not conflict with any city land use plan, policy, or regulation.

Therefore, there would be no change to the analysis of consistency with land use plans, policies and regulations, from that previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The project would be consistent with the DDSP (as amended) as well as the City’s General Plan (including the 6th Cycle Housing Element) and Zoning and, therefore, there would be no impact.

8/15/23
EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new significant impacts .

With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

City of Dublin. 2023 – 2031 Housing Element (6th Cycle), 2023.

Mineral Resource s

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

11. 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 t he
residents of the state?
☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific pla n, or other land use plan?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
As described in the DDSP EIR, mineral resources were not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” The project would be consistent with the DDSP (as amended) and within the scope of what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact to mineral resources.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

624
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 31

8/15/23
Noise

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

12. 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 applicabl e standards of other agencies?
☒
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Generate noise or vibration exceeding standards
As described in the DDSP EIR, compliance with DDSP design guidelines and development standards would ensure that new projects do not exceed long-term stationary noise thresholds.

However, new projects could result in short-term construction-related noise and vibrations that exceed noise standards for nearby sensitive uses and increased long-term mobile noise sources (vehicular traffic) . Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a and 3.7-1b described in the DDSP EIR would continue to apply to new projects including the preparation of construction noise management plans (when applicable) and noise from transporting construction materials . Additionally, new projects located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways would be required to prepare acoustical analyses and incorporate site-specific mitigations to li mit construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the day and ensure that proper operating procedures are followed during construction so that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise and vibration. Based on these requirements, impacts would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 described in the DDSP EIR would continue to apply to new developments located adjacent to Interstate 580, Amador Plaza Road (between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick’s Way), and Dublin Boulevard (between the following locations:

Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway, Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive, and San Ramon Road and Regional Street) and requires a site-specific acoustical analysis. The mitigation 625
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 32

8/15/23
measure requires design feature s to be incorporated into the future development to reduce noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses.
(c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a pr ivate airstrip and, therefore, there would be no impact.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to noise exceeding standards beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review ar e met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012.

Population and Housing

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING . Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☒
626
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 33

8/15/23
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Population and Housing
As described in the DDSP EIR, impacts to population and housing was not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” The project would be consistent with the DDSP (as amended) and within the scope of what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

Public Services

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ☒
b) Police protection? ☒
c) Schools? ☒
d) Parks? ☒
e) Other public facilities? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
As stated in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable building, safety, and fire codes (e.g., 2022 California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and City of Dublin Chapter 5.08 Fire Code) . New projects would also be required to fund on- and off-site improvements and contribute to the City’s public facilities fees.

Specifically, the proposed project is required to adhere to the California Fire Code and City of Dublin codes, ordinance and regulations to minimize fire hazards, including fire prevention and 627
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 34

8/15/23
suppression measures; fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access; and other similar requirements. Alameda County Fire Department would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The demand for fire protection services resulting from the proposed project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of fire protection service. No physical impacts associ ated with the provision of fire protection services would occur.
(b) Police
As stated in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable City of Dublin safety requirements. This includes paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities. Additionally, per Dublin Police Services, future projects will be required to incorporate various safety and security requirements, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting, and en suring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas. These incorporations are minor and will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. (c) Schools and other public facilities
The project would increase the number of residential units and corresponding decrease the amount of non-residential development in the plan area, thereby maintaining the same maximum level of development intensity as analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The project would still be consistent with the DDSP’s policies to encourage residential development downtown. Dublin Unified School District fees, City public facilities fees, and the DDSP provision for community benefit (e.g., gathering spaces) would continue to apply for new projects.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the E IR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR 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.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

628
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 35

8/15/23
Recreation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

15. 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?
☒
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new recreation facilities
As described in the DDSP EIR, recreation facilities were not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” The project would be consistent with the DDSP and within the scope of what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Furthermore, each new development project would be required to pay public facilities impact fees that will fund the acquisition of parkland and the development of future park facilities.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation 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 recreation facilities beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

629
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 36

8/15/23
Transportation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program , plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☒
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities
As part of the DDSP, the City amended the City’s General Plan related to acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) standards within the City to require a LOS of D or better for all intersections except for intersections within the DDSP area. The objective of this amendment was to balance vehicular and non-vehicular circulation requirements and , thereby, create a more pedestrian - friendly downtown.

As shown in Table 1: Change in Project Traffic Trips , the project would increase the allowable allocation of residential units by 465 units and a decrease in the allowable allocation of non - residential uses by 300,000 square feet. It would result in a net decrease of 11,488 daily trips, a net decrease of 162 AM peak hour trips, and net decrease of 1,110 PM peak hour trips. This reduction is because commercial development generates a greater number of trips than residential development when compared on a similar square footage basis. 630
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 37

8/15/23
Table 1: Change in Project Traffic Trips

Since this proposed change would result in a negative trip generation for all time periods , no new impacts would be created compared to the previous analysis in the DDSP EIR.

Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.9 -1 and 3.9-4 require support of Alameda County’s project and program aimed at reducing traffic congestion, development of Transportation Demand Management Programs, implementation of the City’s policies to use alternati ve modes of transportation and working with Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to increase service. These measures would continue to apply to any future development project.

Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Section 15064.3 (b)
Since certification of the DDSP EIR in 2011, 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, the Office of Planning and Research (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.

The topic of the project’s contribution to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Because DDSP EIR has been certified, the determinatio n 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 unless it constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous environmental documents were certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163). VMT was known at the time of the certification of the DDSP EIR (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Total In Out Total In Out
Proposed 221 Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise)1 465 Dwelling
Units 2,209 149 54 95 135 88 47
Removed 820 Shopping Center
(>150 KSF)2 300 KSF -13,697 -311 -193 -118 -1,245 -597 -648 -11,488 -162 -139 -23 -1,110 -509 -601
ITE Land
Use
Code
Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM PeakProposed
or
Removed
Net New Project Trips
Note: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) used to develop trip generation rates. 1 Average rate used for ITE Land Use Code 221 and also assumed close to transit. 2 Fitted curve used for ITE Land Use Code 820.
631
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 38

8/15/23
15163). Increased traffic was analyzed using other methods (LOS) at the time of certification of the DDSP EIR. Under CEQA standards, VMT is not considered new information that requires analysis in a Supplemental EIR or negative declaration. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis of the project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Therefore, the City is not required to conduct an analysis of VMT and the 2023 DDSP Amendment would have no impact.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature The 2023 DDSP Amendment does not include specific development plans which would substantially increase hazards, nor does it alter roadway design such that implementation of the proposed project would create sharp curves or dangerous intersections and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access
As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable building, safety, and fire codes to ensure proper design and adequacy of emergency access.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation 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 transportation beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

City of Dublin. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2021.

632
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 39

8/15/23
Tribal Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

17. 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 o bject 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
☒
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.
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The topic of tribal cultural resources is a relatively new category in the CEQA checklist and was not analyzed in the DDSP EIR. However, mitigation measures related to potential impacts to historic and archeological resources on the site are described in the Cultural R esources section, above.

Because the DDSP EIR has been certified, the determination of whether tribal cultural resources need to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Tribal cultural resources are 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 EIR was certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources The project area is located in an urban setting and has been disturbed through prior development. There are no identified historic resources within the project area and , therefore, there would be no impact.
633
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 40

8/15/23
(b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
There are no known significant tribal cultural resources within the project area. While the likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low, Chapter 8.48 Archaeological Resources Regulations outlines a process to protect archaeological resources and prehistoric or historic artifacts that are discovered during any construction or excavation.

Furthermore, the 2023 DDSP Amendment would continue to require new projects to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during future development activities, which would require that there be no further excavation or disturbance of the area, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours of identification.

As required under Senate Bill 18, a letter regarding the project was mailed to eleven tribes on June 23, 2023, using a mailing list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. No request for consultation has been received to date.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified tribal cultural impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond those previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

634
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 41

8/15/23
Utilities and Service Systems

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

18. 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 signific ant
environmental effects?
☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☒
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’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☒
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?
☒
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a and c) Require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities and sufficient wastewater capacity
The project would increase the number of residential units a nd correspondingly decrease the amount of non-residential development in the plan area, thereby maintaining the same maximum level of development intensity as analyzed in the DDSP EIR.

The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or c onstruction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities beyond that which was already anticipated in the DDSP EIR.

Additionally, new projects would be required to pay impact fees to fund stormwater infrastructure.
635
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 42

8/15/23
The proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the City’s General Plan and accounted for in Dublin San Ramon Services District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
(b) Sufficient water supply
As described in the DDSP EIR, there is adequate capacity to service buildout of the DDSP area.

Because the proposed project would not increase the existing maximum allowable commercial space nor would there be an increase in the maximum number of residential units beyond what was previously approved and analyzed in the DDSP EIR, there would be no impacts to water supply. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d-e) Adequate landfill and compliance
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is served by the Altamont Landfill, which has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards and a remaining estimat ed capacity of 45,720,000 cubic yards (74 percent remaining capacity) . Future development would occur over an extended period of time and the Altamont Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional solid waste until ultimate buildout of the project area.

Because the 2023 DDSP Amendment would not increase projected total solid waste generation because the existing maximum limit of commercial space and residential units would remain as previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR, there would be no impacts. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Disposal of solid waste would be required to comply with all federal state, and local statutes and regulations associated with solid waste. This would include providing receptacles for green waste, recyclables, and garbage.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR 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.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond those previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.

636
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 43

8/15/23
Wildfire

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

18. WILDFIRE. 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? ☒
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?
☒
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?
☒
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?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-d) Wildfire and emergency evacuation plans
The topic of wildfire is a new category in the CEQA checklist and was not analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Since the DDSP EIR has been certified, the determination of whether wildfire and emergency evacuation plans need to be analyzed for this 2023 DDSP Amendment is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163).

Wildfire and emergency evacuation plans are no t required to be analyzed under the CEQA standards for supplemental or subsequent EIRs unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complet e” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(3)).

The impact of wildfire and emergency evacuation plans was known at the time of the certification of the DDSP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Neg ative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. 637
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 44

8/15/23
Furthermore, the project area is located outside of a very high fire hazard severity zone as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). The project area is in an urbanized area and is not located within an area that would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Wildfire Management Plan (City of Dublin 2010).

In addition, the Alameda County Fire Department, as part of the City’s entitlement process, will review all plans for adequate fire suppression, fire access, and emergency evacuation for all future new developments.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the DDSP EIR and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to wildfire beyond those previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
CALFIRE FHSZ Viewer. Accessed July 6, 2023.

City of Dublin. Wildfire Management Plan, 2010.

Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE . Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially 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, substantially
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?
☒
638
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 45

8/15/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the DDSP EIR
Equal or Less Severe
Impact than Identified
in the DDSP EIR
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively c onsiderable? ("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.)
☒
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantially degrade the quality of the environment No new impact. There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the DDSP EIR .

The project is similar to land uses for the project area analyzed in the DDSP EIR and there is no change in the maximum amount of commercial square footage or residential units permitted under the DDSP. As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project does not constitute a substantial change to the DDSP EIR analysis, will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required . 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) Cumulative impacts
No new impact. The DDSP EIR 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 DDSP. Implementation of the proposed project 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, there would be no cumulative impacts.
(c) Substantial adverse effects on human beings
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 residential and commercial development in compliance with the DDSP standards and land uses, as amended. These uses or activities would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed 639
City of Dublin 2023 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page 46

8/15/23
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 in the DDSP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 640

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 8 ends

Dublin City CouncilDecember 19, 2023

Dublin City Council
December 19, 2023